432 road legal????

[cosrec]

Over the last six years I have owned two 432's the first one was inspected by the DVLA before they would register it, five of us also took our H license in it on the public highway and the Department of Transport also came out and inspected it before they would agree that we could take our tests in it.This vehicle has done over 1000 road miles without any problems.

It has also been driven to MENCAP charity events and Traffic Police have also been in it on the road.

I purchased the second one in February this year from Withams and registered it in April without it being inspected as they said they knew what type of vehicle it was and did not need to inspect it as they had already registered a number of these before, I had more trouble trying to register a RB44 but thats another story.

 

None of which proves anything none of the above will be stood shoulder to shoulder with you in the dock if you are up for a serious offence. the dammed things are illegal in civillian use for your purpose. But i suspect you already know this and are trying to consoul yourself that you bought a product thats unfit for purpose and have fallen foul of buyer beware Regestering a vehicle dont mean its street legal thats the responsibility of the owner

All you have done with your post is state you have driven a totally illegal vehicle 1000 miles on a public road

if you read antar mikes posts the people selling them are saying they aint street legal basically you cant no get clearer than that no matter what you do after that no amount of mitigation will help

Edited July 5, 2011 by cosrec

[ArtistsRifles]

None of which proves anything none of the above will be stood shoulder to shoulder with you in the dock if you are up for a serious offence. the dammed things are illegal in civillian use for your purpose. But i suspect you already know this and are trying to consoul yourself that you bought a product thats unfit for purpose and have fallen foul of buyer beware Regestering a vehicle dont mean its street legal thats the responsibility of the owner

All you have done with your post is state you have driven a totally illegal vehicle 1000 miles on a public road

 

OK - devils advocate hat back on again - why is it the owners fault for using such a vehicle on the road. It is not OUR job to self-enforce the crap legislation that comes out of Government. We pay large wads of tax money to the DoT and its siblings from hell to do that for us.

Minty says above that "the first one was inspected by the DVLA before they would register it" and that "I purchased the second one in February this year from Withams and registered it in April without it being inspected as they said they knew what type of vehicle it was and did not need to inspect it as they had already registered a number of these before" - in other words the relevant authorities had inspected the vehicle first time around and deemed it road usable then used similar inspections as the basis for the second.. If there were any doubt it was down to them to return to base and confer with other areas to gain clarification. The fact is - they did not.

Surely it is the job of those tasked with creating the law to enforce it as well. They are the so-called "experts" and are paid accordingly. If DVLA inspected a vehicle and issued it a registration any problems with failure to meet their own regs is down to them. If the rules and regulations are so complex their own staff cannot understand them - again that is not our fault.

If an aircraft is granted a CAA certificate and it is then found not to be in conformation the authorities don't prosecute the flight crew, they go after the person who issued the CAA certificate.

 

I suspect the first one they "nick" and de-register will have the owner hitting them for compensation - followed by all the other owners liable to be affected. Both the financial burden of that and the media crucifixion that will follow (anything involving two of the most publicly detested organizations in the UK is always good for headlines) might well be a deterrent against upsetting the status quo.

 

In the mean time - we do ourselves no favours by constantly dividing into two camps that publicly argue legalities... Argue them in private by all means as - although in all likelihood it's too late now - doing it publicly is destructive to the hobby. As the saying goes - united we stand, divided we fall.

 

If you really want to worry about illegal vehicles - worry about some of the death-traps passing as 40 tonners that come across from certain parts of Europe. Knackered steering, duff brakes,illegally worn tyres - all are on our roads now doing a hell of a lot more mileage in one week than the average 432 will do in a year and far at higher speeds .

[ferrettkitt]

None of which proves anything none of the above will be stood shoulder to shoulder with you in the dock if you are up for a serious offence. the dammed things are illegal in civillian use for your purpose. But i suspect you already know this and are trying to consoul yourself that you bought a product thats unfit for purpose and have fallen foul of buyer beware Regestering a vehicle dont mean its street legal thats the responsibility of the owner

All you have done with your post is state you have driven a totally illegal vehicle 1000 miles on a public road

if you read antar mikes posts the people selling them are saying they aint street legal basically you cant no get clearer than that no matter what you do after that no amount of mitigation will help

 

Read the first line of his post again he says the DVLA inspected the vehicle before they would register it. Once having inspected it they the DVLA deemed it to be registrable. Enough said really he hasn't done anything wrong he followed the correct procedure at the time to register a 432. Without wishing to condemn the DVLA this issue should have been sorted out when the first 432 was passed into civilian life. Its a bit late to be calling time on this when it should never have arisen in the first place. :mad:

 

We in this country must be the only mugs following European rules to the letter, lets face it the French would shrug this off and get on with using and registering them. The civil servants in this country just can't away from those rule books. Which is half the problem in the UK we tie ourselves in knots trying to keep a minority happy rather than keeping the majority happy.

 

This thread could do with being made sticky or whatever so that it stays at the top of the list for all newcomers to see.

[antarmike]

OK - devils advocate hat back on again - why is it the owners fault for using such a vehicle on the road. It is not OUR job to self-enforce the crap legislation that comes out of Government. We pay large wads of tax money to the DoT and its siblings from hell to do that for us.

Minty says above that "the first one was inspected by the DVLA before they would register it" and that "I purchased the second one in February this year from Withams and registered it in April without it being inspected as they said they knew what type of vehicle it was and did not need to inspect it as they had already registered a number of these before" - in other words the relevant authorities had inspected the vehicle first time around and deemed it road usable then used similar inspections as the basis for the second.. If there were any doubt it was down to them to return to base and confer with other areas to gain clarification. The fact is - they did not.

Surely it is the job of those tasked with creating the law to enforce it as well. They are the so-called "experts" and are paid accordingly. If DVLA inspected a vehicle and issued it a registration any problems with failure to meet their own regs is down to them. If the rules and regulations are so complex their own staff cannot understand them - again that is not our fault.

If an aircraft is granted a CAA certificate and it is then found not to be in conformation the authorities don't prosecute the flight crew, they go after the person who issued the CAA certificate.

 

I suspect the first one they "nick" and de-register will have the owner hitting them for compensation - followed by all the other owners liable to be affected. Both the financial burden of that and the media crucifixion that will follow (anything involving two of the most publicly detested organizations in the UK is always good for headlines) might well be a deterrent against upsetting the status quo.

 

In the mean time - we do ourselves no favours by constantly dividing into two camps that publicly argue legalities... Argue them in private by all means as - although in all likelihood it's too late now - doing it publicly is destructive to the hobby. As the saying goes - united we stand, divided we fall.

 

If you really want to worry about illegal vehicles - worry about some of the death-traps passing as 40 tonners that come across from certain parts of Europe. Knackered steering, duff brakes,illegally worn tyres - all are on our roads now doing a hell of a lot more mileage in one week than the average 432 will do in a year and far at higher speeds .

 

I suppose a few FV432 owners may still be unaware of the law, but this problem is widely known, and some people on here clearly know but just flout the law.

 

There is a private 432 forum for members only and anyone anti 432 can't join. They have a recent thread on registering 432 for road use. I am sure width issues must be widely discussed on there.

 

It is clear that some are deliberately choosing to run 432 when they know it exceeds legal width. There is no harm in arguing in public, The authorities have been aware of the width issue for years..

 

I cannot see any relevance in CAA approval. With virtually no exceptions Those using 432 know the vehicle is too wide but continue to use them. It is the owner of a vehicle to ensure it complies with C and U, and when the vehicle has never been through type approval, it is most definitely down to them.

Edited July 6, 2011 by antarmike

[antarmike]

However we are going off track. The question is "is FV432 legal?"

 

To determine that we need to look at the current rules.

 

Past history, what VOSA has said or done in the past doesn't come into it, here and now, does an FV432 comply with C and U regs?

Whether DVLA registered some and not others does not matter. Whether they are still prepared to register one now does not matter. People make mistakes, get over it. Making a mistake means what you did is wrong. Because someone in the past has made a certain decision does not make that decision correct.

 

 

Does FV432 comply with C and U regs?

 

This is a yes or no question to which there can only be one answer.

 

The courts are the final arbiters. but if you read my post #4 you will see that it is the Dept of Transports clear view that FV432 series "does not comply with C and U regs" It is their clear view that in general, for most operators FV432 is not suitable to considered as a Special Types vehicle. DfT may just be wrong, I know, but I consider this unlikely.

 

It is their view that there can be no exceptions, all vehicles have to comply with C and U.

 

It matters not whose responsibility it is to work out whether it complies or not, we all now know that it looks most likely that does not.

 

The yes or no answer to this question is, according to Dept of Transport, No FV432 is not legal to use on British roads.

Edited July 6, 2011 by antarmike

[antarmike]

The only possible way forward is to apply for an SVA to get permission to use an overwidth vehicle

 

I can see no other way of dealing with the width issue. If you get turned down for the VSO then clearly you should not be on the road.

 

Oh and to sort out secondary braking.

 

VSO discussed here

Edited July 7, 2011 by antarmike
meant VSO not SVA, link works okay though

[Stormin]

The only possible way forward is to apply for an SVA to get permission to use an overwidth vehicle

 

..........

 

SVA discussed here

 

Reading that again it sounds very much like a "block" SVA could be issued for a range of similar vehicles for a period of five years. So it seems it would only take one organization representing all 432 owners to get one application in and cover all 432 owners belonging to that organization.

 

Why hasn't anyone done it or at least tried?

 

Is it the fear that that person or organisation will then be held responsible for any unfortunate consequences?

[antarmike]

why is it the owners fault for using such a vehicle on the road. It is not OUR job to self-enforce the crap legislation that comes out of Government. We pay large wads of tax money to the DoT and its siblings from hell to do that for us.

......Surely it is the job of those tasked with creating the law to enforce it as well. They are the so-called "experts" and are paid accordingly. If DVLA inspected a vehicle and issued it a registration any problems with failure to meet their own regs is down to them.

 

 

We are talking about construction and USE regulations. It is the manufacturer's responsibility for the construction but the driver's responsibility for the use.

 

I can take a legally constructed vehicle and use it an illegal manner. That is down to me.

 

FV432 actually complies in terms of construction, with several STGO categories such as "wide Tracked Vehicle," Engineering Plant" "Agricultural machine, "operated Military vehicle" However the use that M.V. owners put the FV432 to does not allow them to be operated OR USED in any of these Special Types categories

 

FV432 is not technically overwidth and can be allowed on the road in some circumstances. How a vehicle is used is entirely down to the Keeper or Driver.

 

When used for Social, Domestic and pleasure and/ or to attend Military vehicle meets FV432 cannot be operated under STGO.

 

The user chooses to operate a vehicle, that in some circumstances is legal in terms of its width, in a way that means his Use of the vehicle has made it illegally wide.

 

You cannot get round the fact that it is the responsibility of the owner to USE his vehicles in accordance with Construction and USE regulations. If he can't do this he should remove the vehicle from the road.

Edited July 6, 2011 by antarmike

[FLUF]

When I had my Abbott (ok not 432 but 433) DVLA registeredit tracked crawler. I drove many miles and without any issues.

DVLA registered my 432 as a mini bus, again never had anyissues with it on the road.

 

I also registered a Chieftain MBT for the road, I even had police authority toself escort when moving it on the road. Now there is no doubt that the Chieftainis over width by somewhat more than a 432... again no issues and as said,driven various time on the public highway, and movements approved by Plodwithout them in attendance.

A friend has a Cent ARV road registered again withoutissues, and again we have been authorized by a different counties police forceto self escort.

Let's not forget Stalwarts also come in to the over widthcategory, so guess that also means they fail C +U regs. My stalwart coveredmany miles again without issues and was well know in my local area, or was thatI was well know and all the plod knew the vehicles.

 

OK it's been made clear the 432 may not meet C+U regs,but until DVLA stops issuing V5's why will people not enjoy drivingthem...

Enjoy life to its fullest, you live once!!!!

Edited July 6, 2011 by FLUF

[antarmike]

Enjoy life to its fullest, you live once!!!!

 

You only die once also, and it is a possibility (degree of possibility undetermined, admittedly) that a FV432, Cheftain or Centurian could be the cause of someone death, and they have no return from there.

[FLUF]

You only die once also, and it is a possibility (degree of possibility undetermined, admittedly) that a FV432, Cheftain or Centurian could be the cause of someone death, and they have no return from there.

 

Sure but you can also get killed just crossing the road from a bus/ car / etc etc....

 

Can you or anyone confirm how many road deaths (RTC/TRA/RTI) have been causedby civilian owned armoured vehicles ?

Edited July 6, 2011 by FLUF

[antarmike]

No figures available but if you where to kill someone, never mind the jail sentence, the guilt would always be with you and I think you would then find it impossible to live life to the full and enjoy every moment.

 

People who cause fatal accidents very often have their whole life destroyed by the experience. There is a width limit for a reason, and wider vehicles are allowed under STGO because it is a necessity. I have said before you do not have to drive an illegally wide vehicle.

[Adrian Barrell]

There is a width limit for a reason, and wider vehicles are allowed under STGO because it is a necessity. I have said before you do not have to drive an illegally wide vehicle.

 

Out of interest Mike, did you consider running your Antar and pulling two trailers a necessity?

[antarmike]

No that is why I haven't answered Artist's Rifles charge that I am self righteous and sanctimonious.

 

The point is that I don't do it now.

 

Everyone is allowed to have a "Damascus Road"experience, and if they do see the light, then they should not be criticised for earlier decisions.

[Adrian Barrell]

There is nobody more anti-smoking than an ex-smoker!

[Jack]

Also - I am getting flipping fedup with these threads. No disrepect to the member who posted it but - I am not bad at seeing the future and these questions will do nothing but damage.

[FLUF]

Out of interest Mike, did you consider running your Antar and pulling two trailers a necessity?

Adrian, you beat me to it, of course using an Antar to go to Vehicle events is a necessity.... and of course there has never been any accidents involving any STGO vehicles.... let alone an Antar.....

 

Antar Mike, sure lives are/could be ruined, but what if an Antar was taking one of its necessary moves to a vehicle show and something happened..... Mike don’t bother to answer, as I feel this is now going nowhere and of course you are right and the Antar is the only correct vehicle to move tracks.... because an accident could never happen when a STGO load is being moved!!!!

[FLUF]

Also - I am getting flipping fedup with these threads. No disrepect to the member who posted it but - I am not bad at seeing the future and these questions will do nothing but damage.

 

How correct!!! maybe the whole thread should go..... as sure it wont help in the long run...IMO

[antarmike]

There is nobody more anti-smoking than an ex-smoker!

I am not Anti FV432. But I do think the brakes do need reworking before use, and I feel if someone where to rise to the task of applying for an SVA they may well get it.

 

That would mean an FV432 still at 2.80m could legally use the road. It hasn't got any narrower but it has got more legal.

 

I think, given an VSO 2.80m is sensible. I don't know why I feel unease because a vehicle doesn't meet C and U but it is the illegality that I find wrong.

 

That might seem very strange, but it was because I thought running Antar and two trailer was actually legal, that I did it.

 

I have all the usual tales, Pulled by Motorbike cop, Taken into Ministry test station, Collision with a Police car, each and everytime the Police and Ministry decided I was running legally.

 

If an FV432 clips a Police car, like I did, without an VSO I don't see them being that lucky.

Edited July 7, 2011 by antarmike

[antarmike]

How correct!!! maybe the whole thread should go..... as sure it wont help in the long run...IMO

 

If the whole thread were to go it would not help potential buyer from falling into the trap of getting an FV432 and thinking it was legal.

 

This thread started because someone wanted to know if FV432 was legal before parting with hard earned cash. Do you feel it right that information is withheld from him, and future potential buyers trying to make a decision.

 

The thread points to a possible solution, namely apply for an VSO. If FV432 owners won't do that, they won't help themselves.

 

They might find things get uncomfortable, but the way to "get legal" has been open to them for ages, and they just don't want to take it. Why?

 

Plenty of people have said it should be relatively easy o provide secondary braking, yet no one has ever attempted it. Why?

 

Could it just be they don't care whether they are legal or not, neither do they care if they are as safe as they could be?

 

The view that the whole topic should be removed does not seem to be shared by those people happy to detail the over width vehicles they drive on public roads.

 

Maybe the forum topic also has a place in "Naming and shaming" even though it is the offenders themselves doing the naming, and they are not showing much shame?

 

Similar threads have existed before and have been removed, we were told this was a temporary situation and they would be re-instated. If that promise was serious, I feel this topic should stand.

 

This is the first topic to actively assess the possible solutions to Secondary braking on FV432 and to get a discussion started.

 

I have posted a suggestion and I think it might be a goer, but nobody, but nobody has commented positively or negatively. That is a shame.

Edited July 7, 2011 by antarmike

[mike65]

Right got to make a comment here, on the braking side.

Generally the 43# models that are available to the public have no secondary brakes. Something thing that needs to be solved on safety as well as C&U compliance issues.

Somebody mentioned that the Bulldog upgrade has secondary brakes.

If so how have they done it?

 

Regardless of road use or just arena use a backup brake system is always handy.

 

Finding an answer to this may help with other vehicles that may have a similar issue.

 

Mike

[cosrec]

Read the first line of his post again he says the DVLA inspected the vehicle before they would register it. Once having inspected it they the DVLA deemed it to be registrable. Enough said really he hasn't done anything wrong he followed the correct procedure at the time to register a 432. Without wishing to condemn the DVLA this issue should have been sorted out when the first 432 was passed into civilian life. Its a bit late to be calling time on this when it should never have arisen in the first place. :mad:

 

.

 

Note the DVLA have done their job correctly All they want to know when they inspect a vehicle is has it a uniquie Chassis number thats not on their data base already. The people who examine the vehicle niether know or care if the vehicle is road legal or not. In fact i doubt they can tell if its a 432 a bus or a cows A?$e. Its the regestered owners and subsequant drivers responsibility to make sure if its road legal. Too many people on here assume because its got a tax disc its ok to ride about flaunting the laws of the land alas this is OK until some thing goes wrong then who ever it happens to will feel like the whole world is raining down on them.

To change the subject I think Antar Mike is the only person who has suggested a way forward by applying for a SVA.

This means some brave sole is going to have to apply for an examination (it cant be done on mass the SV stands for Single Vehicle). This will then bring to light anything that has to be done to get a 432 through an examination. Thus if feasable paving the way for other owners.

[timbo]

Also - I am getting flipping fedup with these threads. No disrepect to the member who posted it but - I am not bad at seeing the future and these questions will do nothing but damage.

 

Jack - I'm in two minds and whilst Im tempted to agree with you, the reality is that the current sales of 432's are bringing new people into the hobby which will be both bad and good..!

 

I also think that once you get past some of the inevitable mud slinging this thread has raised some valid and interesting points - not all of which have been picked up in the numerous previous threads...

 

So I say provided it is polite and the advice is sensible live and let live. After all you dont have to read the thread if you dont wan to..!

 

Of course the real answer is dead easy - buy a CVRT you know it makes sense..!

[Stormin]

To change the subject I think Antar Mike is the only person who has suggested a way forward by applying for a SVA.

This means some brave sole is going to have to apply for an examination (it cant be done on mass the SV stands for Single Vehicle). This will then bring to light anything that has to be done to get a 432 through an examination. Thus if feasable paving the way for other owners.

 

The possible route referred to is not actually SVA singles vehicle type approval, if you read the link:

 

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?17128-Special-Types-Vehicle-Problems-A-Possible-Solution

 

it is Individual Vehicle Special Orders.

 

From the way I read it it can apply to more than one vehicle.

 

How to apply

 

Please apply to us in writing at the address shown below with the following initial information.

 

a. Name and address of person / organisation making the application;

b. Details of persons / organisations who will be using the vehicles, if different from (a);

c. The number of vehicles involved;

d. Type of vehicles involved, their make, model, registration and/or chassis (serial) numbers of motor vehicles or trailers. These will be listed on any order issued;

e. Details of the vehicles e.g. number of axles, individual axle weights, and gross vehicle weights (both in kg), plus dimensions (in metres);

f. In the case of vehicle combinations, overall weights (in kg) and dimensions (in metres);

g. Details of the C&U Regulations with which the vehicles do not comply and the reasons why they cannot comply: The Regulations are specified on an Order and it should be made clear that failure to comply with non-specified Regulations, or supplying incorrect data would invalidate an Order.

On receipt of your application

 

Orders are issued for varying periods of time and the discretion of the Department for Transport. Typically, they are issued for a period of up to 5 years.

Please note that the Secretary of State may revoke an Order.

 

 

Note both Paragraphs d and e refer to vehicles plural, suggesting a IVSO can be for more than one vehicle.

 

As I said before I think what is needed is for club or organisation to put a block application forward for all FV432 vehicles, even listing all the chassis numbers if neccessary. This may or may not come back with the desired result, albeit with a few sensible over riders to cover the safety aspects, maybe vehicles limited in speed to Xmph, escort vehicles on certain road classes, maximum of X miles journey, whatever it takes to get it past the authorities.

 

Just needs someone brave enough to test the water and try and go the legal route, what harm can that do?

[cosrec]

my apologies i didnt read well enough what ever it seems the only sensible option open Now who or what group is going to test the water