BRDM Driver Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 What are the Driving Licence requirements for driving either an Abbott or a Sabre on the road? My understanding is an Abbot, being over 7 tonnes, needs HGV, but the Sabre being around 7 tonnes can be driven with a normal car licence, however both require an 'H' tracked vehicle test to be taken unless you drive them on L plates... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Both need H licence, HGV not required in any tracklaying vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRDM Driver Posted July 14, 2009 Author Share Posted July 14, 2009 So there is no differentiation on vehicle weight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRDM Driver Posted July 14, 2009 Author Share Posted July 14, 2009 OK, so vehicle weight limits only applies to wheeled vehicles, so my BRDM is ok but a OT-64 (14 Tonnes) would require HGV. As far as tracked vehicles go, the 'H' test is required in addition to a normal car licence, along with some form of road worthiness certificate. (Rubber track pads, lights, beacons and reversing camera I guess?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 along with some form of road worthiness certificate. (Rubber track pads, lights, beacons and reversing camera I guess?) You don't technically need rubber pads (unversal carriers are road legal on steel track) and you definitley don't need a reversing camera. The beacon is another grey area, if you're doing more than 25mph you don't need that either. If you're buying something British, like a CVR(T) then registering it is easy. Once it's registered you don't need an MOT, just a tax disc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRDM Driver Posted July 14, 2009 Author Share Posted July 14, 2009 That is assuming I have catagory C1,which I do, as I passed prior to 1997! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 There is no connection between tracklaying vehicles (steered by their tracks) and goods vehicles. You need a standard licence with H group, the vehicle needs to be registered, taxed, insured and 'roadworthy'. There is no prescribed list of features that make a tracklayer roadworthy, they are exempt from testing but it would be for the court to decide in the event of a problem. Some vehicles have features that may make them a problem to register and operate on the roads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulob1 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 all track laying vehicles need an H-licence, you can drive on l plates but if there is a seat by your side you must have a competant person who is over 21 with three years driving experience as a co driver. if there is not a seat by your side it does not say you cant drive it alone but its a grey area... HGV is nothing to do with track laying vehicles,. All vehicles that cannot do more than 25mph should run with an orange warning light. if they can exceed this speed they do not need one, even if you chose to drive it at 10 mph all day long...I drive with two on my stolly and my 432 daft not to.. As to road worthiness of a vehicle it is very very complex and involved, but rubber pads make a fast track laying vehicle more acceptable, if its a 13 ton jcb they only have metal tracks but even they can be road registered if you want to...the biggest issue is lights indicators and seat belt depending upon age...the rest is, if its fitted and to do with safety it should work... the biggest trouble brewing for us all is the width issue...it is becoming more and more of an issue...and the DVLA are getting more and more keen to stop wide vehicles using the road...dumb when you think a wide load isnt classed as such until it is well past the width of most of our vehicles...the 432 for isntance has tracks that are inside the maximum width yet its body is outside...but its no worse than the wide load issue...all abit of trouble for us i think.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRDM Driver Posted July 14, 2009 Author Share Posted July 14, 2009 Moving on to vehicle licencing, has anyone had issues when buying/selling a military vehicle, with the DVLA denying all knowledge of receipt of the V5 log book and asking for the new owner to fill out a V62 to get a new V5 to replace the 'lost' one. I am suspicious of this as it give the DVLA an opportunity to be awkward about registering the vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 You don't technically need rubber pads (unversal carriers are road legal on steel track) and you definitley don't need a reversing camera. The beacon is another grey area, if you're doing more than 25mph you don't need that either. If you're buying something British, like a CVR(T) then registering it is easy. Once it's registered you don't need an MOT, just a tax disc. I wish someone would tell those anal-retentive <censoreds> at VOSA that!! In 2007 they were the ones insisting on the OT-90 being fitted with: * Resilient material pads on the tracks * Warning Beacon * Rear view camera in addition to UK specification lighting and mirrors. Such a shame they conveniently forgot to mention the fact they'd changed the law on width nine months earlier.... :argh: :argh: :argh: all track laying vehicles need an H-licence, you can drive on l plates but if there is a seat by your side you must have a competant person who is over 21 with three years driving experience as a co driver. if there is not a seat by your side it does not say you cant drive it alone but its a grey area... HGV is nothing to do with track laying vehicles,. All vehicles that cannot do more than 25mph should run with an orange warning light. if they can exceed this speed they do not need one, even if you chose to drive it at 10 mph all day long...I drive with two on my stolly and my 432 daft not to.. As to road worthiness of a vehicle it is very very complex and involved, but rubber pads make a fast track laying vehicle more acceptable, if its a 13 ton jcb they only have metal tracks but even they can be road registered if you want to...the biggest issue is lights indicators and seat belt depending upon age...the rest is, if its fitted and to do with safety it should work... the biggest trouble brewing for us all is the width issue...it is becoming more and more of an issue...and the DVLA are getting more and more keen to stop wide vehicles using the road...dumb when you think a wide load isnt classed as such until it is well past the width of most of our vehicles...the 432 for isntance has tracks that are inside the maximum width yet its body is outside...but its no worse than the wide load issue...all abit of trouble for us i think.... Yeah - tell me about the friggin width issue........ Thats what the <censoreds> screwed me on - despite having rung to ask if it could be used on UK roads, having specified width, length, height weight and ground pressure figures, and asking what if any alterations were needed. I got a list of things (see above) to do that added £11,500 to the price - but the <censoreds> forgot to mention they had changed the law on vehicle width 9 months earlier and now nothing over 2.55m wide can be registered for use on UK roads. That £11.5K would have covered a LOT of low-loaders.... And to add insult to the injury - TWO of the OT-90;s were converted at the same time - they've registered the other one but will not do mine!! VOSA - if I saw the lot of them on fire I wouldn't bother crossing the road to urinate on them!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Neil, Did you actually get any of this in writing? If you've spent all that money on the basis of talking to someone on the phone, or hearsay, then there isn't a lot you can do about it! Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Cubed Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 I don't understand all this !!!!!!!!!!!!!! So you can not get a reg doc for the OT90 to use it on the road because VOSA say so, but is it not the DVLA who issue the docs, but you can get a low loader put the OT90 on it and you have no problems !!!!!!!!!!!! The artic low loader is as wide if not wider and a lot longer so what's the difference ? What is VOSA to do with the DVLA and if you have an escort each time can they stop you ? Its my human right to drive my OT90 on the road :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stone Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 You don't technically need rubber pads (unversal carriers are road legal on steel track) and you definitley don't need a reversing camera. You're correct about the camera, but your other point is worth clarifying... The rules set limits on ground pressure. They also set limits on what type of track you can have (no part that touches the ground can be less than 13mm wide, for example), so you're right, you don't need pads IF your track meets the spec. Many Russian vehicles don't! All the rules are in the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Act 1986 - the flaw in this is that the online database of Acts (opsi.gov) only goes back to 1987 so you have to order a printed copy at ridiculous expense and then mentally apply all the later amendments, which you can find online, in your head. Stupid situation really, which the planned legal database is supposed to fix by providing the up-to-date text of all the laws...but unsurprisingly it's not been finished yet! I don't understand all this !!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's not just you So you can not get a reg doc for the OT90 to use it on the road because VOSA say so, but is it not the DVLA who issue the docs No, Neil can't get the DVLA to issue the document. DVLA follow rules set by VOSA - Neil thought he'd followed all their requirements but the DVLA won't play ball because they neglected to mention the detail of the width thing. His only mistake was not getting it in writing because they are now denying all knowledge! (my experience of VOSA is that you get 5 different answers to the same question in 5 different phone calls, so I'm not really surprised. None of them want to give information that can be classed as 'legal advice' so they're very reluctant to make any kind of logical leap and tend to be very conservative if you ask their advice) but you can get a low loader put the OT90 on it and you have no problems !!!!!!!!!!!! Correct - different rules apply to loads and vehicles. Loads can be up to 2.95m (I think...I can never remember) wide before you need to inform people / have an attendant, but the vehicle it's carried on still has to be 2.55m wide or under. The artic low loader is as wide if not wider and a lot longer so what's the difference ? The difference is the low loader vehicle is under 2.55m wide, so they'll register it. The load can be as wide as you want up to 3.2ish metres as long as you follow the rules about attendants and notifying police etc. What is VOSA to do with the DVLA and if you have an escort each time can they stop you ? If the DVLA don't think you've followed their interpretation of VOSA's rules, they can just refuse to license the vehicle. You can't drive it on the road without a V5C (because that means it's untaxed) so they can in theory seize it if they can find a way of dragging it away :cool2: Its my human right to drive my OT90 on the road :-D Hold that thought I'm wondering if it would have been possible to manufacture a new set of tracks for it (with no features under 13mm wide) so it could have been driven without resilient material, or at least so the original track could be put on again in future. I think at least part of the reason Neil's so aggrieved is that he can't undo all the work that's been done, and to be honest I don't blame him! Fundamentally the problem is that the system is really not equipped for dealing with 'odd' vehicles and if it makes life easier for VOSA/DVLA it's far easier for them to just flat-out refuse to help. Even though all the FV432s now on the road are over the width limit. What can you do? :noyay: Stone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Neil, Did you actually get any of this in writing? If you've spent all that money on the basis of talking to someone on the phone, or hearsay, then there isn't a lot you can do about it! Chris The intention was to follow up in writing Chris - but if you recall subsequent unfortunate events in Oct 2007 put a stop to any such plans. I spoke to them on the phone around the end of Sept 2007 and then was not in a position to be able to talk to anyone else until January of 2008. By that time the work had mostly been done and, in my ignorance I assumed that information received from the Gov't dept responsible for such things would be accurate. I now know better and will never, ever, trust a Gov't agency again!! <snipped> I'm wondering if it would have been possible to manufacture a new set of tracks for it (with no features under 13mm wide) so it could have been driven without resilient material, or at least so the original track could be put on again in future. I think at least part of the reason Neil's so aggrieved is that he can't undo all the work that's been done, and to be honest I don't blame him! Fundamentally the problem is that the system is really not equipped for dealing with 'odd' vehicles and if it makes life easier for VOSA/DVLA it's far easier for them to just flat-out refuse to help. Even though all the FV432s now on the road are over the width limit. What can you do? :noyay: Stone Spot on sir - that and the fact they licensed one of the two OT's so converted - but refuse to do the other one!! Had they said to me there and then "Sorry sir - it's over width, it can never be driven on UK roads following a change in the rules back in January of this year" then I would have been perfectly happy. The real p*sser in all of this is I have spent £11.5K for nothing and, being out of work due in no small part to their political masters incompetence, I cannot afford to have lost that sort of money so now I am going to have to lose the OT too. :cry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulob1 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Most american import winebagos are over the limit....the 432's tracks are under the legal width limit, its load isnt...and to be fair a tracked vehicle cant be subject to the same rules as a normal road going vehicle as its slower, but the reality is this is a problem that is going to haunt us all and right now we are not fighting a proper corner...what we really need is a proper classification for ex military vehicles...it should in my opinion go a bit like this... all road used military vehicles must be a member of an accredited MV club...the mvt, HMVF 432 owners club etc etc etc...these clubs must have an officially rercognised expert who will sing of on the roadworthiness of a particular vehicle... no matter what the type of vehicle if it is driven on the road by the army etc, it can be driven on the road by us and should be exempt MOT if needs be or tested to a specific set of tests....agreed by the clubs...this would then negate the need for a club expert to examine and approve the vehicle... Once all this is done any vehicle could then be used for the purpose of pleasure and domestic purposes. If the vehicle is used for work purposes then it should be subject to the regulations current at the time of its manufacture...etc etc,.... Just some of my thoughts about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stone Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Most american import winebagos are over the limit....the 432's tracks are under the legal width limit, its load isnt... That's the point, the width limit is for the whole vehicle (excluding mirrors). Stuff permanently attached doesn't count as a load! (that's how I got our O-license exemption...) The Army is a bit of a special case - they're exempt from most of the rules anyway, they just choose to comply with the spirit of the law as a consideration thing. I don't think they're under any compulsion to actually obey them...their military needs will always have higher priority than the civvie requirements. I take your points, but they've just no interest in changing the rules to make our lives easier, we have to fit in with them :banghead: Stone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julezee001 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Most american import winebagos are over the limit....the 432's tracks are under the legal width limit, its load isnt...and to be fair a tracked vehicle cant be subject to the same rules as a normal road going vehicle as its slower, but the reality is this is a problem that is going to haunt us all and right now we are not fighting a proper corner...what we really need is a proper classification for ex military vehicles...it should in my opinion go a bit like this... all road used military vehicles must be a member of an accredited MV club...the mvt, HMVF 432 owners club etc etc etc...these clubs must have an officially rercognised expert who will sing of on the roadworthiness of a particular vehicle... no matter what the type of vehicle if it is driven on the road by the army etc, it can be driven on the road by us and should be exempt MOT if needs be or tested to a specific set of tests....agreed by the clubs...this would then negate the need for a club expert to examine and approve the vehicle... Once all this is done any vehicle could then be used for the purpose of pleasure and domestic purposes. If the vehicle is used for work purposes then it should be subject to the regulations current at the time of its manufacture...etc etc,.... Just some of my thoughts about it All tracked vehicles are limited to 20mph (unless driven by the armed forces)on public roads, and so require an amber beacon? I would suggest the speed limit was set entirely with safety in mind, bearing in mind there is no official testing for tracked vehicles outside the military. The responsibility for the roadworthiness of a vehicle rests entirely with the driver. The suggestion that someone in a club will be expert enough in all forms of vehicle to declare them roadworthy or not, let alone spend the time to carry out all these inspections around the country is unworkable. For vehicles used by British forces there are specific inspection standards covering most items relating to road use, and general servicability. Again it is surely down to the driver to be confident that the vehicle is within those specs? Would you have to be a member of a club to buy an ex-military Landrover or motorbike? There are already more than enough rules and regulations covering taking vehicles on the road and as far as I know there are no statistics to suggest the current system is causing any significant numbers of accidents or fatalities. Jules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david052 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Ref Stones answer above, I would suggest that whilst the answers that have been supplied are extremely conservative, it is up to VOSA/DVLA to provide an interpretion of the the regulations, which can thenn be acted upon. That is after all their job. I feel it should be standard practice to follow up every call with an email confirming what has been discussed. Standard business practice - one day we'll get there with communications with the State! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david052 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 And as for paulob1's suggestion, sorry, but no. We pay through the nose for State management of the roads. Any testing etc should not be devolved down to a club (which will then have to be licensed/accredited/approved/whatever) and therby excuse the State from it's responsibilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.