LEGISLATION & INTERESTING ITEMS
All newsletters and articles below are
produced by the FBHVC (The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs).
You can also view their website at www.fbhvc.co.uk.
The Federation of British Historic Vehicle
Clubs exists to uphold the freedom to use old vehicles on the road. It does this
by representing the interests of owners of such vehicles to politicians,
government officials, and legislators both in UK and (through membership of
Fédération Internationale des Véhicules Anciens) in Europe.
FBHVC is a company limited by guarantee, registered number 3842316, and was
founded in 1988.
There are nearly 500 subscriber organisations representing a total membership of
over 250,000 in addition to individual and trade supporters. Details can be
found at www.fbhvc.co.uk or sent on application to the secretary.
This is not a perfect result, for reasons explained below, but is nonetheless a victory for common sense.
The European proposal to ban decorative and
vehicle refinishing products that contain a high proportion of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) came to our attention in 2002. At FBHVC’s instigation, and with
the help of Andrew Turner at EPPA, FIVA lobbied to ensure that the needs of
those restoring historic vehicles were not ignored. The Paint Products Directive
(2004/42/CE) banning the general sale of products with high levels of VOCs,
contained the following exemption at Article 3(3) -
For purposes of restoration and maintenance of buildings and vintage vehicles
designated by competent authorities as being of particular historical and
cultural value, Member States may grant individual licenses for the sale of and
purchase in strictly limited quantities of products which do not meet the VOC
limit values laid down in Annex II.
Some time after the main part of the Directive had been translated into UK law, DEFRA consulted on how such a licensing scheme might be implemented. The original proposal, involving local authorities in issuing licences, was complicated. FBHVC expressed concern both at the potential costs and the likelihood that there would be variation in approach between authorities. Local authorities themselves were also very much against the proposal. DEFRA paid attention to the consultation responses, and had a re-think, eventually consulting on another proposal earlier this year. The result is the scheme that is now in place.
The reason this scheme is not perfect in that
there is a mismatch between it and Article 3(3), which refers to the grant of
licences on an individual-case basis, making it arguable that without such a
licence, the sale of non-compliant product is technically an offence. DEFRA
neatly skates round this by -
(1) publishing a code of practice for the benefit of paint suppliers;
(2) delegating responsibility for enforcement of the regulations to local
authorities;
(3) providing those authorities with guidance that includes this statement:
The Paint Products Directive says that a licensing scheme can be established to
allow strictly limited amounts of non-compliant paint to be marketed for
painting vintage vehicles or historic buildings. Because of the administrative
complexities of setting up such a scheme and the burdens on those to whom it
would apply, it has been decided not to do so, but to rely on local authorities
taking a proportionate approach to enforcement.
(4) pointing out that the size of the market for non-compliant product is less
that 0.03% of the total paint market; and
(5) reminding local authorities of the provisions of the ‘Regulators’ Compliance
Code’ and the public interest and proportionality tests to be undertaken when
considering enforcement action.
DEFRA’s guidance notes acknowledge that there is no restriction on what may be purchased to repaint motorcycles, tractors, boats, planes or railway-carriages (provided it is not labelled as being also suitable for use on four wheeled road vehicles), but it is likely that this obvious loophole will be closed by the EC when it reviews the effect of the 2004 Directive.
Private Hire Vehicle RegulationsThe saga continues. To recap: hiring a chauffeured car is generally a controlled activity and the relevant legislation is the Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1976 (LA Act). There is an exemption for weddings and funerals. Licensing (in England and Wales) is in the hands of local authorities who have the discretion to set the terms of the licences. Similar arrangements exist in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Three levels of licence are required: operator (the person who handles the bookings); driver; and vehicle. Those hiring chauffeured historic vehicles for purposes other than weddings or funerals need all three. The first two should pose no problem, and are not generally hugely expensive. The last is a nightmare as authorities may set their own conditions to determine whether a vehicle is 'safe and suitable' and different authorities have different attitudes, some being absolutely rigid in refusing to license anything more than five years old. Conditions, once a vehicle is licensed, can be onerous, such as being required to pass an MoT twice a year.
As reported in the last issue, we asked the
Local Government Association what advice they provide to councils, but were told
that the LGA does not provide advice on a council's responsibilities under the
LA Act. We were referred to LACORS - the Local Authorities Co-ordinator of
Regulatory Services. They, in turn, referred us to the Institute of Licensing,
which is a registered charity providing advice to anyone involved in the
business of licensing.
The Institute of Licensing agree the legislation is a mess, and there is little
uniformity of approach. They were pleased to hear from FBHVC as they are in the
process of preparing a consultation amongst interested parties with a view to
proposing that the Department for Transport should consolidate the existing
minefield of legislation and regulation into a unified system that will result
in a balanced set of regulations that can be applied evenly throughout the
country. FBHVC will be included in the consultation.
There are two new consultations both from VOSA: on 'Delivering Better Services
and Fairer Fees' and 'Proposed Changes to the Standards of Testing Heavy Goods
Vehicles and Public Service Vehicles and the Implementation of Electronic Aim
Measurement' which is concerned with the testing of headlamps. We will be
responding to both of these. We have to report no further progress on the
following ongoing topics: measures to enforce insurance 'from the record';
improving access to public transport for the disabled; private hire vehicles;
and the regulations for the sale of non-compliant paint.
In response to a question about oils which do
not contain zinc dialkyldithiophosphate Castrol Technical Centre very kindly
submitted the following article. Club editors are very welcome to reproduce it
in their own newsletters but to preserve technical accuracy Castrol request that
it should only be reproduced in whole.
Established in 1899, originally as C.C. Wakefield, Castrol launched their first
lubricant for cars in 1906 and have been at the leading edge of lubrication
technology ever since. With the introduction of low viscosity engine oils and
changes to anti-wear additives in modern oils in recent years, owners of
veteran, vintage and classics are asking whether modern oils are suitable for
their cars.
Choosing the correct lubricant for your veteran, vintage or classic vehicle is
essential to ensure peak running and maximum wear protection. The technology of
older vehicle engines is very different from today's modern cars, so to assist
owners, Castrol reintroduced their older brands with their 'Classic Range' in
the early 1990s. These Classic oils are produced to original viscosities and
importantly have retained the necessary levels of additives including anti-wear
additive ZDDP (zinc dialkyldithiophosphate) appropriate for the technology of
the engines they are designed for and to provide overall protection. The ZDDP
levels are appropriate for engines that are in use or running-in, including
those fitted with new or reconditioned components, where care should always be
taken to follow the manufacturers' recommendations when breaking in new
components such as camshafts.
ZDDP additive provides a high level of anti-wear protection, but its phosphorus
content is harmful to catalytic converters and other emission equipment fitted
to many modern vehicles. It has therefore been reduced in the latest
specification oils, designed for engines using the latest surface hardening
technology and meeting the latest emission requirements for modern vehicles.
These requirements also necessitate the use of other new emission equipment
friendly additives not designed for use in veteran, vintage and classic car
engines.
Oil formulations required for today's modern vehicles are very different from
formulations needed for older vehicles, having thinner viscosity and alternative
additive technology as stated earlier, making them generally unsuitable for use
in older engines. This has been done in conjunction with new vehicle
manufacturers who have increased the surface hardening of engine components to
receive maximum protection from the new additives. Oils for modern engines
comply with the latest API ratings and are designed for modern engine technology
with tight tolerances and compatibility with catalytic converters.
A car engine of old design has very different characteristics, with cork,
graphite or rope seals, low pressure cog driven oil pumps, wider oil-ways with
greater dependence on 'splash' and 'cling' lubrication, lower revving with
lesser machine tolerances. Such widely different specifications demand totally
different lubricants of thicker viscosity with appropriate additives specially
included for the work they have to do.
Oils even of the same viscosity, supplied by different oil companies can have
radically different formulations and thus have significantly different
performance characteristics. Oil classifications are designated 'S' (for spark
ignition petrol engines) and 'C' (for compression ignition diesel engines). Oil
classifications for older petrol vehicles range from SA for vehicles from the
turn of the last century to SH, to the late 1980s and early '90s.
• Inadequate anti-wear additive (ZDDP) and the oil film between moving parts
breaks down prematurely, resulting in metal to metal contact and damage to
reground or new engine components particularly on run-in.
• Inadequate detergent will result in gum and lacquer clinging to the hotter
engine components.
• Too much detergent can cause a build-up of metallic ash in the combustion
chambers of older engines. In older engines with traditionally high oil
consumption, this will cause detonation and pinking. In older engines where the
carbon has built up over a number of years the detergents can also have a
scouring effect causing the carbon to flake off, blocking up oil galleries and
spray jets. High levels of detergent will ‘wash’ traces of carbon from seals and
gaskets, revealing oil leaks.
• Inadequate anti-oxidant and the oil will permanently thicken during high
temperature motoring, with large amounts of gum and varnish clogging filters and
piston rings.
• Inadequate corrosion inhibitors and engine internals become pitted with
corrosion and rust from acids and water formed during combustion.
• Inadequate dispersing results in soot, wear metals and the by-products of
combustion settling out in the sump to form a thick sludge that will block
filters and oil ways.
• Inadequate pour point depressant and the oil ceases to flow at low
temperatures, with excessive strain on the oil pump or in certain cases, oil
starvation on start-up causing complete failure of the lubrication system.
For older vehicles; veteran, vintage and classic, use an oil of the correct
viscosity as recommended by the vehicle manufacturer and shown in your vehicle's
handbook. Where your vehicle requires a specific viscosity such as 30, 40, 50
and 20w-50, avoid using inappropriate low viscosity engine lubricants designed
for modern vehicles such as 0w, 5w, 10w, 15w. Castrol's vehicle lubrication
records date back beyond the turn of the last century, detailing lubricant
specifications for engine oils, gear oils and greases right through to today's
classics, so to find out which Castrol grade is right for a vehicle, owners can
simply refer to their vehicle handbook and select that grade from Castrol's
Classic range. Castrol's Classic engine oils XL30, XXL40, GP50 and XL20w-50 are
formulated to the original viscosities and contain the necessary levels of ZDDP
anti-wear additive to provide appropriate protection for veteran, vintage and
classic engines. The range is available throughout the UK via leading car
specialists. For further information either telephone the Castrol Classic
helpdesk on 01954 231668 or visit www.castrol.com/uk/classics.
Paint
At last. After over six years, we now know where we are. In June, the Department
of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published guidance for the
enforcement of the various paint regulations together with a code of practice
for those selling non-compliant products. The result is that if you can find a
supplier who has signed up to that code of practice, have a vehicle over 30
years old and complete a straightforward one-page application form, you may
purchase cellulose and other non-compliant paint.
This is not a perfect result, for reasons explained below, but is nonetheless a victory for common sense.
The European proposal to ban decorative and
vehicle refinishing products that contain a high proportion of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) came to our attention in 2002. At FBHVC’s instigation, and with
the help of Andrew Turner at EPPA, FIVA lobbied to ensure that the needs of
those restoring historic vehicles were not ignored. The Paint Products Directive
(2004/42/CE) banning the general sale of products with high levels of VOCs,
contained the following exemption at Article 3(3) -
For purposes of restoration and maintenance of buildings and vintage vehicles
designated by competent authorities as being of particular historical and
cultural value, Member States may grant individual licenses for the sale of and
purchase in strictly limited quantities of products which do not meet the VOC
limit values laid down in Annex II.
Some time after the main part of the Directive had been translated into UK law, DEFRA consulted on how such a licensing scheme might be implemented. The original proposal, involving local authorities in issuing licences, was complicated. FBHVC expressed concern both at the potential costs and the likelihood that there would be variation in approach between authorities. Local authorities themselves were also very much against the proposal. DEFRA paid attention to the consultation responses, and had a re-think, eventually consulting on another proposal earlier this year. The result is the scheme that is now in place.
The reason this scheme is not perfect in that
there is a mismatch between it and Article 3(3), which refers to the grant of
licences on an individual-case basis, making it arguable that without such a
licence, the sale of non-compliant product is technically an offence. DEFRA
neatly skates round this by -
(1) publishing a code of practice for the benefit of paint suppliers;
(2) delegating responsibility for enforcement of the regulations to local
authorities;
(3) providing those authorities with guidance that includes this statement:
The Paint Products Directive says that a licensing scheme can be established to
allow strictly limited amounts of non-compliant paint to be marketed for
painting vintage vehicles or historic buildings. Because of the administrative
complexities of setting up such a scheme and the burdens on those to whom it
would apply, it has been decided not to do so, but to rely on local authorities
taking a proportionate approach to enforcement.
(4) pointing out that the size of the market for non-compliant product is less
that 0.03% of the total paint market; and
(5) reminding local authorities of the provisions of the ‘Regulators’ Compliance
Code’ and the public interest and proportionality tests to be undertaken when
considering enforcement action.
DEFRA’s guidance notes acknowledge that there is no restriction on what may be purchased to repaint motorcycles, tractors, boats, planes or railway-carriages (provided it is not labelled as being also suitable for use on four wheeled road vehicles), but it is likely that this obvious loophole will be closed by the EC when it reviews the effect of the 2004 Directive.
Registration Enquiries
The DVLA liaison person for one of the larger one-model clubs commented that,
during a particularly busy week, he had eight registration enquiries and there
was usually a problem with every single one. The list included: no chassis
number given; incorrect postage on letter; no cheque enclosed; a non-member and
no fee enclosed; registration sold some years ago and now applicant wants it
back; the chassis number did not relate to the model of the car; missing forms.
One application had three of the above.
A regular problem is persuading an owner that just a set of rusted-on number plates is not sufficient evidence. One individual was sent the signed paperwork for an age-related plate, and then just altered the form to attempt to claim the original number. Applicants have left phone messages, like ‘I spoke to you last week. Can you give me a ring back’ but without leaving a name or a phone number.
As a DVLA liaison person both for the Federation, and for a commercial vehicle club, I can recognise many of those problems. I would add to the omissions list - no clear photograph or ‘brass rubbing’ of chassis plate.
I have a standard letter/email to send to new applicants which is designed to catch most of those problems before they occur. The case of the chassis number not relating to that particular car is not something that an owner would necessarily be aware of, but of course is something that the specialist car clubs should be able to detect.
LEGISLATION
David Hurley
Delivering Better Services and Fairer
Fees
The proposed consolidation of the operator’s license fee of £40 with the HGV
test for privately owned preserved commercial vehicles is to go ahead. Our
suggestion for an age exemption has been rejected on the ground that cost will
still be incurred for ‘enforcement’. We are not going to let the matter rest and
are currently researching just how many pre-1970 vehicles have been subject to
enforcement activity in the past.
Local Transport Act - consultation on
impounding of illegally operated PSVs and HGVs
Since this measure would also apply to privately owned and preserved vehicles of
this type, our response accepted the thrust of the proposed legislation and
apart from certain details agreed with the detailed procedures which incorporate
well tried VOSA principles and involvement of Traffic Commissioners. We did
however feel that there were compelling reasons for some minor changes to avoid
the destruction of offending historic vehicles and also made recommendations
that historic vehicles should not be subject to roadside clamping for reasons of
security.
Minor modifications to MoT test
content and fee maxima
The Federation comments about exemptions for older vehicle number plates appear
to have been noted and we have been assured that the VOSA MoT guidelines do make
provision for historic vehicles.
Continuous Enforcement of Motor
Insurance
Our response supported measures to combat the use of uninsured vehicles, but
requested that our concerns about the impact of these proposals on the owners of
historic vehicles should be addressed. We raised questions about the accuracy of
the MID and also about the extra administrative burden the expected increase in
the number of SORN applications would create, as well as the possibility that
people could be liable to unfair penalties under the continuous enforcement
legislation as well as SORN penalties just for neglecting to renew SORN. We do
intend to carry out some further research into the implications of this proposed
legislation with the Association of British Insurers.
EU agrees new EU tyre noise proposal
The EU institutions have reached agreement on the new standards for tyres
designed to reduce carbon emissions and noise pollution from vehicles. The
exemption, which applies to tyres designed only to be fitted to vehicles
registered for the first time before 1 October 1990, was achieved by FIVA and
remains in the final text.
EU to waive asbestos ban in
second-hand products
The European Commission and member states have agreed that the re-sale of
asbestos-containing products that had been in use before the 2005 EU ban on the
cancer-causing substance can continue indefinitely in order to allow the sale of
older "articles" containing asbestos, such as houses and aircraft. The EP has 6
months in which to oppose the Decision – if it does not, the Decision will be
enacted.
Tachograph Calibration Fees
At present the Department for Transport (DfT) sets maximum fees for the
installation and periodic
checking of tachograph installations. Preserved lorries and buses over 30 years
old are exempted
from drivers’ hours legislation and therefore have no need for tachographs.
However since the normal
commercial life of these types of vehicle is much shorter (15 to 20 years) they
enter preservation
needing to continue to use tachographs until they reach the 30 year threshold.
The consultation proposes to allow calibration centres complete freedom to fix
charges; in particular
higher charges to calibrate the older analogue equipment. Our concern here is
that this is a concept that
may spread to other fees e.g. MoT fees. There also appears to be no legal
requirement for centres to
maintain analogue test equipment into the future. This could lead to
preservationists being forced into
having the analogue tachograph replaced with a digital unit (at high cost) just
for the few years before
the vehicle reaches 30 years old and becomes exempt. We are formulating our
response.
HGV MOT Testing Exemptions
The DfT are proposing to reduce the number of vehicles currently exempted from
the HGV testing
regime. No changes to the existing exemptions for pre-1960 and steam propelled
vehicles are proposed.
We are in contact with two member clubs, the Historic Commercial Vehicle Society
and the National
Traction Engine Club and may also contact other affected clubs before formally
responding.
ANTIFREEZE
Technology moves forward and new products are constantly being launched with
claims to improved
formulations and performance. With the recent bitterly cold weather in January
antifreeze has been
in the headlines, with some alarming stories which at first seem to be about the
well-known tendency
of antifreeze to find the tiniest hole and cause leakages – but in these cases
it has led to catastrophic
engine problems.
Traditional blue ethylene glycol is a toxic but highly effective antifreeze and
contains silicates as
an inhibitor to help prevent corrosion in an engine with mixed metals in its
make-up. Bluecol and
Blue Star are well known brand names and both of these are declared suitable for
‘classic cars’ on
their company websites. Be aware that there are also low- or no-silicate
ethylene glycol formulations
(usually red) available which may not be suitable for all engines.
Propylene glycol is another well-known and less toxic antifreeze formula and
usually contains silicates
but Comma, the main manufacturer, have now discontinued it in favour of an
ethylene glycol product
containing ‘bittering agents’ to make it less palatable and minimise the risk of
accidental poisoning.
Both of the above products use inorganic additive technology (IAT). Recently
problems have been
reported concerning the use of antifreeze mixtures using organic acid technology
(OAT). OAT was
introduced in the mid-1990s and the products are biodegradable, recyclable and
do not contain either
silicates or phosphates and are designed to be longer lasting. However these
products do seem to cause
problems in older engines; over and above the ability of antifreeze to find the
smallest crevice and leak,
OAT antifreezes have been accused of destroying seals and gaskets and causing a
great deal of damage
in ‘old’ engines. For this reason the manufacturers do not recommend their use
in historic vehicles.
These products are usually coloured red, pink or orange.
The final category is HOAT. These products use hybrid organic acid technology in
an ethylene glycol
base with some silicates in the formulation alongside the organic corrosion
inhibitors. The product is
usually coloured green and are not recommended for use in historic vehicles.
The Federation are still researching this problem but our advice at the moment
is:
only use blue coloured IAT antifreeze in historic vehicles;
•
only use OAT products (‘advanced’ or ‘long life’ antifreeze) if the vehicle used
it when new and
if specifically directed by the vehicle’s manufacturer;
never mix different types of antifreeze without thoroughly flushing out the
system;
•
always replace the coolant within the time scale specified by the antifreeze
manufacturer as the
•
corrosion inhibitors break down over time.
DRIVING LICENCES (PRESERVED BUSES AND COACHES)
David Hurley
Continuing our occasional series on driving licence entitlements, this time we
cover preserved buses
and coaches. As before, health and disability issues are not covered here.
A preserved bus over 30 years old (not being used for hire or reward) and
carrying no more than eight
passengers can be driven by the holder of a normal car driving licence provided
he/she is over 21 years
old and has held a full licence for two full years. It is important to check
that your insurer is willing to
insure someone who is a) under 25 years old and b) does not hold a Passenger
Carrying Vehicle (PCV)
licence.
If the vehicle is less than 30 years old, or is more than 30 years old and is
carrying more than eight
passengers, the driver has to hold a PCV.
If there is any element of hire or reward involved, then as well as a PCV
licence, the driver must hold
a Certificate of Professional Competency (CPC). Owners are reminded that any
buses used for hire or
reward have to be insured, taxed, tested and operated under an operator licence.
The above is the FBHVC's understanding of legislation and is not a definitive
legal document and
further information can be found on the DVLA website.
Driver Testing, Training, Examining and Licensing: Implementing New European Union Requirements (Directive 2006/126EC – the third Directive on driving licences)
This consultation document (issued jointly by the Department for Transport, Driving Standards Agency and DVLA) relates to the transposition of the EU Directive into UK law, to be effective on 19 January 2013. It mainly covers changes that have already been in the public domain for some years; changes to the duration of driving licences, motor cycle classes, towing trailers etc.
However the FBHVC picked up on a vague statement under the heading of ‘Way forward’ about whether previous exemptions applicable under the second Directive could continue.
As a result of asking for clarification, it became apparent that the existing ability for Class B drivers to drive (under conditions) old commercial vehicles and buses had been questioned by the EU Commission. Similarly steam vehicle drivers are under threat – in fact the DVLA wrote in January (half way through the consultation period) to the National Traction Engine Trust offering an inadequate solution that had been suggested by the DSA.
The Federation were concerned that:
1) Neither we nor any other interested clubs had been consulted previously as Stakeholders;
2) The consultation did not actually consult on the possible withdrawal of existing rights.
Apart from the two aspects mentioned, the document clearly did not conform to the Government’s own code of conduct for consultations in other respects.
We quickly alerted the Historic Commercial Vehicle Society and the National Association of Road Transport Museums to our concerns and all four organisations collaborated in the responses. The robust FBHVC response included a demand for a joint meeting of the four organisations and the three government agencies/departments within 28 days.
Subsequently a meeting was convened at Swansea on 3 March between senior officials of the DfT, DSA, DVLA and our four organisations. To use a rather hackneyed phrase, a full and frank discussion ensued and a lot of detailed points were covered. The officials accepted that the subject matter should have been raised much earlier and they became fully aware of the strong case we all made for continuance of the previously agreed position which poses no increases in safety risks, which was the EU reason for query. A firm commitment was made to continue this dialogue and a strategy was agreed for future action. The UK does not have to submit their enabling legislative proposals to the EU until 2011 and any changes will not be effective until 2013. We four organisations will not allow this time to be wasted!
I would like to place on record my thanks to Colin Billington (NARTM) David Smith and Robert Herring (NTET) and Fraser Clayton (HCVS) for their detailed written submissions and their participation at the meeting.
HGV MoT Testing Exemptions
This is another consultation concerning the transposition of a Directive initiated in Brussels into UK law. For historical reasons there is a long list of vehicles that have been exempt from plating and testing and the EU have decreed that the UK list should be pruned. Modern vehicles in the categories affected are based on virtually standard HGV chassis and are no longer specially constructed. However some post-1960 preserved vehicles, previously exempt, will now become in scope, including armoured military vehicles which are designed as fighting machines rather than goods vehicles. I have been liaising with Fraser Clayton (HCVS) and Geoff Fletcher (Military Vehicle Trust) and all three of us will have submitted responses by the time you read this. I have a feeling that this will generate another meeting.
Changes to Tachograph Calibration Fees
As anticipated in the last newsletter a formal response has been sent expressing our reservations to the proposal especially to the prospect of a free-for-all approach by the Government.
HGV Plating and Testing Exemptions – Reduction of categories
As reported in the last issue the long list of vehicles that have been exempt from plating and testing in the past is to be severely pruned and as foreseen a meeting took place on 31 March between representatives from FBHVC, the Historic Commercial Vehicle Society, the Military Vehicle Trust, the National Association of Road Transport Museums and Invicta Military Vehicle Society with two officials from the Department for Transport to discuss the problems arising from this.
Broadly it was accepted that in-use commercial vehicles based on normal HGV chassis would now have to have annual checks. However the DfT accepted that preserved military vehicles not designed for carrying goods but for fighting purposes may need special consideration and over-width vehicles, physically too large for rolling roads will also need special treatment. It was agreed that club representatives would supply further information and photographs for a detailed report which will then be considered by the DfT. The opportunity was taken to raise the hope that the 1960 cut-off date for exemption from testing for preserved commercial vehicles should be re-examined and converted to a rolling date and will be an ongoing discussion topic.
Consultation on Changes to Motorway speed limits for Heavy Good Vehicles and Passenger Carrying Vehicles
The purpose of this proposed legislation will be to standardise motorway speed limits for lorries and buses. HGVs would have the same maximum speed limit of 60 mph – whereas there are two limits currently (70mph for HGVs not exceeding 7.5 tonnes and 60 mph for HGVs exceeding 7.5 tonnes) and PCVs would have the same maximum speed limit of 65 mph – whereas there are also two limits currently (70 mph for PCVs not exceeding 12 metres and 60 mph for PCVs exceeding 12 metres).
Coupled with this consultation was the consequential need for the recalibration of speed limiters fitted to these vehicle types (irrespective of whether these are in commercial use or preserved). Before formally responding, James Fairchild (a member of the FBHVC legislation team) wrote to the DfT regarding the high cost which would be incurred by owners of elderly preserved vehicles of these types which rarely used motorways. I am pleased to report that the DfT have accepted this point and they have confirmed in writing that: ‘The reason that speed limiters on the older pre-1988 vehicles will not be required to be reset from 70mph to 65 mph or 62 mph is that this can be an expensive process for the older vehicle types where the limiter is an electro mechanical device and it would impose unreasonable costs on the operators of these old coaches which are comparatively few in number. Nevertheless the maximum permitted speed on a motorway (for these vehicles) in Great Britain will be 65mph and not 70mph.’
It also follows that these vehicles will be banned from the outside lane of any motorway with more than two lanes.
Previous Page Home Page Next Page