I got a copy of this email earlier today and have been asked to spread the news.There is a link in the text for the FHVC questionnaire, please take the time to download and complete it.


MOT test - DfT exemption Proposal


(Please circulate this message to other classic vehicle enthusiasts)


Dear All,


For those who don't know me, I am James Fairchild, chairman of Transport Yorkshire Preservation Group (collection of preserved buses with links to Leeds/Yorkshire) and also Commercial Vehicle Rep on the Legislation Committee of the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs (which is the main organisation representing the interests of the historic vehicle movement both here in the UK and at a European and global level, representing over 500 organisations with more than 250,000 members between them, as well as individual and trade supporter members).


This email has two purposes:
-to inform and seek opinions on the current MOT exemption proposals
-to invite other groups/individuals/traders to membership of the FBHVC where they might not be presently


Do note that any opinions and comments within this email are my own, and not necessarily representative of those of TYPG or the FBHVC.


MOT EXEMPTION CONSULTATION
As you may have read, the FBHVC has been campaigning for an exemption from MOT testing for pre-1920 cars and pre-1940 buses, for the past year or so. Following lobbying by the FBHVC, there was a high profile meeting in January 2011 at the Palace of Westminster between Lord Montagu of Beaulieu (FBHVC President), Mike Penning MP (Transport Minister) and Greg Knight MP (Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicles Group) to discuss the issue further, an outcome of which was that there would be a consultation towards the end of 2011. A number of pictures appeared online of the three of them leaving the meeting in Lord Montagu's 1914 Rolls Royce Alpine Eagle.


Since that meeting has occurred, a review has been undertaken by the DfT, with the result that last month a consultation paper was published, giving four options. The DfT's preferred option is to make pre-1960 vehicles exempt, with other options being to keep the status quo, pre-1920 vehicles exempt, or pre-1945 vehicles exempt. At this point, I reproduce the Introduction to the consultation (this sets out the legislative framework and DfT’s thinking), but urge everyone to read the whole consultation on the DfT website: http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-27

"1 Introduction
1.1 As part of the Reducing Regulation agenda and the desire to remove unnecessary burdens, the Government is proposing to exempt pre-1960 manufactured vehicles from statutory MoT test, as allowed under Article 4(2) of the EU Directive 2009/40/EC, and bring the age of vehicles requiring the statutory MoT test in line with The Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988.

1.2 We consider vehicles manufactured prior to 1 January 1960 to be of historic interest. The purpose of this consultation is to invite views on proposals to exempt these vehicles from the statutory MoT test in GB.

1.3 Sections 45 to 48 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provide the legislative basis for MoT testing. The purpose of the MoT test is to ensure that cars, other light vehicles (including some light goods vehicles), private buses and motorcycles over a prescribed age are checked at least once a year to see that they comply with key roadworthiness and environmental requirements in the Road Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations 1986 and the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 (both as amended). A test certificate is issued following successful completion of an examination.

1.4 Whilst it is important to ensure that vehicles are safe to use on the highway, it is also important to ensure that regulations imposed are not excessive. Currently, both the age and the categories of vehicles requiring the MoT test in GB go further than the EU Directive on roadworthiness test 2009/40/EC, which only subjects post-1960 registered vehicles to a compulsory roadworthiness test and does not require motorcycles of any age to do a statutory roadworthiness test.

1.5 The EU Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council, Chapter II, Exceptions, Article 4 states: “Member States may, after consulting the Commission, exclude from the scope of this Directive, or subject to special provisions, certain vehicles operated or used in exceptional conditions and vehicles which are never, or hardly ever, used on public highways, including vehicles of historic interest which were manufactured before 1 January 1960 or which are temporarily withdrawn from circulation. Member States may, after consulting the Commission, set their own testing standards for vehicles considered to be of historic interest.”

1.6 The estimated 162,000 pre-1960 manufactured vehicles make up less than 0.5% of the approximately 32.7m licensed vehicles in GB that are required by law to have a MoT test. Two-thirds of pre-1960 manufactured vehicles are driven less than 500 miles a year.

1.7 Pre-1960 manufactured vehicles are largely well maintained by their owners. The initial MoT test failure rate for these vehicles in 2009 was less than 10%, whilst the initial MoT test failure rate for post-1960 manufactured vehicles was over 30%.

1.8 The Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988 already exempts unladen pre-1960 manufactured Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) from the roadworthiness test."

In order that the FBHVC can adequately respond to this consultation, it needs to be able to understand the differing opinions within our movement - noting that opinion is divided over this issue unlike many of the issues we deal with (ie do we want to have a paint exemption for vintage vehicles - 100% of our movement thinks we do!) - a survey of both members and non-members has been written, and is available for completion online at http://www.fbhvc.co.uk (survey link https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FBHVCMoT direct link).


Some points from me to bear in mind:
-if some vehicles do get exempted from testing, the requirement that a vehicle is roadworthy will NOT change (ie cars still need to have tyres of at least 1.6mm, buses 1mm, lights (as per the age of the vehicle) will still need to work, etc).
-as now, any vehicle owner can ask a garage/mechanic to take a look at their vehicle to give peace of mind/give a second opinion
-clarification is awaited, but it is expected that a vehicle will still be able to be submitted for an MOT if desired, with all the current age-related concessions for various items, as there will be certain situations where an MOT is still required (example V765 application, application to retain/transfer a registration plate, etc etc) as well as the possibility that insurers may specify an MOT as a condition of offering a certain policy, not forgetting people who are advertising vehicles for sale who may feel a voluntary MOT certificate as a plus point.
-unladen lorries pre-1960 have been MOT exempt for the past 20 years, with no particular adverse consequences that I am aware of
-the DfT have undertaken a review and impact assessment and have indicated that their preference is to exempt all pre-1960 vehicles.
-noting the above point, I would urge anyone who is planning to respond to the DfT consultation to think carefully over whether a response setting out how bad they believe the condition of certain cars/buses of pre-1960 may be, is really the right thing to do for our movement as a whole.




As stated, the FBHVC view will be shaped by the views obtained by answering the questionnaire, and I would urge everyone (whether directly affected or not) to spent 3 minutes of their time answering the simple questions. I would also encourage people to respond direct to the DfT





FBHVC MEMBERSHIP
As I said at the start, the FBHVC is the main organisation representing the interests of the historic vehicle movement, and we welcome all clubs/societies/individuals to join us as members. A list of some of the clubs who are presently members is at http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/members and you will note various clubs, both in the world of cars and commercial vehicles. We do have a number of omissions however, and I would urge in particular all bus/truck preservation groups to join, if for no other reason then because buses/trucks seem to be the target of various proposed pieces of legislation. Recent achievements the FBHVC has accomplished for the commercial vehicle world include:


-tachograph exemption for vehicles 25 years old plus when used non-commercially (rolling)
-obtaining an assurance from the DfT that preserved buses wouldn't need a speed limiter recalibration (in the event that the 70mph limit was dropped to 65mph - proposal subsequently dropped)

-obtaining exemptions for the vintage vehicle world to continue using various chemicals/solvents that would otherwise be prohibited
-research into bio-diesel and ethanol percentages in petrol (trials on a product to counter-act the effect of ethanol are underway at present)





Challenges we are likely to face during 2012 include plans for further LEZ (low emission zones) within the UK, and potentially various policy changes from DfT, DEFRA, Europe, etc.




In conclusion, may I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas, and remind you that the FBHVC's Drive it Day next year will be Sunday 22nd April 2012. Details nearer the time of how TYPG plans to mark this locally.




Regards
James Fairchild
http://www.typg.org.uk

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

I know this might breach the general code, but this is an area that needs discussion and there are a fair amount of issues this throws up.

In esscence, this seems like a very good suggestion and one that seems to make sense. But ill thought through and seems to represent the ideals of a few rather than the whole gamut of classic vehicle preservation.

It also throws up and exposes a few deeper issues and problems.

The obvious one is quite simply "Too many cooks". So many agencies( both UK and Euro) seem to have a finger in the pie. All pulling in a different direction and too often simply to justify their existence rather than a serious benefit. The end result is always a hole in the wallet of the end user and minimal if any change in the claimed objective.
I know some may claim this is political, but this kind of stuff seems to occur whatever the political leaning is.

From my /our experience of MOT and class testing, we have to meet increasingly stringent tests for our international and domestic fleet. But the fleet is generally new and is generally renewed regularly so we do not get too many problems that occur with age , high mileages or wear. But we have very powerful and potentialy very dangerous units that can cause catastrophe and i have no problem with an overseeing body that ensures we keep both driver and machine safe and safer still.

But as we have, from time to time, had the odd preserved bus, coach and truck in for repairs and pre test preparations we have also had a few retest jobs.

Some of the most pristine vehicles, inside and out, structurally and mechanically, have failed the tests for both standard MoT and Class rated.

It has been discussed both here, on the other channel and on classic car sites too, the horrors of what some people have taken out on the road, perceiving the vehicle to be OK.

Even if a vehicle (particularly a bus but even a humble morris minor) does noting in milage between one test and the next, it can develop a fail fault. Usually lighting or wiper blades but braking can deterioate very quickly.

I am strongly against the idea and proposal of no test at all for aged vehicles.

It is true that the vast majority are very well preserved and probably pass each and every time. often a matter of pride for the owner, but also a chore if the vehicle is in very limited use.
But not all owners are like that. Not all are thorough, some are too arrogant to ever believe they have a faulty vehicle.

I do though, think that an annual test is not necessary for many categories.

Bi-annual testing and 3 yearly testing for all vehicles over a certain age would be a better solution.

Easily and cheaply organised now everything is electronically recorded.

The very oldest vehicles are very simple by nature and almost need an MoT each time they are readied for the road.
By the 1950's vehicles are more complex and it is prudent to have an independent trained set of eyes check a vehicle over in the same way one seeks a second opinion with one's health.
Even the best engineers/mechanics can miss things or not got things set up correctly.
Older designs had far more safety related faults inherent when new, than modern vehicles.

Why a cut off at 1960?
Apart from styling, there is very little difference in a 1960 vehicle and a 1974 vehicle.Slighty more differences between a 1974 -1984 vehicles, but much greater differences after that point to the present.

My feeling is all post 1956-1974 vehicles should have a bi-annual test and fits in with the current heritage class which should roll to 1980 and be reviewed thereafter every 7 years.

Maybe a 3 yearly test for vehicles from 1929 to 1955 and beyond that a voluntary test for vehicles intended for regular use that pre-date 1929.
Possibly if the pass rate remains very high then this could become voluntary for the whole time span to 1955.

We have to remember that a vehicle is for use on the public highways of this and other countries and they are now much faster and safer than they were.

We are enthusiasts of a bygone age but also an age where things were less safe and do not have the benefit of safety evolution. Braking, handling, speed, lighting are vastly different.

The buses will get older but the drivers will start to get younger, they will not have had the experience of daily use of older vehicles which in their day, were as good as everything else on the road. Now even a Marshall RM or a Metrobus is dated in performance amongst modern traffic.

If the cut off is 1960, what is to say an untested pristine 1959 RM is going to be any safer than a tested unrestored 1967 RML?.

I did not notice an area for comments or suggestions when reading the proposals, but think that it does not reach the parts that need to be reached.

Some good points there Jack. the EU regulations provide for the 1960 cut-off, and the UK alone chose a much earlier date for some reason. As I've posted in other threads, I've seen some horror stories of untested buses on Europe's roads (and a few here too), so I have mixed feelings.

the points i raised with the FBHVC secretary are those of how the proposal wuold affect someone like myself using a historic bus commercially on an O licence; would it still need a Certificate of Initial Fitness before being allowed to re-enter revenue service; would it still need the 6 or 8 weekly safety inspection; what additional checks would be done in the event of current historic buses being allowed to legally carry "friends to a wedding" for money, a situation which I do many times a year.

Regarding wedding cars, the risk to injure a large number of people is far less than with a bus. Maybe a limit on the number of people being carried on a test-exempt bus to 8 passengers would be sensible?

Other thoughts that cross my mind are the fact that VOSA examiners are not au fait with the older vehicles and I often have to explain to the examiner what does what; there is a limited number of test facilities for class 5 vehicles anyway, and my local station at Hastings only has one qualified class 5 tester, and he is shared with Hersden and Gillingham as well as the independant facilities, so even booking a test is becoming a nightmare.

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

A few points here. These are proposals. Many of the requirements of the modern MOT test are pointless on historical vehicles. Whatever date is set for exemptions is going to please some and upset others. The changes are aimed at preserved vehicles used non commercially and occasionally, not wedding buses used weekly!! Finally the possession of an MOT or an exemption does not exempt the owner from prosecution for using an unsafe vehicle.

My bus number (if any): RTL 960, RMC 1458, RM 1585

I remember having it drummed into me that the creed was "brakes, lights, steering" when looking at any vehicle. Of these three, the only one that can be checked by the driver with any degree of certainty is the lights; and even then headlight alignment is assumed to be correct.

Most components wear slowly and their degeneration can pass un-noticed as little seems to change from day to day.

I am sure many owners are intensely proud of their vehicles and are adamant that there is nothing wrong; and that may well be the case, but without the faciities provided in a test lane, can anyone be sure?

Older buses struggle to pass the "lead and lag" part of the Class V brake test which measures the imbalance in braking across the axle. This means that the vehicle can deviate to one side under braking. In the yard or on the road little or nothing shows up, but it is a different matter when put on the brake test rollers. It is also eye catching to note what the shaker plates can show up that can pass un-noticed.

I am constantly worried by the potential for catastrophe with any vehicle with what is known as a "single line braking system" This fortunately does not apply to Routemasters (unless anyone has been tampering with something like the warning system), however it does to practically anything else pre 1960. On such a vehicle, a deteriorated brake pipe can easily develop into no brakes at all. How many have experienced trying to apply the hand brake of a pre 1960 vehicle, sufficiently to meet the required efficiency, and can honestly say that they would have been able to maintain steering control at the same time?

In 1968 the Plating and Testing regulations were introduced for lorries which required minimum braking efficiency figures to be met. In the years leading up to and following this, many older vehicles were retired or had to be substantially modified in order to meet this new standard. This was the time when spring brakes became the way to go,with many mechanical and lock actuator systems being replaced.

The main difference between the existing exemption for pre 1960 HGV and the proposal for buses, is that in order to qualify , the HGV must be used unladen, but there does not seem to be any proposed requirement for buses to be used without passenger.

Just like the advice from the historic vehicle federation, to abandon any campaigning for road tax concessions for pre 1973 vehicles, for fear of a reversal of those existing, any active support for this MOT idea could end up as a bullet in the foot.

I think that an annual MOT is a very good thing as sadly this is the only time many preserved vehicles get looked at unless they physically fail and the MOT wrongly gets relied upon as a check for roadworthyness - also some play buses are already exempt as they are classed as educational facilities, often used statically they still have to drive to their locations - they are often elderly, operated on a shoestring and maintenance seems to be overlooked unless something goes wrong as I have experienced.

My bus number (if any): RML 2747 & Gash Daimler DD6

Thinking about this even more,"most" of the buses I look at are post 1960 so would not fall into the category above, being later RMs or Lodekkas.

So, to go back to the original email from our friend in Yorkshire, please let's be careful what we say about older vehicles being badly maintained. There does not appear to have been any problems with historic lorries being exempt, and so far there hasn't been any incidents with old buses that I am aware of. That incident may well happen one day.

I will assume that any historic bus used commercially will continue to be subject to a regular safety as required under the operators licence conditions, whether test exempt or not. According to John Woodhams on the Isle of Wight, certain PSVs are exempt from testing, these being a couple of Sentinel steam buses, where VOSA refuse to inspect them as they are "dangerous". I wouldn't be too keen to do an underside check on a steam bus, especially if it involves wandering under the firebox!

The regulations regarding playbuses are to change in the near future to bring these under testing regs; some are currently exempt.

As some have said, the current regs are largely irrelevant to historic buses-no washers/wipers/ emergency exits/abs etc. As for the difference in brake testing between class 5 and class 6, the class 6 test is far easier for an old bus. As for headlamp testing, the modern equipment is almost uselss for older lighting systems.

I remember taking the Cobham Dennis for test about 16 years ago with the late Jill Viner. At Mitcham, the examiner asked to see the indicators wor; my right hand out, then Jill's left hand out. Hazard warning=both of us waving our hands uup and down! That was for a class 6.

Most buses used legally for wedding don't do much more than 10,000km a year if you're lucky. RFW14 usually does about 500 miles between tests, and that is just for rallying. Is it really worth testing it every year? Providing it has a couple of voluntary checks a year and a trip to the local rolling road every so often it would not in my view present any hazard to its passengers or other road users.

I also suspect that the DfT are looking to cut VOSA's costs further and to them class 5 testing is a huge cost to them for little benefit to road safety.

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

Roy - you have hit the nail on the head "as long as they go for a voluntary check once a year or a visit to a rolling road " - will all owners bother though - at least the MOT ensures this happens ?

My bus number (if any): RML 2747 & Gash Daimler DD6

The more responsible of us will, especially the professional operators, but those on limited budgets or who are simply too ignorant probably won't.

But as I said earlier, there doesn't seem to have been a problem with classic lorries, and the number of historic buses on the road is minimal. I think it's more a case of sensible risk assessment and in this case I think the FBHVC has maybe got it right.

Quite why this country has to be so out of step with the rest of the EU is a mystery. Going slightly off-topic we have the section 19 and section 21 volunteer operated minibuses which can be used for hire and reward with no o licence, no psv licence, no tacho etc. in the UK, but as soon as they set a wheel abroad they need a tacho/psv etc! I suspect costs come into it here. So on that basis, if they can be excused the psv regs because of costs, why should a genuine "hobby" vehicle not have the same benefits?

There are very few pre 1960 class 6 psvs on the road, maybe 200 in the whole country; I don't believe there would be any great risk to public safety if they were exempt from testing and were allowed historic tax to boot.

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

The buses that are used solely for a quick spin at the weekend and rally appearances don't really bother me. It is the ones that are used on class V tickets for the very popular running days that concern me.

These vehicles end up working really quite hard for the day, sometimes covering considerable distances to get to the event, and then frequently carry full loads of increasingly rotund men. As I have said before, we are all a lot heavier than we were, and these vehicles need to be up to the standard of the best of commercial operators, if we are to preserve our reputation for responsible ownership.

For this reason I am not in favour of exempting buses from MOT requirements. As one invloved in the maintenance of such vehicles, I will declare an interest commercially in the continuance of testing, but I know that should this proposal become law it would make no difference to my customers.

I don't own a Routemaster or any bus but have looked after several Routemasters and an RT for many years and have 3 classic cars all post 1960.

The choice of 1960 is an odd one as 1974 was more or less the point where cars in particular started to change a bit. Both technically and corporate etc.

I do agree with so many points put here. I spend nearly every test watching testers carry out the wrong tests for suspension wear on Morris Minors.
That's because the correct test method is no longer in the VOSA manual for testers.

It takes an arguement and a phone call to VOSA to sort and inevitably puts the testers nose out of joint so he becomes more determined to find a fail fault.

However the test for the three cars is full of exemptions and takes about half the time of a standard car test.
The testers too have on occasion, found problems which I could not detect myself and even if not a fail have been an advisory to sort out asap.

But the test is still the same price as a modern car. The mileages are so low on the vehicles that testing each year is a bit pointless.

I think Jack's suggestion of bi or even tri yearly tests would be far better than not at all and also for vehicles up to 1974 where the heritage taxation cut off is currently.

But I do believe that it is important to have a Government appointed inspector responsible to declare ones vehicle, be it a bus or a car, safe to use on British roads.

It ensures the responsibility is not fully with us as owners, drivers or operators and thus cannot give insurers yet another arrow with which to drive up premiums or increase liabilities and we all know how they find ways to move the goal posts to make more money.

The points made by the other roy are quite valid and are probably my main cause for concern; in the UK we seem to have more class 5 buses and running days than the rest of Europe put together, hence there may be a greater risk here than in other countries.

The 1960 date is that set by the EU, not the British government, for exemption from testing. Holland and Belgium use 1960, Germany not sure, but again the vintage bus movements seem smaller there than here.

Having heard all the horror stories, we shouldn't forget that there are loads of historic buses out there that ARE well maintained and present no danger to man nor beast. Remember, you can't (normally) hurtle into a corner at the same speed you would in a modern bus with auto box and power steering, it's physically impossible to do so!

My GS is an example, with the crash box, you really have to slow well before a corner to change down, then the steering won't let you corner very quickly!

As for insurance, I now have a good deal with my broker for a very reasonable rate as a historic bus, all year comprehensive cover with an additional premium for the days its used for hire and reward, so I don't think insurers will use the test exemption as a reason for raising the rates. they aren't daft and know what the risks involved are.

Overall, I'm still of mixed feelings. I too have a vested commercial interest, but would welcome a unification of standards across Europe. It may make my job a bit easier knowing what to expect in the different countries.

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.