And the way that will be policed is?.....

......by insisting you join what would be the equivalent to Corgi or Gas safe for bus operators, i.e. the bus operator pays an approved third party to periodically check they are doing what they should be doing. No one, least of all the insurance companies, will spend money checking you. They will make you spend your money to prove you are safe.

As I said, I am surprised that doesn't already happen as it is common in other industries. I am not sure an intelligence led system is sufficient on its own.

My bus number (if any): M1001, RML2276, T806

I was referring to Privately owned Class V buses not those owned by licensed operators. Just because elements of the construction industry are vetted by industrial controlling bodies doesn't mean every industry has to be. I don't see Southern Rail etc answerable to some quango, they are answerable to the railway inspectorate or the ORR as it is now called, which like the DVSA is a Government body, albeit with industry officials participating. This is unlike Gas Safe or the NICEIC which are commercial enterprises to which there must be attached a certain amount of flag waving advertising kudos for its members.

Mmmm. Not that much flag waving for the money I pay. Perhaps it helps with domestic electricians. Of course NICEIC compliance isn’t compulsory, it and other bodies compliance is simply a requirement of all MY customers. Why? Because I have to prove that I can do the job.
Gas Safe? Now that is law, a bit like an operator’s licence but I now wonder how often a gas engineer’s competence is checked compared to a bus operator.

And it isn't just construction. Many industries do this. Fork lift drivers are forced to take a retest every five years even though there is no legal requirement to do so. It is all about reducing the chance of injury or showing you have done your utmost to prevent an issue that might result in an injury. Those that are pushing this will include insurance companies for monetary reasons and company directors also for monetary reasons and to keep out of prison. So why would any company director or sole trader employ anyone that cannot prove their ability. Timed served apprenticeship? with the greatest of respect, how would that prove that he or she is able to work on the bus you own. Without a system they cannot prove it and therefore neither can you and it is you, the operator, that is going to be explaining that in court.

I have just been looking at TfL documents for contractors and suppliers. It says;

In order to demonstrate commitment to Health & Safety in the workplace and in the completion of duties under this Contract, the Contractor will be registered under the Contractors Health and Safety Assessment Scheme (CHAS) or equivalent, such as Safety Schemes in Procurement (SSIP).

I am just surprised that for running a bus, it appears to be simply "do you have an operator’s licence"? Periodic checks are surely better than intelligence led investigations. lock the stable door after the horse has bolted springs to mind.

And to bring this back on topic, I am not sure I agree with any vehicle not having an mot, I would be happy for any bus that can carry more than 8 passengers to need a class six mot and would not have an issue with some sort of not for hire or reward operators licence system.

Edit. The NICEIC claim to be there to protect the consumer. Gas Safe is the body you have to belong to to comply with gas laws. I think the flag waving is somewhat less than you imagine.
I think Southern Rail may actually be answerable to the quangos known as Network Rail and TfL!

My bus number (if any): M1001, RML2276, T806

I referred before to HMRC and compared them to the DVSA. I also mentioned that the DVSA devote a significant part of their enforcement resources to intelligence led investigation. Just like the HMRC inspector, that does not mean that routine visits do not also feature. Operators know that their premises can be visited and a full blown investigation started out of the blue. They also know that one of their vehicles may be stopped for a roadside check at any time regardless of their compliance score. Leaving aside stage carriage vehicles which will be checked at a terminus, private hire vehicles will more likely be examined at a venue or Motorway service area when passengers are not present. That does not mean that they are never stopped roadside, as booze cruise operators have found out when prohibited for overloading at the Brenley corner DVSA site.

Moving to the Haulage industry briefly, there are several accreditation schemes, the most notorious being FORS, which is required for construction site deliveries in London.

As far as the general public is concerned the safety aspect of vehicle operation is paramount. That area is covered by the MOT, which although only a level of the absolute minimum standard which few seem to appreciate, represents something like a weekly examination of competence in that aspect for those preparing vehicles for test. This very soon weeds out the incompetent. On a level of efficient operation, which does not really interest the public, the motor trade is led by the franchised dealers sending fitters on manufacturers' training courses to be instructed on the latest model technology.

As time goes by the trade is being split into the component swappers who will do the labouring type jobs and the talented, who can progress through the manufacturer's system to become what is known as master technician. To achieve that status requires years of experience with theoretical and practical examination on the operation not just of systems but each individual component of it. As an example, there are around 30 different valves in a modern air brake system for an artic, however these can be sourced from several manufacturers with slight variations in design (viz the Clayton Dewandre RM footbrake valve re. the Lockheed one). That is for the current model range, but the same level of knowledge of earlier systems is required. A similar level of assessment is conducted by the IRTE.

Of course all this ignores the Elephant. The one person who can really impact on the customer's day. Rediculously, currently there is no need for the aimer of ANY vehicle to undergo a subsequent assessment of ability other than medical.

Some interesting points there by David and roy.

There has been a licencing system in place for many years for those buses carrying "the public" not for hire and reward, known otherwise as Section 19 and Section 22 of the 1987 Road Transport Act 9I think is the statute). Those sections of the Act have been blown clean out of the water by recent investigations by a small group of operators and the EU into the activities of these s19 operators and their operation has been in breach of the law for at least 10 years, as has well been documented in the trade press recently.

The law is that to carry passengers for hire and reward (as defined in the Lundberg case in the ECJ), the bus must be licenced as a bus; it must display an operators licence; the driver must have class D entitlement, the driver must have a current DCPC. It must be insured to carry passengers for hire and reward. To save me re-typing what has been put in the trade press on this matter recently I suggest looking through recent issues of RouteOne or Bus & Coach Buyer.

The Lundberg case dealt mainly with the issue of tachograph use, but clearly defined "hire and reward". A lot of the UK people have twisted "hire and reward" as the driver getting paid with passengers paying a fare. The new "guidance" from the DVLA has clarified that as it now includes clearer definitions on those issues. The Rout-v-Swallow Hotels case defines carriage of passengers for hire and reward. There was another case I read recently which was the British Motor Insurers Bureau-v-(a widow whose husband was killed in a car crash), can't remember her name offhand, but that case involved her husband being given a lift on a regular basis to and from work on a for petrol money. That was deemed by the UK High Court as hire and reward. The MIB had to pay out as the car drivers insurers excluded H&R use.

One problem with the DVSA testers is that they are now trained to deal with modern vehicles; the dinosaurs like roy and myself and probably most others on here know what we are looking at under old buses, the examiners may not know as they've never worked on them.

One notable bus I presented for test a few years back was the CBM Dennis open topper from 1927. It has a Certificate of Initial fitness and was up for annual test at Mitcham GVTS. I presented it, the examiner (the top bod there) was interested. Put it over the pit, hmm, no front brakes. Stop the engine. Me: No. Why? Because I won't be able to start it again. No electric starter and the handle was over an open pit. And so it went on. It was a bit of a farce. In the end he passed it and we went on our way. the following week we presented the Tilling ST! At least that had brakes on the front and a cab.

As I've said before, far too many bods these days use their buses for "mates weddings" on a far too regular basis, and the DVLA "intelligence" system rarely picks them up. Ye, I know I done it too back in 1971, but in those day there were so few preserved buses nobody bothered. We had a job even getting an annual test, but in all those years, nobody has been killed or injured by my bus.

EU law gives individual countries the right to exempt vehicles of a certain age from annual testing. the same sort of exemption is not given to those who drive large buses, i.e. those with over 8 passenger seats. they MUST have class D entitlement, and if they're carrying passengers for money, now with the new "guidelines" clearly defining others as direct family, if they're not family, you need the DCPC too. Your pre-1960 bus however does not need an annual test.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

The DfT have just recently issued the following 'clarification' regarding exemption from testing:

" The exemption from testing REMAINS pre 1960 for Public Service Vehicles providing they have not been substantially modified. To be considered a Public Service Vehicle a bus or coach needs to be used commercially. The exemption is moved to 40 years rolling FOR OTHER, NON PSV BUSES AND COACHES (provided they have not been substanially modified)."

So PSV post 1960 will still need to be tested.

That's very strange ............ the Department finally replied to my query last week and confirmed that the exemption for pre-1960 commercially used vehicles is to be discontinued ......... does the left hand know what the right hand is doing ?

Can you tell me where this announcement is, as I'm now confused (again). If necessary I will write to them straight away.

My bus number (if any): RM1368

Quoted from the Editorial in December Classic & Vintage Commercials. The wording, paragraph six of the Editorial, from DfT was in response to the Editor's request for clarification regarding contradicting statements by the DfT and the Transport Minister Jesse Norman regarding which Lorries and Buses would be exempt and which would not.

The complete Article runs to eleven paragraphs.

This would appear to be the result of brain-sharing by those in authority, a practice very common in government circles whereby the only brain available for use is kept under lock and key in a cupboard and has to be signed for. As usual our highly paid expert officials, lackeys and ministers turn out to be incompetent oxygen wasters. Not only can they no longer be put in the stocks, but hanging, drawing and quartering has sadly gone out of fashion.

I have taken this matter up with the Confederation of Passenger Transport for further clarification. I have also seen what roy said confirmed elsewhere, but can't remember where, I've been looking at so much of this stuff lately my brain is confused by it all!

I'm also seeking clarification as to whether our buses need a new Certificate of Initial Fitness and again this is a long drawn out discussion and lots of searching through various road Traffic Acts back to 1930. Basically any bus that had a certificate of fitness (usually known as an FFD) OR SIMILAR in 1981 would automatically be assumed to have a Certificate of Initial Fitness. The "OR SIMILAR" could be taken to mean a class 5 test certificate, the law does not specify. The law also does not specify when a bus is "withdrawn from service", what is service? How could the authors of those laws know that in 40 years time some buses would be put back in service, they had only been temporarily withdrawn. One of my buses was withdrawn from revenue earning service, but was on a class 5 at the change-over date in 1981, so it comes under the "or similar" category.

Anyway, hopefully all will be clarified at dome dim and distant date.

I just remembered where I heard the pre-1960 exemption will be continued, it was in a dfT document and was heard from a DVSA official at a CPT meeting.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

Final details of VHI consultation have now been finalised and released.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/668274/vehicles-of-historical-interest-substantial-change-guidance.pdf

My bus number (if any): RM44 RM1138

Been reading the document in the above post namely the section:

Under that explaination; would a AEC AV760 engine be considered 'the same basic engine' or 'alternative original equipment' as to a AV590 engine?

I still intend on getting my bus MOTed but looking to use exemption as flexibility on when i get it MOTed

My bus number (if any): RMF2771

Probably the only people qualified to answer that query would be the DVSA as otherwise it’s only someone’s opinion and at least you’d have written evidence of the interpretation ?

My bus number (if any): RML2747

On behalf of the DfT and DVLA, the FBHVC have invited organisations to be nominated VHI experts. The Routemaster Association has already flagged up queries with the guidance as so far provided and we have accepted the invitation from the FBHVC to be one of the nominated experts in order to represent Routemaster owners.

Hopefully this grey area will become less murky and between all the organisations working together this can all become clear in due course.

Andrew Morgan

My bus number (if any): RM1368