Probably not worth reading this - as you were...

[Guest]

The historic vehicle shebang is a side show to the main event, which is about standardised EU wide roadworthiness tests for most cars. The online fuss about this may well be a storm in a teacup. I think that the adverse effects of the Regulation (if enacted) are being exaggerated in many quarters, possibly because of Euroscepticism, and partly because people are reading commentaries but not reading the actual draft Regulation.

[HMC]

Sounds pretty much as it is in Germany already. The MOT equivalent (TUV) was an issue for my father in law when he imported our old triumph spitfire in the uk. he took a set of original steel wheels too as he felt the tuv would not allow the minilite replica wheels to pass as they were 'none original'. And sure enough they didnt. in germany they already test trailers etc, and in fact they have a separate identity and carry a separate number plate from the towing vehicle. Makes you wonder what becomes of hybrids such as turbo technics capris and coombs mk2 jags which deviated from the notional standard spec often at birth. If these examples are to be accepted what level of proof is required that the car is a genuine coombs etc. Very contentious, and in the case of a Coombs jag, no official records exist. Who decides what is standard for a particular car etc? What about specialist maniufacturers for whom the whole spec of the car is down the the buyer to decide upon. Smacks of overregulation.

[Lacquer Peel]

  brookjm said:

Sounds pretty much as it is in Germany already. The MOT equivalent (TUV) was an issue for my father in law when he imported our old triumph spitfire in the uk. he took a set of original steel wheels too as he felt the tuv would not allow the minilite replica wheels to pass as they were 'none original'.

 

Good.

[warren t claim]

If we all unite like striking tanker drivers we will get concessions.

[Cavcraft]

  warren t claim said:

If we all unite like striking tanker drivers we will get concessions.

 

He's here all week folks!

[worldofceri]

  brookjm said:

Smacks of overregulation.

Y'don't say. This is the EU we're talking about. Thank goodness we have a (partially) Euro-sceptic administration who've pledged to do away with excess red tape and regulations. Well, we can live in hopes.

[mattblack]

  brookjm said:

...and carry a separate number plate from the towing vehicle.

 

As indeed they often do in this country.

[Mash]

  brookjm said:

Sounds pretty much as it is in Germany already. The MOT equivalent (TUV) was an issue for my father in law when he imported our old triumph spitfire in the uk. he took a set of original steel wheels too as he felt the tuv would not allow the minilite replica wheels to pass as they were 'none original'.

 

Now that is very harsh and draconian in my opinion and I would have to say to those who think this whole thing is a storm in a teacup to take a moment to consider that statement.

 

I fail to see how a properly fitted and sized set of aftermarket wheels can compromise a car's roadworthiness but that's what is being implied here.

 

If it was just failed because it isn't original so they won't give you an H plate for historic status then fine, you stump up full whack and all is rosy.

 

HOWEVER if what is being said is that the car was failed regardless ("you will not drive this dangerous car on our roads OMG will no-one think of the children") then this is a very serious matter because it means a LOT of cars rendered "illegal" for want of a better word.

[HMC]

  mattblack said:

  brookjm said:

...and carry a separate number plate from the towing vehicle.

 

As indeed they often do in this country.

sorry ambiguous sentence, i meant a numberplate and identity distinct and separate from the identity of the vehicle towing it, with the implication of an annual roadworthiness test for the trailer.

[Guest]

Mash, the draft Regulation does not say that. If a car can't meet the narrow description of historic, then it needs to be tested, but the Regulation does not forbid modifications, and, on the contrary, provides for a full or partial test after modifications which relate to safety or eco characteristics. I recommend that people read the draft Regulation. The two most relevant provisions are Article 3(9) and 5(4), which have to be read together to make sense of the draft.

 

3(9) ‘roadworthiness test’ means a verification that the parts and components of a vehicle comply with its safety and environmental characteristics in force at the time of approval, first registration or entry into service, as well as at the time of retrofitting;

 

5(4) Notwithstanding the date of its last roadworthiness test, the competent authority may require that a vehicle be subject to a roadworthiness test or additional testing before the date referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, in the following cases:

 

– after an accident with serious damage to the main safety related components of the vehicle such as wheels, suspension, deformation zones, steering or brakes,

 

– when the safety and environmental systems and components of the vehicle have been altered or modified,

 

– in case of a change of the holder of the registration certificate of a vehicle.

[Guest]

 

[Mash]

  Breadvan72 said:

Mash, the draft Regulation does not say that. If a car can't meet the narrow description of historic, then it needs to be tested, but the Regulation does not forbid modifications, and, on the contrary, provides for a full or partial test after modifications which relate to safety or eco characteristics.

 

That's fine if that is the case, it's just that I interpreted brookjm's example of the Spitfire wheels to mean that the car did not meet the German regulations and could not be used on the road in this form.

 

If you have the option to go for further testing and if the tester deems that your non-original wheels are hunky dory (but you just don't get the free road tax or whatever because it's not running steelies with crossplies) then I think no-one would be too unhappy. I'm just not so keen to see a blanket ban on changing the appearance of an older vehicle, because some modifications are acceptable if done well.

 

I don't know to what extent the German regulations go with historic vehicles and original features - I have an electric windscreen washer on my Triumph instead of the pathetic original pump action one. It would be a sad day indeed if that was the straw that broke the camel's back!!!

[Guest]

This draft Regulation does not call for the German system. Note also that the EU is assigning no budget for implementation of this. No member State will be spending big money on a new system, given that we are all skint. Individual member States are being allowed some discretion on implementation. I expect to see a tweaked version of the extant MOT, and not much more.

[Cavcraft]

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed" - Adolf Hitler

 

This is already creeping in - remember, only a couple of years ago, DVLA decided they wanted letters from garages etc when you changed the engine capacity. That's the beginning. This isn't about electronic ignition on Minors but stuff like later/larger engines in eighties and nineties gear. It doesn't take into account how good and thorough the job might be - some of the best modified Golfs, E30's etc are superb creations.

This may well have been influenced by the cut spring scene idiots with a one size fits all 'no more modded cars' blanket legislation. Damned shame if it's so.

[chaseracer]

/\/\ Five pages before Godwin's Law kicked in! Slackers!

 

Anyhoo, back to the real discussion.

 

There's quite a bit of good sense in the proposal, though I agree the drafting needs work - for clarity if nothing else. Testing at four years, then biennially? Fine - cars are generally good enough for that. Annual testing after 100K miles? Yup - if it's doing that sort of mileage, stuff will need checking. Requirement for manufacturers to provide electronic data relevant to their products? Definitely. Quad bikes being tested? Bloody good idea...

 

More thoughts later - GCSE results (not mine!) need to be collected...

[Guest]

Yeah! Five and a bit pages and still no fricken Niemoller. What a bunch of sluggards!

 

Good look with the (sprog) GCSE thang. I am still 9 years away from that one.

[Negative Creep]

  chaseracer said:

/\/\ Five pages before Godwin's Law kicked in! Slackers!

 

Anyhoo, back to the real discussion.

 

There's quite a bit of good sense in the proposal, though I agree the drafting needs work - for clarity if nothing else. Testing at four years, then biennially? Fine - cars are generally good enough for that. Annual testing after 100K miles? Yup - if it's doing that sort of mileage, stuff will need checking. Requirement for manufacturers to provide electronic data relevant to their products? Definitely. Quad bikes being tested? Bloody good idea...

 

More thoughts later - GCSE results (not mine!) need to be collected...

 

 

Going OT, but bi annual MOTs would be a disaster. Just look at the amount of cars with blown bulbs and worn tyres, then imagine them driving around like that for another year

[Guest]

Biennial (every two years), not biannual (twice a year)! The difference is important.

[gricer]

The EU draft doesn't say that a modified car over 30 years old cannot be driven. It just says it cannot be classed as "historic".

 

If this means non-modified over-30s cars get free road tax, then I'm all for it. By keeping a car original, you're providing the public with a piece of nostalgic everyday heritage, for free. Why shouldn't you be rewarded for your efforts?

 

If you've Barried up your nice original Cortina,or if you've turned your Escort Pop into an RS1800 replica, fine - but you'll have to pay your road tax, and comply with whatever "roadworthiness" test exists.

 

Having said that, the scope of the permitted changes seems too narrow. Fitting upraded springs or shock absorbers would change the suspension characteristics, but so would the fitment of radial tyres instead of cross-ply. Both would arguably make an older car safer in modern traffic conditios (ditto uprated brakes).

 

You'd have a hard job arguing that a disc-brake-equipped Morris Oxford is less roadworthy than one with the original drums.

[chaseracer]

Pretty much sums up how I read it.

[Guest]

The beardy twats on the car club sites have fixated on the definition of historic vehicle, drawn some daft inferences, failed to understand how legislation works, added in some UKIP ranting, and got the whole thing around their trousers.

 

It is a habit of Brits to run about shouting "we are allll going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeee!". Nation of stoics, my arse.

[dollywobbler]

  chaseracer said:

Pretty much sums up how I read it.

 

 

Yes but I find it very annoying that a Historic vehicle must effectively be a museum piece. The insistence that it must be standard is particularly galling - I'm not one for modifying but nor do I rule out the option of making some changes, especially if they are for the better. I can see why the modification folks (which obviously includes ACE) are up in arms about this but I don't think it is just their problem.

[messerschmitt owner]

I shall mention something which I said earlier!

 

Do you really think the owners clubs of most cars are going to knock back people with cars that have had 'enhancements' to safety features?

 

And that the tester/government are going to have a clue about any car for which there are no manufacturers records and no details of what they had at the time. I am sure that period accessories will be allowed because who will know!

 

My local garage is confused by carburetors now so what hope have they of checking originality of a car made 30+ years ago. Is the EU/Government going to have a big computer full of every car's specs from 1884? I somehow doubt it. Nor will they be able to tell what my car was sold with fifteen years ago in terms of original equipment and extras.

[Guest]

The historic vehicle thing is a distraction. People can call their cars classic, vintage, retro, historic, or whatever. Insurers make up their own minds as to what counts as a classic car for cheapo insurance purposes. These are not legal terms. In the UK at present, historic is only a road tax category for pre 1973 cars, and there are already UK provisions to excuse older classics from annual MOT tests. Under the proposed Regulation, cars over a certain age in original spec can count as historic and avoid testing. Others, regardless of age, can be tested.

[Vin]

Although the modification aspect is a worry for many, I reckon (IMO)the majority of those who will be affected by this will be so due to caravan and trailer testing.

 

The people I know that have caravans get them serviced annually, so I'm sure testing would not be a problem to them. As caravans have identities such as make/model names and serial numbers then an MOT is obviously 'do-able' as long as there is a registration database holding all the relevant information. So the question is who and how, would be compiling that database???

 

Trailers, like caravans, also have make/model names and certainly with some car trailers, serial numbers.Many people though (myself included) have a trailer that is a DIY build - mine is a 6x4 box trailer, angle iron frame, plywood lining and indespension units across a steel box beam. There is no manufacturer, no model, no serial number. How do you MOT them??? How do you register them??? Do home built trailers thus become illegal???

 

Interesting stuff that at the moment that like most of these things, creates a lot more questions than it answers...

[Mash]

As gricer and dolly wobbler have just said, I think that the crucial statements in this proposal document are those relating to the definition of historic vehicles and the reclassification of them in the UK.

 

This proposal suggests that from a certain point onwards historic vehicles will be ALL that are over 30 years old and it is taken that this will be a rolling date. Now that’s fine if there are concessions with that but my main concern is that historic status could be IMPOSED ON all vehicles in this category rather than optional for example with H-plates and limited use criteria to be met.

 

If the status is voluntary then it just means that you might have to prove that the mods you’ve made are not unsafe and that you can’t have free road tax or reduced insurance and suchlike but it doesn’t stop you from using the car.

 

HOWEVER (and this is my major concern), if the historic status is imposed regardless, that means that modifications become illegal and the car is off the road immediately because the alloy wheels and Weber carbs render it modified from original specification.

 

What could be an interesting twist is that if the current exemption from MoT of pre-1960 vehicles is continued under this scheme, then they would have to have the added appendix to say they must also be in original specification to maintain their exemption otherwise, ironically, you could do anything you wanted to an A55 Cambridge or Ford Pilot!

[Guest]

You are misreading the draft.

 

Historic status will not be compulsory. It will be available as a way of opting out of testing. Old cars that are not original can still be tested. Mods can be tested.

 

This proposal is NOT targeted at classic cars. It is aimed at introducing a Euro wide MOT system. That is not inherently a bad idea.

[worldofceri]

  Vin said:

...caravan and trailer testing.

 

Heavy goods trailers are already tested and issued with an mot plate. I would have thought it would be straightforward to issue them all with a registration number and roll the system out to include newly built light trailers as well. Presumably it couldn't be made retrospective, although perhaps folk could be 'encouraged' to get their trailers registered (and pay a hefty fee for the 'privilege').

 

There's no reason why home-built trailers should be outlawed as long as kit cars remain legal.

[chaseracer]

  worldofceri said:

...as long as kit cars remain legal.

Ah...