steveg
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,565
|
|
Oct 11, 2016 15:24:01 GMT
|
DVLA seem to have give some power to car clubs already in the UK. If you get any log book problems some clubs can get involved to give evidence apparently. I really hope they don't give them any more powers as at least one I know of are quite open about bending the rules to help mates out. If it gets to that the modified car movement as a whole really needs someone to speak up for them as a lot of owners clubs don't like modified cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2016 15:37:16 GMT
|
Even in the US it's not so clear cut as every state has it's own rules and each police and local government have their own opinions on how stringently the rules are enforced. Also ask virtually anyone who's imported a car from the states, especially a modified/ hot rodded one and they'll tell you some horror stories of what constitutes roadworthy to many old car builders over there. (The other possibility is that canny Americans are unloading all their carp on Limeys who read ebay with rose tinted beer goggles and live several thousand miles away so can't really do anything when the brightly painted pile of rust they bought lands off the boat in the UK. )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2016 10:11:15 GMT
|
Just a reminder to do this.
Also do I need to look at setting up RR as a 'club' in the eyes of the DVLA to help stuff like this/be more official? Guidance on this would be nice.
|
|
|
|
steveg
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,565
|
|
Oct 13, 2016 10:32:49 GMT
|
Just a reminder to do this. Also do I need to look at setting up RR as a 'club' in the eyes of the DVLA to help stuff like this/be more official? Guidance on this would be nice. That's an interesting idea. There is an option to fill out the form on behalf of a club/organisation I will have to read it to get the exact wording. I haven't actually filled the forms in despite starting the thread. I can't look at it without trying to think of all the possible ways car enthusiasts will get stuffed by whatever will come next. Thats one of the reasons I was interested to hear what others thought. I mentioned this to the guy doing the MOT on my car earlier. He said to be honest the MOT is so lenient it wouldn't make a lot of difference if older cars were tested or not as most that have survived this long are in the hands of people who look after them. I don't know if the Federation of British Historic vehicle Clubs have a voice that the government take notice of but they probably have a slightly different view on the whole factory spec / modified issue.
|
|
Last Edit: Oct 13, 2016 23:33:46 GMT by steveg
|
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2016 11:04:32 GMT
|
it's fairly well acknowledged that FBHCC are very pro restoration, and at best have little understanding of modified vehicles and their owners, if not actively hostile towards them.
For a long time I've thought that all the national clubs that represent modified/customised vehicles should collaborate more closely in the face of legislation, to present one unified voice. So that's hot rods (of all ages) cutoms, VWs retro cars (miscelaneous) modified late models, 4x4s and bikes. Unfortunately at the moment many clubs like to play politics and just represent their own little niche. I suppose the ACE was meant to achieve this but it was a seperate organization rater than bringing together the existing clubs and their memberships.
Not sure how it would work just blue sky thinking at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2016 12:57:53 GMT
|
Certainly an interesting idea turning RR into a club,but one that would produce it's own problems no doubt. I think everyone on here would agree that a mileage restriction is something to be avoided but there would be differences of opinion on other details.How that would be put forward as a club position representing all is where problems might arise.
Still much better than relying on a group that is ambivalent or actively hostile to modders though.
The FBHVC do seem to have some sway and seem to have become the voice of the classic car movement. They are involved with the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicle Group chaired by MP Sir Greg Knight.He drives a Jensen CV8 and used to have an Interceptor so can't be all bad.He also supported the release of scrappage scheme classics to restorers or at least as a source of parts.His views on modding seem to be fairly restricted though.
The FBHVC are also consulted by the DVLA i believe.Much of their funding comes from pre war car clubs from what i have read.No suprise if they have more interest in that that area than looking after people who have shoehorned a V8 into a Cortina.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2016 19:03:56 GMT
|
The FBHVC are slowly coming round to modifieds, the NSRA are in close contact with them and have had the president at a major hot rod show where he was a bit blown away by the quality but a bit less impressed in the accuracy of the registrations of the cars.
They are fighting for the hot rods but it takes a back seat to their main agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2016 20:12:54 GMT
|
it's fairly well acknowledged that FBHCC are very pro restoration, and at best have little understanding of modified vehicles and their owners, if not actively hostile towards them. For a long time I've thought that all the national clubs that represent modified/customised vehicles should collaborate more closely in the face of legislation, to present one unified voice. So that's hot rods ( of all ages) cutoms, VWs retro cars (miscelaneous) modified late models, 4x4s and bikes. Unfortunately at the moment many clubs like to play politics and just represent their own little niche. I suppose the ACE was meant to achieve this but it was a seperate organization rater than bringing together the existing clubs and their memberships. Not sure how it would work just blue sky thinking at the moment. That what ACE was set up to achieve but trying to bring many factions together was a complete waste of time. Most couldn't see there EVER being problems and allowed their personal preferences to colour their perceptions. The ACE consisted of members from all walks of modifying and restoration, the idea being to get a general consensus together that represented all withut penalising some. What is now under Consultation IS the Armegedon scenario that ACE warned off ie separation of modified from classic and general vehicles and mileage restrictions under consideration. We warned about this for 10 years AND the methods how it would be achieved yet still with it staring everyone in the face most cannot see and still focus on what THEY want rather than a what is on offer that should be negotiated to achieve the best outcome for as many as possible.
|
|
|
|
adam73bgt
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,867
Club RR Member Number: 58
|
|
Oct 15, 2016 20:39:20 GMT
|
Survey filled in and submitted, lets hope the powers that be actually take notice...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2016 20:56:22 GMT
|
I quickly read an article in classic car weekly today in the supermarket.The gist of it was that the FBHVC were as surprised as everyone else about the consultation. They knew it was coming,but were expecting to be informed in advance and were not in fact told.That probably explains why there is nothing in their newsletter about it.
|
|
|
|
|
glenanderson
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,109
Club RR Member Number: 64
|
|
|
There was a similar consultation prior to the introduction of MoT exempt status for vehicles built prior to 1960. Very few people bothered to respond: Full paper here: link447 responses? On a national consultation? That's a bloody disgrace. It was all over the vehicle forums then too. Fill the form in, or don't moan about the consequences.
|
|
My worst worry about dying is my wife selling my stuff for what I told her it cost...
|
|
|
|
|
447 responses? On a national consultation? That's a bloody disgrace. It was all over the vehicle forums then too. Yes, it certainly is. I'm pretty sure that was the consultation (it's a while ago) that I filled out along with a goodly portion of our regular competitive members of the vintage car club I'm in, which likes modified stuff, and it's mental to think that we could have been 10% of the total UK response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2016 20:42:52 GMT
|
Survey completed - for what its worth, my responses to the key questions are: Do you agree with exempting 40 year old VHIs from annual testing plus introducing a VHI certification process to ensure a vehicle has not been substantially changed (option 3 in the proposals)?
No While I own several cars to which these rules would apply I did not support the previous exemption from testing & remain against any removal of an annual safety check - there is a difference between an enthusiastic owner physically replacing parts ("historic vehicles generally kept in good condition") & being able to accurately test the effectiveness of braking systems for example. I therefore favour, at least, an annual 'safety check' being applied to VHIs. I generally agree with the principle of the '8 point system' as the basis for a VHI not being substantially changed but there is no additional requirement for certification if classification is aligned with the historic VED - a vehicle must retain its original (or a suitably old) identity to qualify. Do you believe that we should allow exemptions for 30 year old vehicles rather than 40 year old vehicles?
No I do not support any exemption; preferring an age-related MOT or, at least, an annual 'safety check'. Do you agree that there are good safety reasons to exempt 40 year old rather than 30 year old VHIs from testing?
No Do you agree with the option of using Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) 8-point rule as a way of defining the ‘substantial change’ provision in the new directive? Yes {hedged my bets a bit here by answering Yes but adding remarks anyway - a bit long-winded maybe but I don't want to see another system yet feel quite strongly that the '8 point rule' is unnecessarily restrictive - while it might be hard for 'them' to prove something's been replaced in such circumstances, it shouldn't be against the rules in the first place...}
While I support in principle DVLAs '8 point rule' as the way of defining a VHI has not undergone 'substantial change', there are a number of ways in which it is currently unnecessarily restrictive / unrealistic / impractical. Firstly, the 'lumping' together of front/rear axles & suspension deprives a vehicle of the same number of 'points' whether both or only one 'end' is modified. For example, it is common to modify the 'driven' axle to improve reliability or because of non-availability of original specification parts (remember a VHI can no longer be in production) - in order not to unduly penalise the owner who has to seek alternative parts for several key areas, the points should be 'split' ie front & rear axles & suspension worth 1 point each. Furthermore, the 8-point system demands parts must be original or new replacements to original spec to 'earn' points. This is unrealistic for 'consumable' parts such as suspension & steering parts (& potentially more widely for rarer VHIs - the survival of which is arguably more important than for more common models) yet the fitting of serviceable, used original-type items would NOT actually change the 'character' of a particular vehicle & is within the spirit of the requirement. Similarly, modern remanufactured parts - which, due to current industrial process etc, might not be exact copies of the original & not therefore meet the 'letter' of the 8 point rule - may be the only parts available to an owner. Again, such reasonable replacement of parts does not fundamentally alter the character of a vehicle & should not be deemed 'substantial change'. If we use DVLA’s 8-point rule, how many VHIs might fail to prove they have not undergone substantial changes?No idea - but why is this such a specific consideration? DVLA have applied their own rules inconsistently over the years & fraudulent categorisation should not be an automatic assumption. However, the application of the rule to a particular vehicle can already be checked, for VED purposes, if there is any doubt - a certification process above or beyond this is not required for VHIs. Do you agree with the assumption that the majority of VHIs used for business purposes will continue to have an MOT test to ensure they remain roadworthy and to keep insurance premiums down? Yes If we decide that VHIs should undergo a basic ‘VHI’ roadworthiness ‘safety’ test, do you agree that the test should only check vehicle identity, brakes, steering, tyres and lights only?Yes I do agree, however I am unclear why it is assumed this should cost the same as the current MOT - the price should be lower. Do you agree that the exemption should apply to all VHIs or should we continue to test certain classes of VHIs, eg heavy goods vehicle (HGV) and public service vehicle (PSV)?No - other comments Any exemption should not apply where a vehicle is genuinely (rather than for some of the 'hire or reward' definitions I understand apply for fitment of tachometers) used for business purposes. Do you agree that we should not take into account any vehicle modifications made before 1988?Yes Do you agree that most privately owned VHIs are kept in a well maintained condition by their owners?No There is a difference between being 'cosmetically' well maintained (especially with the apparent expectation this is by the owner) & a good level of assurance of the correct / effective functioning of critical components such as brakes & steering. Do you agree that an annual mileage limit should be imposed on VHIs exempted from testing?No Do you agree with the Impact Assessment published alongside this document? Please provide any information you have that will help us to more precisely estimate costs and benefits?I do not have data to verify / generally agree - other than with the assumption that an age-related safety check should cost the same as the current MOT; it should be set at a cheaper rate given the reduced number of checks / comparative simplicity.
|
|
Last Edit: Oct 18, 2016 20:50:56 GMT by brickie501: 'Q & A' formatting added
|
|
sb
Part of things
Posts: 725
|
|
Oct 18, 2016 22:30:46 GMT
|
With all the questions around the 8-point rule I really struggle to believe this has anything to do with testing or safety. It really feels like a 'how can we find and remove modified cars' process instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2016 12:59:55 GMT
|
I quickly read an article in classic car weekly today in the supermarket.The gist of it was that the FBHVC were as surprised as everyone else about the consultation. They knew it was coming,but were expecting to be informed in advance and were not in fact told.That probably explains why there is nothing in their newsletter about it. Surprised ? It's been on the cards for at least 18 months and in fact was meant to have happened in May of this years, talk about 'have your finger on the pulse'? THIS Consultation is the one ACE warned about with the Armegedon Scenario campaign . We KNEW it was coming and would be make or break for the future of ALL modified cars
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2016 18:57:32 GMT
|
So I would like to be better informed, how do I go about joining (or whatever) ACE? I'd never even heard of it till reading this thread and don't even know what the acronym stands for. But it's purposes seem to match my own opinions! Whilst I am not so sure that this consultation's primary purpose is a witch hunt on modified cars, I AM firmly against any further regulation and demonizing of my primary interest (and in part my job) and I would like to stand up and be counted! (I have, of course, already filled the form in and left my own set of scathing comments!)
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2016 21:14:51 GMT
|
Done I started out by following the examply above (brickie) but it was going to be too long (that's a tale for another time) Summary : Keep existing MOT as a safety check, remove all "mod-con" tests (ABS etc), reduce the cost of the "VHI safety check" as a result. The existing 8-point rule is ok (ish!), no other checks or additional "VHI certification" is needed. Fix the current 8-point system (removing outriggers / rear horns from a Scimitar chassis, pushing bulhead back to fit "economical" Zeta/V8 etc) BIVA - make it sensible! "highly modified" (engine swap + reshaped bulkhead ) then get tested using the standards from when it was first produced (not 2017 Eurocap safety), apply this to VHI & "moderns". Specifics: "If we use DVLA’s 8-point rule, how many VHIs might fail to prove they have not undergone substantial changes?"This question should be reversed - "how can it be shown that a VHI has undergone substantial changes" The existing 8-point system already meets this requirement. DVLA have for many years been inconsistent in applying their own rules (and DVLA guidelines have changed many times in the lifetime of a VHI). The results should not be assumed to be a result of "substantial vehicle changes" or attempt at VED fraud. Do you agree that an annual mileage limit should be imposed on VHIs exempted from testing?No See above - no VHI should be exempt from testing. VHIs covers a wide range of vehicles from 100+ year old (road legal) museum exhibits to "classic" vehicles still in regular use. Are there any other options you think we should consider in connection with testing exemptions for VHIs (including documentation)?High-profile organisations such as FBHVC represent owners of many significant historical vehicles, There are a vast number of more common (and less elderly) vehicles which have no such representation. These "regular use" vehicles need to be considered during the consultation.
|
|
Last Edit: Oct 20, 2016 21:21:03 GMT by nomad
|
|
steveg
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,565
|
|
Oct 20, 2016 23:54:53 GMT
|
Can I copy the above answers, gave me a headache looking at the form again ! I'm almost frightened now In case I make it worse. I'm sure I spotted something else where you could either answer yes or no, surely that would be good enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2016 10:48:52 GMT
|
Hi steveg - you're welcome to use any of my ideas above but I'd suggest you use your own words rather than just copy stuff (it shows it's your view - not just a copy & paste excercise). Most of the questions have yes/no answers also space to add a comment or explanation if you want to - I thought it was sensible to make use of the comment option when it's there.
|
|
|
|
stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,840
Club RR Member Number: 174
|
|
Oct 21, 2016 12:43:09 GMT
|
"If we use DVLA’s 8-point rule, how many VHIs might fail to prove they have not undergone substantial changes?"
I just went straight to the money with this I.e - the entire British historic/post historic rallying industry (which is substantial) would be wiped out overnight.
|
|
|
|
|