Historic definition to be redefined in Europe.

[aceadvice]

FBHVC( who represent British Historic vehicles ) is part of FIVA.

FIVA want ( and will get ) their rules as to what is a Classic adopted throughout Europe.

FIVA do not allow daily driven cars to be classified Classics . FBHVC cut lose daily driven Classics over 2/3 years back so will not support those who do.

Most of Europe have restrictions of road use for Historic Vehicles .

FBHVC gave both our Government and EC a huge dossier saying Classics only do 1500 KM a year.

I know what I see when I put it all together ...opinions may vary.

EU LEGISLATION
(Extract from FIVA’s regular update provided by its lobbying service, EPPA) Second meeting of the European Parliament Historic Vehicle Group
The second meeting of the European Parliament’s Historic Vehicle Group took place on 19 October in Strasbourg. During the meeting Horst Brüning, FIVA’s president and FBHVC’s Andrew Burt gave a presentation about the definition of a historic vehicle. They explained that a wide range of definitions are currently used in both EU and national laws and that ideally one common definition would be recognised by decision makers and in law. They then detailed the FIVA definition, explained its rationale and the importance of a definition allowing regulatory audiences to understand why historic vehicles should be treated differently to all other vehicles, especially to all other ‘older’ vehicles. Horst Brüning and Andrew Burt explained that the existing variety of definitions has not created any major practical problems to date, but that as legislation with exemptions for historic vehicles increases (which is likely because of the development of Intelligent Transport Systems and LEZs) there will be a heightened need for a common definition to avoid problems and make life simpler for owners, regulators and law enforcers in the future. They therefore urged the MEPs to help FIVA to promote and achieve a common definition for future use in EU legislation. The MEPs expressed their surprise at the current situation and agreed that they would aim to help FIVA in its objective."



taken from

http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/2010/12/13/newsletter-no-6-2010/


Basically this means that FIVA definition is going to become the definition of Historic vehicles across the EU which brings in their definition of 'Period modifications only ' and 'Not daily driven' as shown in tech definition below

http://www.fiva.org/EN/Downloads/Techni ... 012010.pdf

Link to FBHVC article declaring Classisc only do 1500km per year

http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/files/2008/12/fiva-report.pdf


British version

http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/files/2008/12/fi ... ersion.pdf




__________________

[the-green-monkey]

That is totally ridiculous

[youngcamper]

Had to check if it was April 1st .

This is insane, the status of Classic isn't obtained or lost due to the amount of miles driven or the regularity of them. Its down to the age of the car.

[Sidney'61]

So aswell as causing trouble for those in regular use would this not mean that many events such as MOT, MOT-UK, JOGLE would have to be cancelled as these may take up most of if not more than the allowed mileage?

[cadetchris]

utter tosh, how can some eu nut suddenly decide this?

[LouiseM]

Perhaps it’s just me but my interpretation of the situation is somewhat different to aceadvice’s.

The FBVC carried out a survey in 2006 and one of the results was: 71% of all historic vehicles travelled no more than 1500 kilometres in the year of the survey.

However the survey results don’t actually appear connected in any way to the FIVA definition of an historic vehicle which is:

a mechanically propelled road vehicle
· which is at least 30 years old;
· which is preserved and maintained in a historically correct condition;
· which is not used as means of daily transport;
· and which is therefore a part of our technical and cultural heritage.

In certain European member states historic vehicles are treated differently to other vehicles:

The existing Directive allows Member States to treat historic vehicles differently to other vehicles in their national testing regimes. However, the definition of a historic vehicle in the existing Directive is not satisfactory as it is: ‘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’. In its submission FIVA has therefore said that this definition should be changed to reflect the FIVA definition. FIVA also explained that there is likely to be an increasing need for historic vehicles be to treated differently as testing will increasingly rely on highly sensitive automated machines. This lack of human intervention and reliance on equipment designed for modern vehicles may well lead to historic vehicles unfairly and unnecessarily failing tests. Hence the need for historic vehicles - appropriated defined - be allowed to be treated differently to modern vehicles.

So it seems to me that the FBHVC want to change the definition to assist owners of historic vehicles in certain member states.

As far as I can see from their website, FBHVC don’t have a definition of ‘classic vehicle’. I don’t see how the proposed definition change of 'historic vehicle' is going to have an effect on the vast majority of Minor owners Unlike some member states, the UK does not have a separate MOT test for historic vehicles, and historic vehicles aren't treated any differently to other vehicles. Currently, if you own a Minor in one of the member states which treats historic vehicles differently, and it was built before 1 January 1960, and you never or rarely use it on the roads, then it is deemed to be a 'historic' vehicle. If your Minor doesn't fall within that category it is treated no differently to any other vehicle. If your Minor does fall within the 'historic' vehicle category, FBHVC is trying to get the definition changed to make it less restrictive. Surely it would be better for vehicle owners in Europe for their vehicle to be defined as 'historic' if not used daily and over 30 years old, rather than built before 1 January 1960 and never or hardly ever used on public highways? I imagine that this would increase 'historic' vehicle use rather than restrict it.

Perhaps I've missed something but I don't see this as something that I need to be unduly alarmed about, or something that will restrict my mileage in any way should I wish to take my Minor abroad.

[simmitc]

As I use all my Minors as daily drivers, and own nothing but Minors, I am extremely concerned by the attempt to introduce the "not used for daily driving" restriction. This must be fought hard. It simply underlines that the quicker we get out of the EU the better!

[chrisryder]

If they were changing the rules, i can't see how many miles you do mattering. If you do more than 1500 miles a year, rather than saying 'no you've done too many miles, stay at home' they could say 'ok it's on the road a lot, we need to make sure your car is completely road worthy' this may just mean a slightly stricter MOT which i would welcome if it meant that the older cars on our roads are safer. The guy who mot's my minor hardly looks at it (which may have its advantages) but i worry that he could have missed something, or takes the same approach to other vehicles, which means others or myself are in danger.

new rules won't get me out of my minor and into some modern box, and i can't imagine many others will either, we'll just have to jump through the hoops they set up.

[LouiseM]

As I use all my Minors as daily drivers, and own nothing but Minors, I am extremely concerned by the attempt to introduce the "not used for daily driving" restriction. This must be fought hard. It simply underlines that the quicker we get out of the EU the better!

As I say, I might be missing something, but as you use your Minors daily they wouldn't meet the definition of 'historic' vehicles -either now or under the new proposals - so how would you be restricted by the proposed change? Anyone owning a vehicle that currently meets the EU directive definition of ‘historic’ would be able to drive more miles under the proposed definition change, not less. You might be subject to different testing if your Minor didn't meet the definition of 'historic vehicle' but your mileage wouldn't be restricted as it would be treated the same as every other car on the road.

[aceadvice]

Unfortunately that is not the case . We currently have two classes of taxation, PLG and Historic. You have no choice about being put into Historic. If it is in Historic then the rules listed at teh start will apply. If you do not comply by being a regular user you woud not be accepted for Historic so where is your vehicle then as there is currently no opt out position ? Therefore it follows that your mileage WILL be restricted by some method to make you comply with FIVAs proposals.

[Alec]

Hello all,

the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs is supported by many Classic Car owners club. We need members to talk to the respective owners clubs to get them to bring up this aspect of proposed legislation with which we are unhappy about. I don't know where the milage estimate came from? Is it from a survey (I know the FBHVC did a survey of it's members about their Classics) and is a true average and also does this necessarily mean it will be used as a restriction on mileage?

Personally I feel that the sooner we get out of Europe the better, but somehow I don't see this happening?

Alec

[LouiseM]

Unfortunately that is not the case . We currently have two classes of taxation, PLG and Historic. You have no choice about being put into Historic. If it is in Historic then the rules listed at teh start will apply. If you do not comply by being a regular user you woud not be accepted for Historic so where is your vehicle then as there is currently no opt out position ? Therefore it follows that your mileage WILL be restricted by some method to make you comply with FIVAs proposals.

But the change in the definition of 'historic' relates to the current definition with regards to road testing in certain EU member states, not road tax. Road taxation classes are a completely different matter and are set by individual Governments, not car clubs. I can't find anything to suggest that changes to the current UK historic road tax class are being considered, or even under discussion, or that in future all EU states will be required to have the same classes of road taxation.

the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs is supported by many Classic Car owners club. We need members to talk to the respective owners clubs to get them to bring up this aspect of proposed legislation with which we are unhappy about.

The MMOC is a member of FHBVC so the Club is represented at meetings etc. Details of relevant FHBVC issues have previously been posted in Minor Matters and feedback from the recent FHBVC AGM were provided at the MMOC AGM in October. There was no mention of any plans to press for a change in the definition of 'historic' in relation to road taxation classes.

[aceadvice]

By virtue of the fact that the FIVA definition of Historic would pass into Statute that would become the definition by which VEL , and any laws governing Historic Status ( such as possible restictions on Emmission Zone cities as has already been seen in Germany )was defined. How many MM owners use their car on a regular basis yet FBHVC has already stated publically that they are unable to support the rights of those that do ?

[simmitc]

"The thin end of the wedge". The devious ways in which the Bureaucrats work. As pointed out above, it will be almost inevitable that the FIVA definition, once enshrined in law, will be adopted in the UK. This will immediately prevent the free movement of Minors on our roads, or have a serious financial impact on owners. There should be no difference in MOT standards for safety critical things like structure, steering, tyres, brakes, and most lights. Where there is a difference in MOT standards it is with things like emissions. Standards should vary solely on date of manufacture, not by grouping all vehicles from circa 1900 to 1980 in one class that is restricted in its use. Those who do not see a problem with this proposal do not realise the very real threat that it poses to our enjoyment of our vehicles.

[chrisd87]

There is absolutely no need for a common definition of a classic vehicle throughout Europe, and particularly not one that applies to the UK. If their argument is that most classic vehicles do only a small annual mileage then they're far less likely to cross borders (particularly UK classics), which means there is no reason why national regulations aren't perfectly satisfactory. If it means I can't drive my UK-registered classic into a few city centres on the continent, then I think I can live with that! This rather reeks of a pointless attempt at a power-grab (yet again) by EU officials.

[aceadvice]

More info at


http://www.the-ace.org.uk/fiva-definiti ... he-eu.html

[LouiseM]

This rather reeks of a pointless attempt at a power-grab (yet again) by EU officials.

But FIVA have submitted the proposals, not 'EU officials'

it will be almost inevitable that the FIVA definition, once enshrined in law, will be adopted in the UK. This will immediately prevent the free movement of Minors on our roads, or have a serious financial impact on owners. Those who do not see a problem with this proposal do not realise the very real threat that it poses to our enjoyment of our vehicles.

If FIVA were proposing that all historic vehicles were restricted to 1,500 kms per year mileage, and existing legislation should be changed to include the new definition, then it might be a matter for concern, but they’re not. They are simply proposing that a common definition of ‘historic vehicle’ be standardised across Europe in respect of any future legislation. Such a definition could not be applied retrospectively to existing legislation.

There seem to be a lot of assumptions going on about how the proposal would impact on current UK road tax and MOT testing legislation but I don’t see any actual substance to support the suggestion that it would result in mileage restrictions or financial penalties being imposed on Morris Minor owners. And there's not much point in speculating on how a change in definition might impact on future legislation which isn't actually in existence, hasn't been proposed and isn't even under consideration. It could result in 'scare mongering' stories and cause unecessary concern to historic vehicle owners

In respect of the UK historic road tax exemption, this was introduced on the assumption that the majority of ‘older’ cars have a lower annual mileage than ‘newer’ cars. The 2006 FHBVC survey supports that assumption, but also supports the assumption that almost 30% of ‘heritage’ vehicles travel more than 15,000 kms per year. The Government were no doubt well aware when they introduced the historic road tax exemption that not all ‘historic’ vehicles had low annual mileage. However to introduce road taxation based on mileage rather than the age of a vehicle would be extremely costly, if not unworkable, as the mileage from two consecutive MOT’s would need to be checked against the corresponding exempt vehicle records. Far simpler to legislate based on the age of the vehicle, which is what actually happened. As far as I am aware, the UK is the only EU member state that has a road tax exemption in place for historic vehicles. Most EU states do not even have road tax so there would be no reason at all for the EU to introduce legislation to impose mileage related road tax exemptions for historic vehicles. Such legislation would mean that all EU member states would need to align themselves with the UK and introduce historic road tax exemption across Europe. Is that really likely? And is it likely that the UK would change existing historic road tax exemption to a more costly system if it was not a legal necessity? If a mileage based system of historic road taxation was a better option than vehicle age based taxation it would have been introduced here years ago!

In respect of MOT testing, as far as I can establish no EU member state has different testing arrangements based on the mileage of a vehicle, just the age of a vehicle. So again, why would the EU bring in legislation across all member states to impose road testing based on vehicle mileage? Neither the existing EU definition of ‘historic’ or the proposed FIVA definition refer to any specific mileage restrictions. The FIVA definition refers to a vehicle not being used as a daily means of transport but how on earth would an MOT tester know if your car had been driven daily or not? It is quite possible to drive daily and travel less than 1,500 kms per year, just as it is possible not to drive your car daily and still travel more than 1,500 kms per year.

FIVA is essentially a lobbying organisation and their definition of ‘historic vehicle’ was primarily introduced for political lobbying purposes:

This definition is important for a number of reasons, but mostly for political lobbying purposes. For example, the EU Commission have given indications that while they are happy to consider legislative exemptions for a reasonably small number of vehicles, used for relatively low mileages, they would become concerned if the number of vehicles or the mileage they covered grew too large. It is hoped that by lifting the defined age to 30 and excluding vehicles used for daily transport, this will be avoided.The new definition will be officially effective for FIVA in 2010, but it will start to be used for some purposes immediately. Its adoption by FIVA does not mean that individual countries will use it for all purposes.

Simply changing a definition does not change legislation - that is not how UK or EU legislation works. And changing the definition of 'historic vehicle' does not mean that the definition of 'historic vehicle' contained within existing legislation will change. Any changes would require legislation. It's a bit like those headlines you see in certain national newspapers along the lines of ‘Faceless Eurocrats are going to force us to eat brussels sprouts!’. But when you actually start looking at the substance behind the claims it transpires that an EU health organisation has simply produced a report highlighting the benefits of sprouts and suggested that everyone should eat more of them. There is no actual legislation or directive in place stating that all occupants of all EU member states must eat more brussels sprouts, nor is there any evidence to show that such legislation will be considered or even proposed

So whilst I’ll be keeping an eye on developments regarding the FIVA proposal I’m not going to start to panic just yet!

[bmcecosse]

" an EU health organisation has simply produced a report highlighting the benefits of sprouts and suggested that everyone should eat more of them. There is no actual legislation or directive in place stating that all occupants of all EU member states must eat more brussels sprouts, nor is there any evidence to show that such legislation will be considered or even proposed "

And so we should!

[aceadvice]

Old info but the best I could find at short notice

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=5979

Some member States already have restrictions on Historic vehicle usage ( Germany , Farnce and Austrai for certain) Monitored by having to apply in advance for a travel permit by the shortest route theer and back.

Also the FIVA 'passort' is issued to allow Historic vehicles exemption to enter Low Emmission Zones. A tighter definition of Historic ( than we already have ) MAY lead to many unforeseen chnages. The issue is not some much what changes are being proposed but that ANY changes to our current system are being proposed.

[chrisd87]

Louise, I appreciate this is coming from FIVA but it's in response to demands (in one form or another) from the EU / EU 'lawmakers'.

They are simply proposing that a common definition of ‘historic vehicle’ be standardised across Europe in respect of any future legislation.

One has to ask why? There is no need whatsoever for a standardised definition of 'historic vehicle' across Europe. There is no need for any legislation relating to historic vehicles at all across Europe, since most will never (or very seldom) leave their own countries. It has almost no importance in terms of creating a 'single market', as we're talking about things that have already been produced and sold many years ago. Hence why I think this is a power grab.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that we're about to see a 1,500km and no-daily-use restriction imposed upon us here in the immediate future, but if that is adopted as the basis for historic vehicle legislation at European level then we shouldn't be at all surprised if it doesn't start to crop up in UK legislation sooner or later. Experience dictates that it's wise to watch what principles are being adopted at an early stage with this sort of thing. Therefore it's not at all 'scaremongering' to think of the consequences should such restrictions begin to be imposed. To dismiss that there are plenty of people who would like to see the use of older vehicles limited to high-days and holidays (particularly in continental countries without such a vibrant classic car 'scene') seems complacent.

On the final point, if this is a political lobbying tool then FIVA/FBHVC are stunningly bad at negotiation! They've almost given everything away before the arguments have even begun. Much better would be to argue completely against the introduction of any restrictions that might impinge on the use of older vehicles, rather than accept restrictions and have to seek exemptions which necessitate divisive definitions like this.