Home | Events | News | Gallery | Affiliated Clubs | For Sale| Membership| Contact Us

   News      

You are visitor number since 08.16 05 August 2009

                                        Updated 17:21  24 December 2009

Please be aware of the risks associated with antifreeze ---  over the last few years manufacturers have changed from inorganic additive technology (IAT) to organic acid technology (OAT). This later type of antifreeze is generally unsuitable for historic cars, resulting in severe corrosion of aluminium components.   Look for antifreeze that is BS 3150 Type A. (24 December 2009)

TYRES --- A WARNING!

The following article is reproduced courtesy of FBHVC (Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs), Newsletter 04-07.   This is is a much-overlooked item of safety --- even by drivers who are fastidious about high standards.  Many are not aware that tyres degrade with time and become unsafe; note the recommendation in red below.  The FBHVC are to be commended for highlighting this issue. (Thanks also to Noel Doyle for bring attention to this article.)

Her Majesty’s Coroner for Manchester wrote to FBHVC just after the last newsletter went to press and many will have seen this topic on our (FBHVC) website - it is an important matter and we urge clubs to pass the warning on to their membership if they have not already done so.

The letter concerned an accident that took place last year in which the driver of an H registered MG B lost his life when a rear tyre burst on the M56. The driver was a skilled mechanic and a careful and experienced driver who was not travelling particularly fast at the time. The car was described by police as being maintained in excellent condition. The surviving passenger said that just before the accident the driver had commented that a ‘tyre wobble’ had developed and he was going to ‘drive through it’. The wobble went briefly, but then the tyre burst, causing the car to spin, clip a kerb and flip over.

Subsequent investigation showed that although hardly used the tyre was 25 years old. It was one of a set of as-new tyres and wheels bought at an autojumble the previous year for use for show purposes (at the time of the incident the car was on its way to an event at Oulton Park).

This note appeared in the Newsletter for December 2003 following a suggestion that tyre dating may become a feature of the MoT: …the Vehicle Standards and Engineering Division at the Department for Transport [has advised us] that although most tyres already carry dates of manufacture in their side-walls, there are no plans to implement regulations to check such dates at the annual MoT test. DfT would, of course, change their mind if tyre failure due to age became a significant cause of accidents.

The British Rubber Manufacturers Association suggests that if a tyre is six years old and remains unused it should not be put into service. It also suggests that in ideal conditions tyres may have a life expectancy of 10 years.

The moral of the story is not to wait for legislation, but to make sure your own tyres are in good condition, never to use undated or obviously old second hand tyres however good the tread and never to ignore a ‘tyre wobble’.

The webmaster found the following helpful information published by the Vredestein tyre company:-

The sidewall of the tyre carries a code from which the production date can be derived.  Since January 1st 2000 the production date is made up of 4 numerals, for instance

 DOT 9D YE 2406
means that the tyre was made in the 24th week of 2006

From 1990 to 1999 these were 3 numerals with a triangle, for instance    4583

which in this example means that the tyre was made in the 45th week of 1998. If there is no triangle behind the three numerals, the tyres were made prior to 1990.  Please check your tyres and if they are more than six years old you should consider replacing them with new tyres.  Driving on tyres more than ten years old may expose a driver to liability for using unsafe components on his vehicle.

Child restraints -- one person's private opinion versus sloppy legislation.

The webmaster, John Larkin, acting in his private capacity has been in correspondence with the Department of Transport since 2006 concerning seatbelts and child restraints in historic cars.  The correspondence was prompted by the dangers created by the use of child "safety" devices that raised the child above the installed seat level in open-topped cars exposing more of the child's torso above the waist level of the car.  I have copied the Minister's long-awaited reply below.

Bear in mind that you do not need to use child restraints/boosters unless seat belts are installed.

I explained to the Minister for Transport that a responsible and safety-conscious driver could reasonably consider that a child would be more safely transported in an historic car where seatbelts have been retro-fitted while restrained only by the belts and not in conjunction with a booster seat or similar, but that the legislation made it an offence to omit the booster seat.   I asked the Minister to exempt this type of case from the legislation, but he has confirmed that it will remain a requirement, and thus an offence not to comply.

This creates the bizarre situation where if, out of a desire to aim for high standards of safety, you have fitted seatbelts to your historic car which was never required by law to have seatbelts fitted you will be committing an offence by not using child booster seats even if you consider them unsafe in your particular vehicle.  However, if you remove your seatbelts completely from your car and allow your child passengers to be thrown about unrestrained in a collision then that's perfectly OK --- you won't be breaking the law!  I will rely on the prudence and common sense of the courts to assess the reasonableness and sense of my thinking as a caring father and as an informed person if I am ever charged with an offence under this piece of sloppy legislation.  The Minister recognises the sense of using an adult seatbelt to restrain a child without a booster in one circumstance in the main paragraph of his letter, but fails to understand that a responsible, informed and safety-conscious driver should also be permitted to exercise such a discretion without being forced to weigh it up against the prospect of prosecution.

You may also see in the letter that the Minister states that children may only be carried in the rear seats of cars not fitted with seatbelts.  What about two-seater cars?   In 1978 when compulsory wearing of seatbelts was first proposed I was driving a two-seater car (which I still have and use).  I wrote to the Minister at that time and explained that I regularly drove my then ten year-old brother to school lawfully in my two-seater car, but that the proposed legislation would make it illegal to carry him in the front  (and only) passenger seat in my car.  Cheekily I asked the Minister to confirm that I should instead carry him strapped to the car's roof rack in order not to be breaking the law as proposed.  The Minister of the time subsequently, and sensibly, exempted two-seater cars from the particular requirement.  The present Minister appears to have been badly advised by his staff if the fourth sentence of the third paragraph of his letter is meant to be understood as prohibiting children from being carried in the front seat of two-seater cars.   Whither common sense?

These opinions expressed above are not the opinions of the IVVCC; they are the personal opinions of the webmaster John Larkin.  This website is merely the forum on which this matter of public interest has been made known.

© IVVCC 2010. All rights reserved.