 |
|



|
News
You are visitor
number
since 16 November 2010
Updated
10:28 02 January 2012 |
|
ANTIFREEZE WARNING!
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).
DO NOT use OAT antifreeze
in old engines,
as it corrodes aluminium and damages gaskets and seals.
Only use IAT
antifreeze labelled as suitable
for classic cars. Ideally the
antifreeze should comply with BS 3150 Type A.
(Modified 25 May 2011.)
Derek Harris in
the UK (www.derekharris.com)
has researched this matter and has very kindly given the IVVCC
permission to reproduce an article that he has written on this
subject. The article is excellent, and I strongly advise you
to read it. You can find the article here:

Propylene glycol
antifreeze, which is safe for our cars AND for the environment AND
which has far fewer health hazards associated with it will be
available in the Spring of 2010. If you are interested in
purchasing some in bulk you can learn more at this link:
www.classiccoolant.com
(NOTE: The IVVCC is not endorsing the products you find on this
link.)
(Article started 6th
January 2010. Latest update 25 May 2011)
|
|
Read FIVA Turin Charter
draft here:

Give your feed back to FIVA
here:

(Added to Home page 17:42 29 March 2011.
Moved to this page 16:53 04 April 2011. JL) |
|
For information about ethanol in
petrol click here:-

(This topic was started in February 2010. JL) |
Thanks to Nick
Stratta, an IVVCC member, for this information. (Article
added 10:15 17th December 2010)
Beware
miracle additives —and especially chlorinated
paraffins
The article below was written by
John Rowland, Derby (industrial chemist).
Dave Pittuck came across the
publicity for a lubricant additive named Bitron,
for which some wonderful claims were being made, and he
asked me whether it was likely to of benefit to Morgan
owners. I told him not to touch it with a bargepole. At
about the same time I was contacted by a French
acquaintance who had put the additive Mecacyl in
the gearbox of his Citroen tintop and subsequently
discovered a great deal of internal corrosion.
Both these products are based on
chemicals known as chlorinated paraffins. We oil
industry types knew all about chlorinated paraffins
seventy years ago, and so did the motor industry. Bitron—in
common with many other ‘miracle’ additives—is based upon
this1930s technology. Chlorinated paraffins have
powerful anti-seize properties, so they were used in the
early ‘hypoid’ axle oils until less corrosive compounds
were synthesised. In the laboratory they give
spectacular results in seizure-test machines which look
very impressive, but they now only feature in the
cutting oils used for the heavy machining of tough
steels; there are no automotive applications for them.
In particular, they severely corrode copper-based
alloys. Those early hypoid gear lubricants which
contained chlorinated paraffins could only be used on
totally copper-free devices, hence warnings about using
them on the bronze wormwheels of Morgans. Chlorinated
compounds can also attack iron and steel at high
temperatures. (Easily reached around piston rings, for
example.)
As EP (extreme pressure) anti-seize
agents their mechanism of action is as follows: When two
steel surfaces (such as gear teeth) come into contact at
high pressure, tiny areas literally weld themselves
together. The welded contacts are ripped off the teeth
as they move apart; the common name for this process is
‘wear’! Chlorinated compounds decompose due to high
temperatures at points of high-pressure contact,
generating layers of soft ferric chloride, which prevent
welding. The trouble is that ferric chloride in the
presence of even tiny amounts of moisture breaks down to
produce hydrochloric acid, which eats into the steel to
produce more ferric chloride, which . . . etc etc! The
stuff attacks copper alloys at a ferocious rate, and the
resulting copper salts act as oxidation catalysts which
accelerate oil breakdown. Two vicious circles foe the
price of one! (Note that the electronics industry uses
ferric chloride solution to dissolve copper from printed
circuits. Metallurgists use it to etch stainless steel.)
Since around 1960, therefore, the
EP agents in gear oils have been safe and non-corrosive
sulphur/phosphorus compounds. Chlorinated paraffins have
never been used by any responsible manufacturer in
engine oils.
The chlorinated paraffins used in
industrial cutting oils are fairly stable, and they are
always used with an anti-corrosion additive, but they
are never used to cut copper alloys, and they are only
necessary for difficult jobs. The Health and Safety
warnings we have to issue are rather severe, and there
are moves to get rid of these compounds altogether.
Oddly enough, the correct warnings never appear on
‘magic additives’, and the distributors, when asked if
their products contain chlorinated compounds, say ‘no’
or ‘eh?’. One simple way to find out is to pour a drop
into water; if is sinks, it’s chlorinated. (Some of the
hydrogen atoms in paraffin are replaced by heavy
chlorine atoms, so the density almost doubles.) This
doesn’t always work if the stuff is diluted with
solvents, so try this one: (Perfectly safe for Morgan
drivers, skilled in all dark arts, but watch out if you
are a muggle.) Heat a bit of thick, clean copper wire to
red heat in a gas flame. Contrary to popular belief, the
flame will not turn green! Dip it in the suspect
fluid, then heat it up again. If chlorine is present,
the flame will turn green, due to the formation of
copper chloride. (Much cheaper than our infra-red
spectrophotometer!)
Incidentally, chlorinated paraffins
are also cheap—around £1 per kg in bulk—which means that
the purveyors of miracle lubricants are selling the
stuff at a mark-up of at least 1000%. The marketers
often don’t know what is in the bottle! They are at the
bottom of a ‘pyramid’ sales scam, and they can only
repeat the nonsense they have been told. Their publicity
implies ‘secret’ knowledge that the bona fide
lubricants industry is unaware of. Well! What a nerve!
|
|
Article added 09:52 16th November 2010
(reproduced courtesy of FIVA)

OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIALOGUE
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 and 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 explained 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 HVs
increases (which is likely in particular because of the development
of Intelligent Transport Systems and LEZs) there will be a
heightened need for a common definition to avoid problems/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.
Roadworthiness Testing – Commission considered consultation
responses
FIVA contributed to the European Commission’s consultation on a
possible amendment to the 1996 Roadworthiness Testing Directive in
September. 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 HVs 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. FIVA also made the
point that historic vehicles include all vehicles – i.e. motorcycles
and commercial vehicles as well as cars.
FIVA will meet with the European Commission before the end of the
year to explain further its views. FIVA hopes that the Commission
will recognise the need to maintain the special provisions for
historic vehicles and recognise the need to change the definition so
that it mirrors the FIVA definition.
|
Article added
28 Sep 2010.
New regulations came into
force on the 1st of September 2010 concerning the importation
and registration of vehicles.
S.I.
No. 400/2010 — Vehicle Registration and Taxation (Amendment)
Regulations 2010.
Click here to
open full document on Government website:
The IVVCC has examined these regulations and we are satisfied
that there is no apparent change in the law governing the importation of
older vehicles, although the identification of each vehicle and
its importer will now be better verified. The new
regulations enable the checking of imported vehicles to be
carried out by an approved private business (the NCT contractor)
instead of by Revenue. NCT test centres have suitable
facilities for examining vehicles. There is a charge for
the examination by the NCT, but we understand that this is credited against the VRT
due on the imported vehicle.
The IVVCC would be very
interested to hear from individuals who have experienced
problems importing pre-1985 vehicles under the new arrangement
(email jflarkin@eircom.net
). Below is a summary of how the new regulations affect
the private individual as interpreted by the IVVCC webmaster (in
other words, not an official legal interpretation).
The importing person must make an
appointment for a pre-registration examination with an NCT
office not later than 7 days after the arrival in the State of
the vehicle, and must register the vehicle to the satisfaction
of the Commissioners not later than 30 days after its arrival in
the State.
Where the vehicle is being
presented by a person other than the person in whose name the
vehicle is to be registered, a document is required authorising
the importer to register the vehicle on behalf of the other
person, and must be signed by that other person, and provide
such other particulars relating to that person as the Revenue
Commissioners consider necessary for the proper administration
of the tax. In respect of the person in whose name the vehicle
is to be registered the details required are:- the name of that
person as it appears on that person’s passport, driving licence
or such other document establishing that person's identity as
the Commissioners may specify; the address of that person as it
appears on a recent bank statement, utility bill or such other
document establishing that person’s address as the Commissioners
may specify; the PPSN (personal public service number) of that
person.
For the purposes of the
registration of a vehicle the NCT office shall require the
person presenting the vehicle for registration to sign a
document confirming the vehicle details, and such document shall
be retained by the NCT office.
In respect of the vehicle the
following details are required:- The vehicle identification
number; the make, model and variant; the number of doors,
seats and windows; the level of CO2 emissions; the vehicle
category by reference to the relevant EC type-approval
certificate or EC certificate of conformity; or any other
documentation specified by the Commissioners for the purposes of
confirming the categorisation of vehicles for the purposes of
Chapter IV of Part II of the Finance Act 1992, and such other
particulars, if any, relating to vehicles as the Commissioners
consider necessary for the proper administration of the tax.
|
|
ETHANOL IN PETROL ... something to be concerned about?
Click here for the legislation that mandated ethanol in petrol :

***********************************
This article is
reprinted courtesy of Zach Merrill of the FOOTHILLS BRITISH CAR
CLUB (http://www.fbccsc.org/)
and is dated February 2010
Living with a Tipsy
Classic
Or
Your LBC and Ethanol
In my
youth, my father ran a wrecker service. As a result of my exposure
to that sometimes-dreadful business, witnessing other people's
hard-learned lessons convinced me that mixing alcohol and
automobiles can lead to unfortunate consequences. That truism has
never been more true than it is today. Until recently, it was only
the operator who sometimes disastrously opted to imbibe. These days,
our legislative officials have seen fit to force alcohol on our
machinery as well.
It is very
difficult to avoid being forced to be a consumer of 10% ethanol
mixed with 90% gasoline. In ordinary operation in a modern vehicle,
other than a slight degradation in fuel economy, the evil brew
yields little to complain about. In vintage vehicles, small engines,
and marine craft, however, it can be another matter entirely. Modern
fuel injected vehicles with high-pressure fuel systems and
feedback-loop fuel management can generally burn 10% ethanol and be
content. The fuel system samples the O2 output in the exhaust,
richens the mixture a sniff and goes on about its day. Use 10%
“ethanol enhanced“ gasoline (hereafter referred to as E10) in a
carbureted engine with no O2 feedback, and the scenario likely won't
play out quite as well. Toss in the additional issue of an
atmospherically-ventilated fuel system combined with infrequent use,
and you have the making of a very unhappy experience. Even in the
best of circumstances, a vintage carbureted engine running on E10 is
compromised. If the fuel/air mixture had been optimized for
gasoline, it will be a sniff lean on E10. True enough, the mixture
can be recalibrated if someone knows how to do it and then actually
follows through. Expect to lose about 7%(ish) fuel economy though
and expect the engine to have some issues with hot weather
driveability, but it will generally run more or less OK.
There are some
real potential issues with attack of rubber polymers and there is a
risk of crud being dislodged and causing clogging. Still, most old
cars sorta-almost-nearly run OK most of the time on E10 if the
engine is operated regularly and the fuel is not allowed to age more
than a few weeks. Aging a really bad thing. I am reminded with each
look in the mirror, but even I age well compared to E10.
Ethanol has a
major affinity for moisture. Store E10 in a modern vehicle with a
sealed (not atmospherically vented) fuel system, and it still only
stays fresh about 12 weeks. Put E10 in your vintage classic with its
vented fuel system, and within a mere month, the fuel is no longer
fresh. Leave the fuel in the tank just a few months, and you are
facing disaster. The alcohol absorbs moisture from the air. The fuel
experiences phase change. The moisture laden alcohol separates from
the gas and settles to the bottom. It becomes highly corrosive. As
if that were not bad enough, the remaining gasoline has very poor
octane and the whole miserable concoction has a terrible tendency
toward oxidation. Good old-fashioned red Sta-bil helps retard the
oxidation, but it does not help with the moisture absorption and the
phase change issue. For emphasis, let me remind you this moisture
absorption happens because the alcohol sucks the moisture right out
of the air and this condition occurs readily if the fuel is
contained in a vented tank and/or fuel bowl (as is the case with
vintage cars, boats built prior to 1977, and most small engines.)
Until recently, I did not know of any off-the-shelf product that
solves the problem. Today, however, I discovered “Sta-bil Marine
Formula” for ethanol fuels. Finally, there is hope! I spoke with a
chemist at the company. I have been assured that if “Sta-bil Marine
Formula” is added properly to E10, the fuel will remain fresh for 12
months. The chemistry in the blue Sta-bil (not the red Sta-bil)
addresses both the oxidation issue and the moisture
absorption issue. The red stuff still works fine if the fuel is
stored in a sealed container...but such is not the case in the fuel
tank of most vintage cars. Be aware and be happy that there is now a
solution....but do nothing, and prepare to be sad.
Zach Merrill
Testing fuel for ethanol : The following test
can be performed to determine the presence of ethanol in gasoline.
On a test tube or olive bottle, make a permanent line about two
inches from the bottom. Fill with water to this line, then
fill the tube to the top with gasoline.
Cover the tube, agitate it then let it stand.
Ethanol mixes with water and the two will separate out together.
Therefore, after mixing the water and the gasoline, if the water
level appears to have increased, then the fuel contains ethanol and
should not be used.
Ethanol fuels can damage the rubber and aluminium components of your
vehicle's fuel system. Ethanol increases the volatility of fuel, and
hence the possibility of vapour lock also increases. Ethanol
may vent off at altitude, reducing both range and octane.
(Thanks to Petersen Aviation Inc, Minden, Nebraska.)
**************************************
Wikipedia information added 11:12 22
March 2011:- Fuel system problems. See also:
E85 in standard engines#Risks
. Fuels with more than 10% ethanol are not
compatible with non E85-ready fuel system components and may cause
corrosion of
iron
components.[193][194]
Ethanol fuel can negatively affect electric fuel pumps by increasing
internal wear,[194]
cause undesirable spark generation,[195]
and is not compatible with
capacitance
fuel level gauging indicators and may cause erroneous fuel quantity
indications in vehicles that employ that system.[196]
It is also not always compatible with marine craft, especially those
that use fiberglass fuel tanks.[197][198]
Ethanol is also not used in aircraft for these same reasons.
Using 100% ethanol fuel decreases fuel-economy by 15-30% over using
100% gasoline; this can be avoided using certain modifications that
would, however, render the engine inoperable on regular gasoline
without the addition of an adjustable
ECU.[199]
Tough materials are needed to accommodate a higher compression ratio
to make an ethanol engine as efficient as it would be on gasoline;
these would be similar to those used in diesel engines which
typically run at a CR of 20:1,[200]
vs. about 8-12:1 for gasoline engines.[201]
In April 2008 the German
environmental minister cancelled a proposed 10% ethanol fuel scheme
citing technical problems: too many older cars in
Germany are
unequipped to handle this fuel. Ethanol levels in fuel will remain
at 5%.[202]
********************
Added 13:37 22 March 2011
The following was sourced
from the website of the Irish Aviation
Authority at 13:34 on 22 March 2011:
http://www.iaa.ie/index.jsp?&1n=93&2n=139&p=141&n=185&a=493
7. Adverse
effects of using MOGAS containing
alcohol
7.1 - The probability of
vapour lock increases when ethanol is
mixed with fuel.
7.2 - Ethanol is
hygroscopic in nature and therefore it
will mix with water. This can be in
the form of water vapour from air or
condensation from inside tanks or free
water. Very small amounts of water can
be absorbed without significantly
affecting combustion, at higher levels
the mixture will not be combustible. In
addition, because this incombustible
fuel is formed from a mixture of the
ethanol in the fuel and the water it can
have a large volume - so a small amount
of water will result in a much larger
amount of incombustible ethanol/water
mix. This can lead to false readings in
the fuel tank sumps or exceed the volume
of the sump altogether.
7.3 - Ethanol is an
Octane booster and can be absorbed by
water. The mixing of fuel and water can
effectively wash the ethanol out of the
fuel resulting in a significant
reduction to the remaining fuel's Octane
rating.
7.4 - An engine will use
more fuel as the percentage of added
alcohol increases. An approximate
figure is that the engine must burn 3%
more fuel to give the same power output
if the fuel contains 10% ethanol.
7.5 - Ethanol mixed with
water is somewhat corrosive and may
attack parts of the fuel system. In
long-term storage, Ethanol may oxidise
with exposure to air. This process
produces a mild acid solution which can
attack fuel system fittings.
7.6 - Long term exposure
to ethanol damages some types of
plastics (elastomers), therefore items
such as flexible fuel lines are subject
to increased deterioration. Some of the
elastomers used in old aircraft models
and which are otherwise compatible with
Avgas may deteriorate on contact with
ethanol.
8. Carburettor
Icing: Carburettor icing is
more likely when using MOGAS because it
has a higher volatility (and possibly a
higher water content) than AVGAS.
********************** Added by JL 14:24 22 March 2011.
This is a list of manufacturers whose cars are E10 compatible. It is clear
that E10 compatibility did not really commence until the late 1990s, with many
not achieving that status until the mid-2000s. This
seems to exclude all of our cars.
|
Maker |
Compatibility with E10 |
|
BMW |
All |
|
BMW Mini |
All |
|
Rolls Royce |
2003 onwards |
|
Mercedes Benz |
2002 onwards |
|
All fuel-injected vehicles not equipped with three-way catalysts. |
|
Smart |
All |
|
Alfa Romeo |
2005 onwards |
|
Fiat |
2000 onwards, with several exceptions |
|
Ford |
1992 onwards except for Mondeo SCI CD 132 until 2006. |
|
Jaguar |
1992 onwards |
|
Land Rover |
1996 onwards |
|
Opel |
Information vague. |
|
Porsche |
1998 onwards. |
|
Peugeot |
2000 onwards. |
|
Renault |
1997 onwards with exceptions. |
|
Toyota |
1998 onwards with exceptions. |
|
VW |
2000 onwards with exceptions. |
|
Audi |
1992 onwards with exceptions. |
|
Seat |
1999 onwards with exceptions. |
|
Skoda |
Generally not suitable. |
|
Volvo |
1996 onwards, except for S/V40 model with 1.8L engine. |
|
Saab |
Mid 1980s onwards. |
|
Daihatsu |
2008 onwards |
|
Honda |
Information vague. |
|
Nissan |
2000 onwards |
|
Mazda |
2002 onwards |
|
Mitsubishi |
Information vague. |
|
Subaru |
1991/1994 onwards |
|
Suzuki |
Information vague. |
********************* 5%
ethanol in petrol increases fuel consumption by 2%. 10% ethanol increases
fuel consumption by 4%, and 20% ethanol by 9%.
(Ethanol energy content is 26.8MJ/kg. Petrol energy content is
44.4MJ/kg. Source: Wikipedia). (JL added 17:19
22 March 2011.)
|
|
ANTIFREEZE WARNING!
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.

|
|
|
| |
|
Refer to the Archived articles page for
articles that previously appeared here. |
|
|
|
PAINT FOR
HISTORIC CARS
The following
information has been transcribed from the Official Journal of
the European Union dated 30th April 2004, pages L 143/88 and
89 as a public information service to all old car enthusiasts:-
DIRECTIVE 2004/42/CE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of
emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of
organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle
refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC.
Recital (11): Member States
should be able to grant individual licences for the sale and
purchase for specific purposes of products in strictly limited
quantities which do not comply with the solvent limit values
established by this Directive.
and
Article 3.3:
For the purposes of restoration and maintenance
of buildings and vintage vehicles designated by competent
authorities as being of particular historical and cultural
value, Member States may grant individual licences for the sale
and purchase in strictly limited quantities of products which do
not meet the VOC limit values laid down in Annex II.
|
|
|
|
|
© IVVCC 2012. All rights reserved. |
|
|