October 2025

by Robin Astle.

From HISTORIC, the FBHVC magazine Issue 7

Legislation – Lindsay Irvine

You’ve raised almost £250,000 through Drive-it Day

The results of this April’s Drive-it Day have been counted and this year we raised £37,580, with more plates sold than in previous years. It’s very close to what we raised in 2024, despite increased postal charges (we didn’t increase the price of the plates).

Significantly, over the six years of our partnership with NSPCC, you’ve raised a total of £245,350, which all goes towards running Childline. The vital 24/7 service offers free, confidential advice and support for young people, via online and the phone.

It’s not quite a quarter-of-a-million Pounds – but within touching distance – of this landmark figure and well worth celebrating. Especially as this year marked the 20th anniversary of ‘Drive-it Day’ (and ‘Ride-it Day for motorcyclists).

So, a hearty and very deserved ‘thank you’ to everyone – individuals, clubs and many others - who have supported Drive-it Day’s fundraising by buying a ‘rally plate’.

Next year’s Drive-it Day is on Sunday 26 April 2026, and dates until 2030 have already been set. To find out more about the event and its intriguing history, have a read here: www.fbhvc.co.uk/drive-it-day

Legislation – Lindsay Irvine

Introduction

I hope that between the thunderstorms you have enjoyed a generally warm and sunny summer season and exercised your HV to your heart’s content. My columns have been longer of late and this is no exception! I hope that you appreciate that I have spent my sunny days on legislation issues which may affect our community. You will note that on that latter front, I have notification of the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Call for Evidence on the implementation of parts of the Automated Vehicles Act 2024.

On overseas HV issues relevant to ourselves, I cover the recent update to Spanish Regulations on HVs and the French Assembly’s decision to repeal laws which empower cities in the French Republic to establish clean air Zones (Crit Air).

AUTOMATED VEHICLES CALL FOR EVIDENCE

In what I am sure was pure happenstance, the Government’s latest push on vehicle automation in the form of a fresh Call for Evidence (www.gov.uk) came out shortly after some defenceless driverless taxis were torched in riots in Los Angeles. These were extreme events that their AI bots had not been programmed to deal with!

In various guises, automated vehicles is a topic I have covered in this journal over the past few years. A transport minister in the previous government was inspired to consult the public in 2020 on the launch of cars fitted with Automated Lane Keeping Systems (ALKS); these would allow suitably equipped vehicles (cars only initially) to be driven hands-off on motorways at speeds up to 36 mph. You will find our response to that consultation on our website and the topic covered here (fbhvc.co.uk). A launch date of 2021-22 has come and gone, the concept having proved more difficult to implement or perhaps sell, than anticipated. However, in the same period, the legal framework to prepare for a driverless future was examined exhaustively by the Law Commission with their final report forming the basis for the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 (AV Act) now on the statute books. In accordance with the Law Commission recommendations, the Act sets out, inter alia, legal liabilities and responsibilities related to driverless cars and what standard of driving an automated system should achieve (by reference to the standard that a human driver needs to achieve to be in line with the law).

Spurred on by some home-grown driverless bus and “closed circuit” trials, now completed, and with various specifically US experiences to examine, this government wants to move more rapidly to the stage beyond ALKS (which still involved a driver ready to resume control) and start to implement the AV Act provisions albeit in stages. Akin to the US experience, the first stage is essentially the introduction of automated taxis (automated passenger services (APS)) through the passing of appropriate regulations. As the government publicity puts it:

“This will provide businesses with the regulatory confidence to invest in testing and deploying these innovative services on our streets, reinforcing the UK’s position among the world leaders in tech deployment. It will help facilitate commercial pilots of services with paying passengers and no safety driver to be deployed from spring 2026.”

“Private” driverless vehicles are much further down the line. Having a licenced body (termed an “authorised self-driving entity (ASDE)” deploying the vehicle and a separate entity (No User in Charge (NUIC)) operating the vehicle, is intended to give the government and the public an additional level of confidence in the safety of the vehicle until operating experience develops. Again, this follows the US model.

As a first step, the AV Act requires the Transport Secretary to prepare a Statement of Safety Principles (SoSP) which will be applied to the pre-deployment phase, the in-service phase to ensure regulatory compliance, and during annual assessments to check on overall performance. The call for evidence is to ask contributors to provide views to support the Government’s understanding of how the safety principles might be used, the safety standard might be described and the safety performance can be measured; see link (www.gov.uk). Should you wish to have a view, by the time you read this article you should have a couple of weeks to respond.

There are over 40 questions in the call for evidence which the Legislation Committee is currently considering. However, the fundamental issue for the Secretary of State to resolve is the philosophical and jurisprudential (smart word for legal) question of establishing what standard of safety is to be demanded from our AI driver. The Law Commission had stated in their report that this was primarily a political decision but the SoSP must secure “a level of safety equivalent to, or higher than, that of careful and competent human drivers”. This standard ultimately reflects that the Law Commission had been faced with a lack of public consensus on the safety standard to be reached. Some were content that the system need only achieve that of the careful and competent driver as this presupposes that the AI machine will never tire, be distracted or intoxicated which are major causes of accidents. Others thought that the automated vehicle should be subject to a much higher standard in order to be acceptable. The latter is problematic in that if too high a standard is set, it would be very difficult to deploy the system at all.

Connected with the above there are many questions of a technical nature to be considered which are better answered by specialist Road Safety organisations who have greater experience in the production and analysis of statistical data, specifically that related to road traffic. Our aim in responding to this Call is to ensure the following:

1. The safe interaction of driverless vehicles and historic vehicles (all shapes and sizes) and
2. The continued freedom of HVs to operate without restriction.

In relation to a. above, you will see from our response to previous consultations on automated vehicles that we required that such vehicle systems had sensors which were able to recognise and respond to HVs, some of which, in contrast to their more modern brethren, may be small, slow and constructed of non-metal materials and indeed cloth covered. In relation to b. this is a new concern which did not arise in relation to ALKS given its limited sphere of operation. We wish to discourage any consideration in the implementation of the new system of a form of segregation of HV and other human controlled vehicles from AVs with the aim of providing an extra level of safety.

Whether it be within the Government’s intended timescale or not, we are going to see the appearance of driverless taxis at some stage on the roads. This should not affect our freedoms, and we will be alert to ensure that is the case.

Fertilior seges est alenis semper in agris

At a recent Federation Board meeting, our Chairman mentioned recent changes to vehicle classification regulations in Spain with the aim of encouraging the preservation of more historic vehicles in Spain where, by international standards, numbers were regarded as low. I examined the documents he had retrieved from a conference he had attended and confirmed the impressive improvements being instituted. In particular the cost of registering an HV would be considerably reduced, road worthiness testing would be less onerous than that for younger vehicles, and there would be no requirement to change the original number plate for a “new” historic one. Although there would be slightly different requirements for vehicles already registered in Spain compared with imported HVs, advocates for a change of definition of an HV in the UK will be enthused by the 30+ years qualification in accordance with the FIVA definition.

Regular readers will know the Federation’s position on the UK definition. We accept the international position and would like it to be adopted here but accept that it cannot be a priority. For detailed discussions see my columns in Issue 2 of the 2023 FBHVC News and Issue 2 of 2024 of Historic. Apart from the broader economic arguments about extending the net, a major issue for government is that in greatly increasing the numbers of younger HVs, the more likely they would be used for regular commuting and not as historic artefacts. An often overlooked section of the FIVA definition of an HV is the phrase “which is not used as a means of daily transport” i.e. the quid pro quo for the 30 year definition. Thus, in Spain, the quid pro quo for the more favourable rules is that you can only use your HV for 96 days in the year, effectively preventing their use for normal business. Other countries such as Greece limit the use of HVs to attendance at shows and events.

Although 40 years must pass in the UK before a vehicle can be registered as historic, there are no legal limitations or restrictions on use. I note that the Spanish media recognise that enforcement of the restrictions on use are likely to be hard to police outside urban areas which have CCTV. In the UK, which is plastered with ANPR, you may agree that a relaxed position if restrictions were brought in would be unlikely!

Hence whilst the new Spanish regulations look enviable perhaps a closer look conforms more closely to my Latin homily for this edition - Fertilior seges est alenis semper in agris loosely translated as “the Grass is greener on the other side” or “be careful what you wish for!”

Crit Air

The French Crit'Air air quality certificate will be a familiar concept to many readers. The Initiative, akin to our CAZ and LEZ, started in 2017 and was adopted by a growing list of French towns and cities. Until recently the schemes which required owners to purchase stickers with colours varying according to the emissions standard were generally enforced in the old-fashioned way; wardens or officials reading the stickers on parked cars. Camera enforcement has gradually been rolled out. The problem for many HV owners, particularly those from the UK, was that their vehicles did not qualify for any of the stickers and the HV exemptions did not apply uniformly throughout France. It was also not crystal clear whether “foreign” i.e. UK vehicles qualified for the exemption, success probably being dependent on the positive attitude of a local official.

In a surprising move, the French National Assembly has voted to repeal the Crit Air provisions https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mrpl2208no which were widely unpopular, especially as they had spread beyond what were regarded as the most polluted areas in Paris and Lyon. However, please be aware that the zones persist, for now, as the potential change in the law has to pass through other constitutional processes before any action is seen on the ground. Sois patient!

Fuels – Nigel Elliott

I attended Wiscombe Hillclimb on the weekend of 27/28 July to watch a round of the British Hillclimb Championship where a competitor friend of mine experienced a fuel contamination issue with Super Unleaded Petrol purchased from a major retailer. The heavily turbocharged racecar experienced a bad misfire and lack of power. After the usual ignition system checks, attention moved to the fuel system where the small aluminium competition fuel tank was drained into the only available clear receptacles, empty and dry lemonade bottles! The fuel was found to show signs of oxidation (indicated by the medium straw colour) and was contaminated with red coloured water (see photograph). The tank and the fuel system were flushed with fresh fuel and then refilled and full engine performance was immediately restored.

It was determined that a good proportion of the fuel was several months old, and it had been topped up with fresh Super Unleaded the day before from a service station that he had not used before. It was early morning, and the fuel can was filled first, followed by his racecar trailer towing vehicle. The tow vehicle did not experience any problems en route to the Hillclimb.

Petrol these days is typically water white in colour when manufactured, and any yellowing indicates oxidation or possible contamination. Without laboratory analysis it is difficult to identify the source of the red water contaminant in the fuel, but it is unlikely that it originated from the racecar fuel system and tank, and the service station tank and/or pipework may be the source of the contamination. The service station could have had a water contamination issue and used water finding paste on the tank dipstick. The water finding paste turns bright red on contact with water and this then may have turned the water bottom in the tank red in colour.

UK service station fuel dispensers suck the fuel from the underground tank with non-return valves in the line to prevent drain-back to the tank. This means the fuel line to the tank is under suction and any leaks can result in dirt or other contaminants being drawn into the suction line. I experienced this many years ago in a service station that had regular complaints of vehicle malfunction issues from certain pumps first thing in the morning but nothing during the rest of the day. We eventually found a corroded fuel line that was allowing dirt and water ingress overnight that was swept into the first vehicle fill of the day.

Super Unleaded is a low throughput fuel grade so it is possible that this early morning fill-up could have been the first of the day and picked up some of the service station tank water bottom. You can generally tell if this is the case if the dispensing pump takes some time to prime and start dispensing fuel when the nozzle is actuated. It is therefore likely that any contamination would have gone into the fuel can rather than the vehicle. As a general principal it is a good idea to purchase Super Unleaded from a high throughput service station site and avoid early morning fill-ups to make sure that you don’t run the risk of fuel contamination.

This incident is a timely reminder for classic and historic vehicle owners to periodically check the fuel tank for any water contamination. The ethanol in the petrol will mop up small amounts of water (up to approximately 0.25% for E5 depending on fuel temperature) but higher levels will cause the petrol/ethanol mixture to phase separate with the ethanol partitioning to the water phase resulting in an acidic corrosive mixture that can damage fuel tanks and carburettors. E10 petrol can tolerate higher levels of water contamination up to around 0.5%, again depending on temperature. The loss of ethanol to the water bottom will also reduce the octane of the petrol and could result in knocking (pinking) and engine damage.