NZ Horse Truck owners collective

What are your thoughts in response to what was released today re cab cutouts from NZTA??
Here are our initial thoughts..........

1. To have taken 3 months to come up with an exemption that doesn't address the problem whatsoever is astonishing.

2. November 2018 isn't just plucked out of nowhere. It's ironic that the out-of-court settlement relating to the first horse truck taken off the road due to a cab cut-out certification was in November 2018, whilst there is ongoing litigation relating to vehicles after that time which has yet to be settled.

3. Initially those with vehicles falling within the 5yr exemption will be thrilled that they can use their trucks, and rightly so. However, an exemption can be withdrawn at any time by NZTA, and an exemption of this sort still labels those vehicles as non-compliant. This only adds to the confusion for COF stations around the country.

4. What will the value be of those vehicles once the 5 year exemption expires (if it lasts that long)? Zero!

5. Has there been any clarity provided around the subject of certification? No. Therefore engineers will remain reluctant to carry out those LT400s.

6. How can a safety concern suddenly be void of scrutiny for certain vehicles which are older than newer ones which are either the same or improved?

7. How can a blanket exemption apply where there is huge disparity between vehicles ie buses with full cab cut outs, motorhomes with fibreglass only structures, horse trucks with varying sized cab cut outs and steel reinforcements?

8. Will insurance companies have an issue with covering a non-compliant vehicle with a temporary exemption. Will this be used to refuse a cover in the event of a claim?

9. NZTA is working on a number of Codes of Practice which are still years in the making. This exemption is simply a diversion tactic to alleviate the pressure, but without any time frame of resolving the issue.

10. Temporary exemption still suggests that your vehicle is non-compliant, uncertified and remains a safety concern for its passengers. Either it is unsafe or it isn't, no matter what year the modification was carried out. Unresolved, this label will forever affect the value of your asset, and gaining an LT400 will only be harder and more expensive in 5 years' time.

Certification of cab modifications | Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency Updates on requirements for the certification of cab modifications.

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/certification-of-cab-modifications/?fbclid=IwAR3JechNLExltZ98EAip9Cvwo2gTcmsVS-qDekb2k2OBZ0fbgKtw-RrxWuY

To address this ambiguity, a recommendations memo was submitted at the end of September 2021 for consideration by Senior Management.

Waka Kotahi has approved the following:

Provide short-term relief to vehicle owners now by granting a class exemption for all vehicles that have had uncertified cab modifications carried out before November 2018.
The initial class exemption is for five years and applies from 6 October 2021 to vehicles over 3.5 tonne.
The initial class exemption expires at the end of 30 September 2026 and may be amended, replaced, or revoked in accordance with section 168E(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998.
This means that people with vehicles granted the exemption can continue using their vehicle and obtain a Certificate of Fitness (CoF) for the duration of the exemption.

Vehicle inspectors are still required to check cab modifications as part of the standard CoF test. If they have any safety concerns (e.g. deformation, cracking, damage), they may refer the vehicle to a specialist certifier as part of their standard inspection practice.

The exemption is applied automatically and vehicle owners are not required to do anything

Waka Kotahi is currently developing a Code of Practice (CoP) with industry experts to provide clear guidelines for the certification of cab modifications.

The recommendation memo will be published on this page shortly.

Certification of cab modifications | Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency Updates on requirements for the certification of cab modifications.

Lawyers representing the members of this Collective have been promised a response from NZTA today re cab cut-outs......

Lawyers representing the Horse Truck & Motorhome Owners' Collective have drawn up a detailed letter which has now been submitted to NZTA.

If you would like to join this Collective and be represented, please message this page with your email address and we'll update you with all the information. Together we aim to get our safe and certified vehicles back on the road and eliminate any uncertainty for the future. So if you have a horse truck or motorhome with a cab cut-out, don't wait until it's going nowhere!

All those who have contributed and signed up to the Collective, a copy of the lawyer’s letter is coming to your inbox shortly.

There have been several comments about making Official Information Act requests. Below is a list of some of those OIAs submitted by members of this collective. Feel free to post others if you have submitted your own.

Official Information Act Requests:
* Please describe the process/consultation that resulted in Technical Bulletin 20, including copies of all reports provided to NZTA by certified engineers.

* Sandbox Consulting initiated concerns about cab cut-outs at the HVE Conference in November 2018. Was Sandbox Consulting subsequently remunerated by NZTA to draft a report? Is this report the basis upon which Technical Bulletin 20 was written?

* During the production of Technical Bulletin 20, NZTA refers to destructive testing carried out by Sandbox Consulting. What experience did Sandbox Consulting have in crash testing, and are those methods supported by heavy vehicle manufacturers? Are those testing methods in line with comparable European tests and international standards?

* Evidence of the risk to occupancy safety must have been compelling to carry out crash tests. What was the total cost to taxpayers of such testing and what was the remuneration to Sandbox Consulting? Please supply the results of those tests.

* Is NZTA aware that Sandbox Consulting, despite having initiated the idea that cab cut-outs pose a direct risk to occupant safety, and having written the report upon which NZTA has based it's ruling, is now declining to carry out any cab cut-out certifications?

* NZTA has stated that a risk to Occupancy Protection has been identified where a cab cut-out is present. Please provide evidence of such risk and how a cab-cut is shown to directly increase that risk.

* Upon what basis is a bus certified and NZ compliant with regards to Occupancy Safety? Why is a motorhome with a cab cut-out deemed of greater risk when there is considerably greater protection around the cab?

* Why is Occupancy Safety relating to cab cut-outs only deemed relevant in heavy and not light vehicles?

* What are the statistics gathered by NZTA and NZ Police relating to injuries and accidents involving heavy cab-cut vehicles?

* Have comparable tests been carried out where steel is present reinforcing the cab cut-out VS fibreglass or wood?

* In many cases, the only difference between light and heavy motorhomes, is the suspension and carrying capacity (ie 3.5tonne GVM and 4.5t GVM). Otherwise, the vehicles are identical, including the manufacturing and structure around the crawl-through. How can occupancy protection be a concern in one and not the other?

* It states in the VIRM (updated version April 2021) that an acceptable overseas proof of modification is a European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval (eg e11*2007/46*). This Stage 2 EC Type Approval for a Class M vehicle has absolutely no relevance to Occupancy Protection; across all of Europe a cab cut-out in a motorhome is not deemed a risk to occupancy safety. Therefore the VIRM assumes a vehicle with a cab cut-out with Stage 2 type approval is safe for the occupants whereas a motorhome without a Stage 2 type approval might not be. Please clarify.

* Technical Bulletin 20, and NZTA's stance on cab cut-outs posing a risk to occupancy safety contradicts European directive which has been thoroughly tested and recognised worldwide. New Zealand is the only country to require certification for a cab cut-out in a motorhome. Where is the evidence which supports this specific risk? Upon what basis should the rules be different for vehicles in New Zealand?

* Does New Zealand currently have Occupancy Safety Standards for heavy vehicles?

* Why do buses carrying multiple school children (without seatbelts) and no specific reinforcement around the cab comply, when motorhomes with steel structures around the cab cut and nothing directly behind the passengers do not?

* Does NZTA enforce requirements of EU regulation 29 locally for heavy vehicles?

* Why are New Zealand manufacturers not aware of Occupancy Safety Standards?

* If Occupancy Protection is deemed a risk directly created by a cab cut-out, will imported vehicles be assessed in the same way as locally manufactured?

* A report written by TranzEC in direct response to Technical Bulletin 20 has been widely distributed, including to the Minister of Transport.

Please can we have a copy of the discussions which took place and was the basis upon which the Minister responded to this report, and how he came to his conclusions that technical bulletin 20 is "non-mandatory guidance"?

* The VIRM states in Table 3-1-2, requirements for HVS certification: Modifications carried out on or after 1 April 2005 to structural reinforcements of the cab/body likely to affect occupant protection (eg cut-outs through pillars, roof rails, reinforcements (not merely stiffeners).

Why have motorhomes and horse trucks recently been structurally reinforced at great cost to the owners, where only the stiffeners had been removed and no modification to the pillars or roof rails existed?

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/about-us/news-and-media/official-information-act/

Official Information Act (OIA) | Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency The NZ Transport Agency is subject to the Official Information Act 1982 and you can make a request to the Transport Agency for information that it holds.

Frontal Impact Compliance lesson 101!
See if you can follow NZTA's diagram below and work out which vehicles need to comply with approved fontal impact standards.

Definitions to assists with the diagram:
MA (normal passenger car) - A passenger vehicle (other than a class MB or class MC vehicle) that has not more than nine seating positions (including the driver's seating position). (Example: Toyota Corolla)

MB (forward control passenger vehicle) - A passenger vehicle (other than a class MC vehicle) that has not more than nine seating positions (including the driver's seating position), and in which the centre of the steering wheel is in the forward quarter of the vehicle's total length. (Example: Toyota Hiace)

MC (off-road passenger vehicle) - A passenger vehicle, designed with special features for off-road operation, that has not more than nine seating positions (including the driver's seating position) and that has four wheel drive (Example Nissan Patrol)

Note the blindingly obvious inconsistencies in claiming safety issues with cab cut outs in motorhomes when far lighter vehicles do not have to comply with frontal impact requirements!! Not only that, but special purpose vehicles under 2.5 tonne are also excluded from this requirement. It is baffling that NZTA is concerned about occupant safety when the motorhomes and horse trucks under scrutiny are a lot safer than exempted vehicles in these diagrams. Does this not pose a far greater risk to Occupancy Safety than a cab cut-out? Feel free to comment.....

https://vehicleinspection.nzta.govt.nz/virms/entry-certification/i-and-c/vehicle-structure/determining-frontal-impact-compliance

Determining frontal impact compliance - NZTA Vehicle Portal IMPORTANT: Vehicles may be exempt from the requirement to meet a frontal impact standard.SeeTechnical bulletin 7,Technical Bulletin 8 and Technical bulletin 9 for further information.

The Waka Kotahi statements surrounding safety concerns are based on occupant safety. This is while New Zealand have NO regulation that governs occupant safety for heavy vehicles except PSV (Passenger Service Vehicles). These statements are therefore made extrajudicially and without any controlling legislation. If safety is paramount to Waka Kotahi on heavy motorhomes, then they should legislate before branding vehicles 'non compliant' or 'not safe' or both. Even the heavy weight European institutions do not regulate occupant safety on heavy motorhomes and horse trucks, presumably because there isn't sufficient accident/injury data to support it.

This might explain how odd this departure from the norm is. NZ is going against the whole world on a low risk aspect and using 'safety risks' as the justification for these actions.

It's great to see balanced reporting by RadioNZ on this important topic. Have a read of the article below as we have some key questions in response...

New Zealand is the only country that requires a certification for a cab cut-out in a motorhome, and NZTA has stated they have concerns about occupancy safety where cab cut-outs are present. This concern was initiated by David Manley of Sandbox Consulting (in 2018), who subsequently wrote a report upon which NZTA has based its current stance. This report has never been made public. David Manley declined to comment.

Coachworks Central together with Sandbox Consulting, contracted by NZTA, carried out crash tests on stripped cab platforms (not motorhomes with bodies, steel structures behind the cab, fibreglass lutons etc). What experience did either company have in crash testing and were their methods supported by internationally recognized protocols?

If you are going to boldly state that there are safety implications directly created by the presence of a cab cut-out (as implied in this article by Neil Alexander who is not a certified engineer), then surely those crash tests should mimic the vehicles under scrutiny and should be carried out by industry experts in crash testing and occupant protection. We welcome the publication of the test data which must clearly identify that safety has been compromised for NZTA to target motorhomes and horse trucks, over say buses that have absolutely no back to the cab and far less structural support throughout the vehicle.

These statements create considerable alarm amongst thousands of vehicle owners who want to ensure their own safety, and to know that the value of their vehicle isn't going to be undermined by unproven rhetoric. The only report in the public domain is the one written by TranzEC Ltd which completely undermines the credibility of these crash tests. Understandably people want to see evidence that there is a proven safety risk before allowing their vehicle to be pulled apart at significant personal cost. If there are poorly constructed vehicles then absolutely they should be checked and reinforced to an acceptable standard.

The current NZTA requirement outlined in Technical Bulletin 20 was brought about by the very people who carried out the crash tests, determined there were safety issues, decided how other certified engineers should assess cab cut-outs, and who now run businesses carrying out expensive remedial work on motorhomes. Doesn't it seem like a huge conflict of interest?

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/447931/nzta-clampdown-not-much-structure-holding-some-motorhome-cabs-together

NZTA clampdown: 'Not much structure' holding some motorhome cabs together A Palmerston North coachbuilder who helped raise alarm over truck cab cutouts warns he is finding motorhome cabs that are a threat to road safety.

So crucial we keep the pressure on…..

https://amp.rnz.co.nz/article/dd225f76-0d2a-463c-8ae4-673858e11f45

NZTA manual change causes headaches for horse truck and motorhome owners New Zealand / Transport NZTA manual change causes headaches for horse truck and motorhome owners 2021-07-27T07:50:19+12:00 Share this Phil Pennington, Reporter [email protected] Motorhomes and horse trucks are being forced off the road under rule changes by the transport agency Waka...

Cab cut-outs is not the only thing NZTA has got wrong!

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/447110/nzta-does-u-turn-on-truck-brake-checks-after-complaints

NZTA does U-turn on truck-brake checks after complaints The Transport Agency has backed down on demanding extra checks on truck brakes.

A recent change in Land Transport legislation is affecting all trucks (NZ-built and imported) with a cab cut-out registered since 2005. Therefore there is a chance your truck may not pass its next COF due to this legislation, which affects thousands of vehicles including motorhomes, buses, horse trucks and other specialist vehicles.

NZTA has released amendments to its 'Technical Bulletin 20' (email or PM me for a copy). It outlines the criteria which NZTA certified engineers (HVCE) must now follow where there has been a modification to the original cab chassis.

These changes have caused widespread confusion in the industry, including amongst HVC Engineers who are declining to carry out assessments because of the lack of clarity provided by NZTA. We are hearing of clients with horse trucks that have passed the assessment and been issued with an LT400, only for this certification to be revoked by NZTA for further assessment. This is a nationwide problem, and only collective and sustained pressure on NZTA will bring about any solution.

Unlike the Motorhome Asociation, there isn't an equivalent for horse truck owners, therefore we are inviting our clients (and any other horse truck owners) to inform us of any issues they have experienced in renewing their COF, relevant to the cab cut-out. If you have sold your horse truck, perhaps you could forward this email to the new owners, as many people are unaware of the current situation or cannot find a solution to getting their truck back on the road.

Also available is a report written by a highly qualified HVC Engineer in response to Techincal Bulletin 20, (permission has been given to circulate) which will hopefully give you further understanding of the situation so feel free to request it.