UKLPG comments

[rossko]

Do we think there is a need for a safety scheme at all?

I honestly don't know. I don't think you do.
I do, even if only for consumer confidence.

If yes then would a mandatory safety scheme be better than UKLPGs voluntary safety scheme?

Blindingly obviously, it depends on the scheme.
Also depends on "better" and for whom - cheaper for consumer, more markup for installer, more convenient for consumer, cheaper for taxpayer, finds more issues, employs more people, saves more lives etc.

If you are happy with a voluntary safety scheme then you can't really expect people to believe there is much need for a safety scheme at all?

I'm a fan of prevention, but being hard-nosed about it, there are precious few crispy corpses to be prevented. Is that your reasoning?

[marek]

Dear Simon,

Whilst your dislike of the approach taken by the trade body and its influence over the insurance industry is understood, moving towards a statutory framework of some sorts may have unforseen consequences:- It is likely that anything which will be acceptable at government level inevitably converge with the approaches taken by other EU states, with the result that you end up with will be far worse than what you have now, but with the full force of the law behind it. If you take a look at how other EU states handle LPG, you may be grateful for the relative laissez-faire approach taken here in the UK.

An alternative tack may be for you to look at achieving much the same from starting point of how lpg is handled by the insurance industry. (Amateur) car enthusiasts won't appreciate having their hands tied by your efforts if that is a consequence of your desire to rein in the influence of the trade body.

kind regards
Marek

[rossko]

There is the crux of it; UKLPG have invested effort over decades in presenting the conversion trade as routine, run-of-the-mill, non-scary, and under control; to insurers, consumers and government. The entire trade benefits from that.

Previous 'careful what you wish for' hints are met with delusions of "you're all trying to shut me up, I won't be silenced, you are scaremongering" etc. - so stand by

[LPGC]

LPGC wrote:
Do we think there is a need for a safety scheme at all?

I honestly don't know. I don't think you do.
I do, even if only for consumer confidence.

I see it like this: There probably wasn't / isn't a need. UKLPG, whom were/are concerned more with other aspects of LPG related business' (Calor Gas etc) saw a business opportunity to get involved in the very different area of road vehicle conversions. If customers know the truth about UKLPGs involvement, or lack of, then they UKLPGs involvement might not do much for customer confidence.

LPGC wrote:
If yes then would a mandatory safety scheme be better than UKLPGs voluntary safety scheme?

Blindingly obviously, it depends on the scheme.
Also depends on "better" and for whom - cheaper for consumer, more markup for installer, more convenient for consumer, cheaper for taxpayer, finds more issues, employs more people, saves more lives etc.

Agreed any safety scheme in this trade should be mandatory. And I would say the most important aspect should be the safety one. My suggestion would cover finding more isses, would not affect installer markup, convenience for consumers or those in the trade, taxes, numbers of people employed, saving lives.

LPGC wrote:
If you are happy with a voluntary safety scheme then you can't really expect people to believe there is much need for a safety scheme at all?

I'm a fan of prevention, but being hard-nosed about it, there are precious few crispy corpses to be prevented. Is that your reasoning?

Agreed again. As before, this relates back to the question at the top of this post. There probably wasn't a need for a scheme but UKLPG chose to get involved / tell people there was need for a scheme anyway and UKLPG and their members have benefited from this. Nobody is now prepared to say we don't need a safety scheme because if they do they will look like they are personally not concerned with safety whilst the rest of the industry is. But if we look at the second point again we agree that any safety scheme should be mandatory and UKLPG do not provide a mandatory safety scheme. I don't think their current scheme is/would be fit for purpose even if it were to become mandatory, but there is already another existing vehicle safety check scheme that is fit for purpose and which would have no effect on numbers employed / taxes etc.

Whilst your dislike of the approach taken by the trade body and its influence over the insurance industry is understood, moving towards a statutory framework of some sorts may have unforseen consequences:- It is likely that anything which will be acceptable at government level inevitably converge with the approaches taken by other EU states, with the result that you end up with will be far worse than what you have now, but with the full force of the law behind it. If you take a look at how other EU states handle LPG, you may be grateful for the relative laissez-faire approach taken here in the UK.

I'm glad you can see my points mate. Others have already highlighted the potential risk of the government moving to a system that involves IVA testing on newly converted LPG vehicles if they decided a change to be needed at all, but given the governments stance on mods after type testing (that have been discussed on this thread), most of us don't think the government would take such drastic measures. If the government were to agree to a change of system I reckon it far more likely that they would adopt a system similar to the MOT scheme that I suggest. Other EU states have different systems for ensuring the safety of new LPG installs, they don't all have the same system.

An alternative tack may be for you to look at achieving much the same from starting point of how lpg is handled by the insurance industry. (Amateur) car enthusiasts won't appreciate having their hands tied by your efforts if that is a consequence of your desire to rein in the influence of the trade body.

Most of the insurance industry don't consider an LPG system much of a change, most insurers only ask that an LPG install has been checked by a competent person and this does not in most cases imply a check by a UKLPG member, UKLPG is only relevant to a minority of insurers. Not sure what you mean by amateur car enthusiats: It's been a long time since I converted a vehicle that is old enough not to require an MOT but if such a vehicle were presented for an MOT having had an LPG system fitted the vehicle would be exempt from all the same kinds of checks that it would have been exempt from before it became policy for classic vehicles not to require an MOT check.. In such cases the MOT check would be concerned mostly with the LPG install. Or perhaps you mean DIY installers - DIY installers can currently convert their vehicle and have no check done on the LPG install whatsoever. The scheme I suggest would mean there would be a check on those vehicles and every vehicle that is newly converted to LPG. I argue that the trade body UKLPG has little influence, it's scheme is not compulsory, has no effect on the majority of LPG converted vehicles on the roads.

There is the crux of it; UKLPG have invested effort over decades in presenting the conversion trade as routine, run-of-the-mill, non-scary, and under control; to insurers, consumers and government. The entire trade benefits from that.

I argue that UKLPG have attempted to show UKLPG conversion as anything but routine, run-of-the-mill and non-scary. Messages like 'make sure your conversion is done by one of our members or it may not be safe and you may not get insurance' don't give the impression that LPG installs are inherently safe! UKLPG do indeed like to put over the message that LPG installs are under control - UKLPG control - when the truth is that most LPG conversions are not done by UKLPG members, most insurers don't look to UKLPGs database as a list of safely converted vehicles, the government don't think UKLPG members should be the only ones entitled to fit or work on LPG systems on vehicles. I agree that a common perception is that UKLPG have the LPG conversion industry under control - But such perceptions are misconceptions. UKLPG and members benefit financially from such misconceptions and are thus happy with things as they are. Some none members see the misconceptions in claims about safety, insurance, etc, and wish instead of this scheme we had a sensible and mandatory scheme that would achieve what it prescribes to do.

Simon
http://www.Lpgc.co.uk

[rossko]

But if we look at the second point again we agree that any safety scheme should be mandatory and UKLPG do not provide a mandatory safety scheme.

I have no idea why you think I've agreed that.
Don't matter much though, I give 0.1% chance of it happening, is all.

but there is already another existing vehicle safety check scheme that is fit for purpose and which would have no effect on numbers employed / taxes etc.

Pray tell, what is that existing scheme?

[LPGC]

LPGC wrote:
But if we look at the second point again we agree that any safety scheme should be mandatory and UKLPG do not provide a mandatory safety scheme.

I have no idea why you think I've agreed that.

You did agree that any safety scheme should be mandatory. You didn't say that UKLPGs scheme is not a mandatory safety scheme, I said that, but this is undeniable isn't it?

LPGC wrote:
If yes then would a mandatory safety scheme be better than UKLPGs voluntary safety scheme?
Blindingly obviously, it depends on the scheme.
Also depends on "better" and for whom - cheaper for consumer, more markup for installer, more convenient for consumer, cheaper for taxpayer, finds more issues, employs more people, saves more lives etc.

LPGC wrote:
but there is already another existing vehicle safety check scheme that is fit for purpose and which would have no effect on numbers employed / taxes etc.

Pray tell, what is that existing scheme?

You know perfectly well what I am going to say! The MOT scheme already exists, is fit for the purpose of checking vehicle safety, already involves mandatory vehicle safety checks once a year, is endorsed by government, already checks LPG system safety during the annual MOT. If we changed to a system like the one I suggested (involving 100% of newly converted vehicles needing to have a one-off MOT following an LPG conversion), this would not affect numbers employed or taxes.

Don't matter much though, I give 0.1% chance of it happening, is all.

Onto a different aspect of the discussion again so early? Imagine if it did happen - Instead of you passing your own LPG installations 'as safe' by registering them on some private database (for which you pay £15 to register your work to a trade body and pay subscriptions etc on top), your work would be checked by a qualified mechanic who's likely main business is checking vehicle safety. At the moment the trade and DIYers don't need to 'register' LPG system installs at all, some of the minority that do claim they only do so for their own or customer convenience, i.e. a minority of insurers require it. But if they do register them they take the vehicle to a UKLPG member who likely charges £100 for the check. If my idea was adopted then all LPG installs would be checked by a qualified mechanic whose main business is likely to be checking vehicle safety.

Simon
www.Lpgc.co.uk

[rossko]

You did agree that any safety scheme should be mandatory.

"Oh no I didn't", I've no idea where you pluck this stuff from, no wonder I distrust everything else you trot out.

You didn't say that UKLPGs scheme is not a mandatory safety scheme, I said that, but this is undeniable isn't it?

That is correct, it is not a mandatory safety scheme. Why, did anyone say it was (yet)?

You know perfectly well what I am going to say! The MOT scheme already exists, is fit for the purpose of checking vehicle safety,

ahh, now there is the misunderstanding. It is not an all-purpose safety check, it is a service condition check. It does not crash test subjects for example. It is not fit for the purpose of establishing if design or construction is satisfactory - just ask VOSA, who operate completely seperate schemes for those purposes.

The MoT will pass a car with calor cylinder ratchet-strapped in the boot, and orange barbeque hose below. So long as the straps aren't frayed or the hose perished - those are condition issues.

More worryingly, the MoT will pass a conversion with a gross leak. It's not even obliged to turn the gas on.

I'll point and laugh at attempts to promote the MoT as any clue to LPG installation safety.

We were right here in January of course.

EDIT - on the qualification topic, what quals do you imagine a car MoT tester needs, I assume you must have looked into that?

[LPGC]

LPGC wrote:
You did agree that any safety scheme should be mandatory.

"Oh no I didn't", I've no idea where you pluck this stuff from, no wonder I distrust everything else you trot out.

This might have given me that impression:

LPGC wrote:
If yes then would a mandatory safety scheme be better than UKLPGs voluntary safety scheme?

Blindingly obviously, it depends on the scheme.
Also depends on "better" and for whom - cheaper for consumer, more markup for installer, more convenient for consumer, cheaper for taxpayer, finds more issues, employs more people, saves more lives etc.

Ahh I see where you're coming from now - would have understood better if you'd have said 'It depends on the scheme'. So you're not sure if we need a safety scheme at all, and you're not sure (if we need a safety scheme at all) whether it should be mandatory or not? I dare say that if UKLPGs scheme was currently mandatory, you would be saying we definitely need a safety scheme and yes it should be mandatory!

LPGC wrote:
You didn't say that UKLPGs scheme is not a mandatory safety scheme, I said that, but this is undeniable isn't it?
That is correct, it is not a mandatory safety scheme. Why, did anyone say it was (yet)?

Nobody said it was but plenty of UKLPG members give the incorrect impression that a majority of people would have problems if they did not involve UKLPG. Like this quote from your website 'Most motor insurance companies require LPGas systems to be fitted to high standards laid down by the LPGas Association. Our kits meet all safety regulations, and our fitting manuals ensure that home installations fall well within the industry's codes of practice. A comprehensive inspection at our conversion centre is included in the price of the kit, and LPGA certification will be awarded if everything is up to standard.'. And if it doesn't?
Yet? So you do you reckon UKLPGs scheme might become mandatory?

PGC wrote:
You know perfectly well what I am going to say! The MOT scheme already exists, is fit for the purpose of checking vehicle safety,

ahh, now there is the misunderstanding. It is not an all-purpose safety check, it is a service condition check. It does not crash test subjects for example. It is not fit for the purpose of establishing if design or construction is satisfactory - just ask VOSA, who operate completely seperate schemes for those purposes.

The MoT will pass a car with Calor cylinder ratchet-strapped in the boot, and orange barbeque hose below. So long as the straps aren't frayed or the hose perished - those are condition issues.

More worryingly, the MoT will pass a conversion with a gross leak. It's not even obliged to turn the gas on.

I'll point and laugh at attempts to promote the MoT as any clue to LPG installation safety.

We were right here in January of course.

Sorry Rosko I didn't realise that UKLPG do crash tests or that you crash test customer vehicles! If I asked Vosa anything concerning both MOTs and LPG I expect they would tell me that the MOT scheme now includes LPG installs.

The MOT will pass a car with a Calor cylinder ratchet strapped in the boot - correct. Motorhome owners must now be very worried since many have Calor cylinders strapped internally? A Calor cylinder strapped securely in the boot is as safe as an older BRC tank without an electrovalve. I've noticed on this forum recently, where people have these older BRC tanks you don't advise them to immediately remove the tank because it isn't safe! Orange BBQ hose? I think common sense would tell most MOT testers that BBQ hose is BBQ hose and vehicle hose should be something different. But if not, this info could be passed to MOT testers in the usual method of MOT spec updates. Quite simple mister MOT man, copper pipe should be plastic coated, plastic pipe should have E67 stamped on it. In fact all LPG components should have E67 stamped on them, including the tank! Simple enough eh Rosko?

The MOT isn't currently obliged to turn the gas on. I think you're intentionally misunderstanding me, I said the current MOT system would need only minor changes. Doubtful an MOT garage would forget to turn the gas on if they were doing an MOT as a one-0ff check of a newly installed LPG system ... No MOT tester would pass a vehicle running on LPG with an LPG leak....

I'll point and laugh at attempts to promote UKLPG's scheme as any clue to LPG install safety - When the majority of LPG installs are not even seen by anyone from UKLPG and/or when vehicles can be registered on UKLPGs database over the telephone!

A similar position to the one we were in in January but back then you could only see things in terms of the current MOT system or IVA testing. I will again point out that few changes would need to be made to invoke a system of compulsory vehicle checks on newly converted to LPG vehicles, at an MOT garage within a few weeks of system installation - Not quite a standard MOT because the MOT tester would also write a note for the DVLA.. This is of course possible - a policeman can pull someone for a bulb out and send the vehicle to an MOT garage who can confirm that the bulb has been sorted, but the garage isn't doing a normal MOT in such cases...

Simon

[rossko]

....Blindingly obviously, it depends on the scheme.

Ahh I see where you're coming from now - would have understood better if you'd have said 'It depends on the scheme'.

There's just no answer to that

So you're not sure if we need a safety scheme at all, and you're not sure (if we need a safety scheme at all) whether it should be mandatory or not?

That's about the size of it. A safety scheme does seem like a jolly good idea to me. But using decades of evidence instead of conjecture, no-one gets fried. That could be interpreted as meaning that the existing arrangements work. Or, that there is no problem to be solved.

As to mandatory, it depends on the scheme.
I do not think a scheme requiring a monthly inspection chargeable at £500 would be better, no matter how technically thorough, even though it would 'solve the problem' (by removing all LPG vehicles from the roads)
I do not think a scheme that costs £10 one-time and skimps on the technical side is better, no matter who carries it out.
I felt it worth expanding as "it depends on the scheme" seems to be a difficult concept, I hope it is not taken as changing the subject.

Why on earth is this important? You don't need my approval to act.

.... and LPGA certification will be awarded if everything is up to standard.'. And if it doesn't?

Then it gets put right. What's the matter with you? Don't you put right safety errors by the people you sell kits to?

Yet? So you do you reckon UKLPGs scheme might become mandatory?

I really, really don't think so.
But if DfT were convinced of a need to intervene, it is one of the options.
You ought to do some relevant homework, instead of looking to see if you can make up something petty to complain about on competitors websites.
Have a look at the Road Safety Bill 2004 clause 42
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... tml#j17001
and the explanatory notes
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 010x-b.htm
The wording should make your hair curl.
Should DfT think there is a new need to legislate, the first thing they'd do is dust off the last set of plans.

The bill was lost due to general election ; I await the conspiracy theory that LPGA brought the government down to make more money or something. When it appears, I do have a response ready (do more homework on Transport Select Committee report 'Cars of the Future', also 2004

If I asked Vosa anything concerning both MOTs and LPG I expect they would tell me that the MOT scheme now includes LPG installs.

We'll never, ever know.

I've noticed on this forum recently, where people have these older BRC tanks you don't advise them to immediately remove the tank because it isn't safe!

That's right, I don't. Do you think it is unsafe then?

Orange BBQ hose? I think common sense would tell most MOT testers that BBQ hose is BBQ hose and vehicle hose should be something different.

You still do not understand how the MoT works. The examiner works to a bible, if ain't in the bible it don't get considered. You have been told this before.
The bible is public ; show me the page rejecting barbeque hose.
No answer on the calor bottle, I note.

But if not, this info could be passed to MOT testers in the usual method of MOT spec updates. Quite simple mister MOT man, copper pipe should be plastic coated, plastic pipe should have E67 stamped on it. In fact all LPG components should have E67 stamped on them, including the tank! Simple enough eh Rosko?

Okay, let us all know when that has taken place. Big hurdle is persuading MoT to allow dismantling to inspect for E67.
Then a conversation about mandating it might be sensible.

I will again point out that few changes would need to be made to invoke a system of compulsory vehicle checks on newly converted to LPG vehicles, at an MOT garage within a few weeks of system installation

Itemise the changes you propose - they are not trivial

You seem confused about whether you are suggesting some special one-off test, that happens to take place at (some/all?) MoT stations; or a modification to the existing MoT; or a supplement to a normal MoT; or some combination of these.
Perhaps you can enlighten us when you have it straightened out.

[Gilbertd]

The MOT will pass a car with a Calor cylinder ratchet strapped in the boot - correct. Motorhome owners must now be very worried since many have Calor cylinders strapped internally? A Calor cylinder strapped securely in the boot is as safe as an older BRC tank without an electrovalve. I've noticed on this forum recently, where people have these older BRC tanks you don't advise them to immediately remove the tank because it isn't safe! Orange BBQ hose? I think common sense would tell most MOT testers that BBQ hose is BBQ hose and vehicle hose should be something different. But if not, this info could be passed to MOT testers in the usual method of MOT spec updates. Quite simple mister MOT man, copper pipe should be plastic coated, plastic pipe should have E67 stamped on it. In fact all LPG components should have E67 stamped on them, including the tank!

Simon, here's a link to the MoT testers manual http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual/contents.htm and kindly explain to me why an MoT tester should fail a car using orange BBQ hose? The stuff is even clearly marked as being suitable for LPG! A tester is not allowed to dismantle anything either so even if he knows that a certain model of car is prone to structural rust in an area covered by a plastic undertray, he still isn't allowed to remove it to check.

If you actually read what tests should be carried out you'll find that most testers would spot something that is unsafe. OK, so it isn't done immediately a car is converted, but it is done within at least 12 months so I don't see the problem that has caused you get all hot under the collar about it. One question asked many pages ago you still haven't answered, when does a work in progress become a conversion? OK, so I fit a tank one weekend, then I drill the manifold and make a few brackets the next, a few days later I start the electrics and so on. Now I'm assuming you will argue that as soon as I put gas in the tank, then it is a conversion but I've still got to map it. Then I find I can't map it because the kit I bought off eBay/from some foreign seller who doesn't answer his phone is totally unsuitable so I've got to buy different injectors/reducer/tank valves/piping, etc. Is it still converted? Or doesn't that happen until it's right? In which case I could set it to add petrol at high revs and claim that it never has been converted because it still isn't right so is still in the process of being converted.

Or, you could get around this by saying that it has to have an MoT test done at some specified time after the conversion is completed. How about within 12 months then? That seems a reasonable length of time.......

[rossko]

Well I dun some homework anyway. I remembered the 2004 dud, but did not know it had been resurrected and passed as Road Safety Act 2006 s.56
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/49/section/56
explanatory notes
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... ision/20/2

So indeed the primary enabling legislation for a mandatory installation check has been in place for nearly a decade.
It does nothing without the secondary regulations created by statutory instrument of course, and there are none of those.

DfT do review past Acts, as part of explaining themselves to the select committee. I really recommend their short note oin why they have done nothing with this.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... t-2006.doc
see part 46

[LPGC]

LPGC wrote:
So you're not sure if we need a safety scheme at all, and you're not sure (if we need a safety scheme at all) whether it should be mandatory or not?

That's about the size of it. A safety scheme does seem like a jolly good idea to me. But using decades of evidence instead of conjecture, no-one gets fried. That could be interpreted as meaning that the existing arrangements work. Or, that there is no problem to be solved.

As to mandatory, it depends on the scheme.
I do not think a scheme requiring a monthly inspection chargeable at £500 would be better, no matter how technically thorough, even though it would 'solve the problem' (by removing all LPG vehicles from the roads)
I do not think a scheme that costs £10 one-time and skimps on the technical side is better, no matter who carries it out.
I felt it worth expanding as "it depends on the scheme" seems to be a difficult concept, I hope it is not taken as changing the subject.

Since UKLPG isn't involved with the majority of installs then most installs must be fitted with a bit of common sense and/or LPG is inherently safe. If only the latter is true then, as you said, there may be no problem to be solved (but if there is no problem to be solved, this hasn't prevented UKLPG saying there is a problem to be solved, they have profited by being involved). We agree that there is a need for a safety scheme - But where would we expect a safety scheme to have the best impact - With pro installers that fit LPG systems every day, or with DIYers that buy parts and fit their own systems without guidance? I reckon a safety scheme will have the greater impact on DIYers, but only if it is mandatory. A none mandatory scheme is likely to leave a lot of these self-fitted installs without having a safety check at all. I therefore suggest that a mandatory safety scheme is necessary.

'Depends on the scheme' - Nobody wants a monthly £500 inspection but nothing like that has been suggested. You have picked fault with my MOT suggestion but this scheme would address many points at the same time: simple to implement, endorsed by government, involve checks by people that are employed to do vehicle checks, easily made mandatory, involve a mandatory change of fuel type on the logbook, insurers would know that any vehicle that has LPG on the logbook has been checked.

You have posted links to more government proposals and papers - What are we supposed to be looking at in those papers? Why have you been defending UKLPGs position before you did your recent 'research' in this area? I have no need to do that kind of research - My suggestions are common sense!

Regarding the MOT bible - this bible is updated? Update the bible with 'all components fitted must have E67 stamped on them, internal tanks must be externally vented, copper pipe must have a plastic coating'. I reckon many MOT updates are a bit longer than that!

Simon

[rossko]

Fine, you are not interested in legislation. Maybe mandatory checks will happen by pixie dust or siomething.

Regarding the MOT bible - this bible is updated? Update the bible with 'all components fitted must have E67 stamped on them, internal tanks must be externally vented, copper pipe must have a plastic coating'. I reckon many MOT updates are a bit longer than that!

Absolutely clueless. Dismantling required. And I really hope that isn't your idea of a comprehensive check.

[LPGC]

Fine, you are not interested in legislation. Maybe mandatory checks will happen by pixie dust or siomething.

Regarding the MOT bible - this bible is updated? Update the bible with 'all components fitted must have E67 stamped on them, internal tanks must be externally vented, copper pipe must have a plastic coating'. I reckon many MOT updates are a bit longer than that!

Absolutely clueless. Dismantling required. And I really hope that isn't your idea of a comprehensive check.

I am interested in legislation - Only legislation can make for a mandatory scheme. UKLPG has been around for, what, decades you say, and in all that time their scheme has never been made mandatory by legislation. Despite any papers and 'if only the government had done this' claims, the government did not make UKLPGs scheme mandatory in legislation - once again the 'papers' you've linked to do as much for my arguments as they do yours.

These days many installs are done by DIYers, many of these installs have no sort of safety check done. A mandatory and enforced scheme would seem sensible. UKLPGs scheme isn't working, partly because it isn't mandatory, partly because it is easy to cheat, partly because most people and companies involved with vehicles (including the likes of the DVLA and insurers) simply ignore it.

Absolutely clueless - why? Dismantling of what exactly? I doubt anyone believes that UKLPG members dismantle installs during a UKLPG check Please explain what you regularly feel necessary to dismantle during a UKLPG check? You know when you've just finished converting a vehicle..... Do you dismantle your own installs for the purpose of the check? If no then a vehicle converted by someone else and brought to you for a check is more likely to have had this double check and therefore be safer then?

Why not point out all the 'difficult' bits that you reckon an MOT guy might miss... And then I'll remind you that currently every bit of every install that isn't 'checked' by a UKLPG member (i.e. most installs) are missed and all those installs that have been registered over the phone on UKLPGs database have also had every bit of the install missed.

Simon

[rossko]

once again the 'papers' you've linked to do as much for my arguments as they do yours.

"Papers"? an Act of Parliament.

Dismantling of what exactly?

You're supposed to be the professional, you work it out:
Identify the most important single part of an LPG installation for safety of everyone - bystanders, not just occupants.
Now check it is the correct type and installed properly.
Refer back to Richard G's post explaining once again VOSAs attitude to "dismantling" during an MoT.
Reconcile.

I'm not quite as daft as I look. I know you have no real interest in any kind of scheme, any kind of safety check at all - which is why you don't even stop to think it through. No interest in working out a practical idea. It's only a platform to rant anti-UKLPG, as you have just illustrated once again.

[SimonHobson]

FWIW, I can see the argument for a mandatory safety scheme - however regardless of what I think of UKLPG and their "lies", I really would rather have what we have now than persuade the government to stick their oar in. I tend to subscribe to the view that "There is nothing so bad that politics cannot make it worse." -- Thomas Sowell


I think that is behind much of what Rossko has been saying when he hints at "be careful what you wish for".

[rossko]

I don't actually have any problem with what the Gov got halfway through creating - it would be a fag for some, like any red tape. It wouldn't fit Simon LPGC's stated desires, too bad.

What they describe is ...
A business like Blaze can get signed off by VCA as an approved conversion and examination centre. Conversion certification is viewed as completely seperate business from ongoing condition checks, which remains the province of the MoT.
An individual like me can be signed off as an approved examiner by VOSA. Approval is granted after paper multiple choice exam and practical vehicle examination.
It would be quite legitimate and routine for me to sign off my own work, just like MoT examiners do. Policing consists of periodic visits and random checks.
Money will change hands at each stage as VOSA/VCA/VCSA are charged with being self-financing, and quite right too; this should not be a charge on taxpayers or even other road users.
Doesn't it all sound horribly familiar .... it could happen very quickly, there being an existing voluntary scheme that touches at most points.

Even Simon can play, but he'd have to buy an emissions analyzer.

Chances of happening: nil, until an MPs auntie is fried or a fireman attending a pileup. Although given how Simon LPGC is expressing his ideas of safety standards, that could be more likely than I thought.

For clarification; in my view the single biggest contributor to LPG safety being a non-issue is the practical supply chain being almost entirely E67. That could all change if/when chinese pattern parts start turning up via ebay.

[Gilbertd]

Ross has just hit on one point that nobody has yet mentioned in this never ending saga that will one day disappear up it's own starting point. Who does the MoT test on the MoT testers car? The MoT tester that's who. Now justify what is wrong with self certification.........

[classicswede]

For clarification; in my view the single biggest contributor to LPG safety being a non-issue is the practical supply chain being almost entirely E67. That could all change if/when chinese pattern parts start turning up via ebay.

The parts from China have been on ebay for a few years as have the copies from Turkey

[LPGC]

LPGC wrote:
once again the 'papers' you've linked to do as much for my arguments as they do yours.

"Papers"? an Act of Parliament.

So - Are you saying there has been an Act of Parliament that UKLPGs scheme is endorsed by government? If so, why isn't it mandatory?

LPGC wrote:
Dismantling of what exactly?

You're supposed to be the professional, you work it out:
Identify the most important single part of an LPG installation for safety of everyone - bystanders, not just occupants.
Now check it is the correct type and installed properly.
Refer back to Richard G's post explaining once again VOSAs attitude to "dismantling" during an MoT.
Reconcile.

I am a professional and so are you - You reckon dismantling is done during a UKLPG check, I asked you what is dismantled and you haven't yet answered... The single most important part of an LPG install for everyone's safety is the tank - there is nothing to dismantle on a tank (unless you mean removing the valve). A vehicle will fail an MOT check if a tank isn't secured. If you suggest you remove tank valves during a UKLPG check that will be hilarious, especially on those checks you do where the tank has already been filled with gas. If you don't remove the valve but simply check it's orientation then this isn't a totally thorough check because the installer may have broken the float when fitting. I know there is no dismantling during an MOT - so tell us how this is different to a UKLPG check? RichardG (GilbertD) asked why the MOT man should fail an LPG install if fitted with orange BBQ pipe - I already covered that one, a simple MOT update would tell MOT staff that any component (including flexible hosing) should be stamped with E67.

I'm not quite as daft as I look. I know you have no real interest in any kind of scheme, any kind of safety check at all - which is why you don't even stop to think it through. No interest in working out a practical idea. It's only a platform to rant anti-UKLPG, as you have just illustrated once again.

You've said yourself you're not sure if there is a need for a safety scheme, any kind of scheme at all....
I agree I don't need to think quite as hard as you in this discussion... I write common sense points, common sense points are very easy to make and very easy to justify. In contrast, you seem to spend time looking up obscure documents etc that you often don't even seem to know exist before making your points - Makes me wonder what made you back up UKLPGs scheme before you found some of those documents but I think I know the answer to that one, UKLPG gives you a marketing advantage eh? Then i wonder what makes you back up UKLPGs scheme after finding these obscure documents - Of those documents you're posted links to, some turn out to be written by UKLPG themselves, some seem to be government papers / bills that were never passed, some seem to be 'Acts of Parliament' that still don't endorse UKLPGs scheme.
There wouldn't be a great deal of 'working out a practical idea' if my MOT suggestion was adopted. No good accusing me of ranting when it's you who seems to be clutching at straws in trying to justify your support for UKLPG's none mandatory none enforceable money making (ahem) safety scheme. I am against UKLPG because at heart i am against any organisation that makes claims that it doesn't and cannot deliver on, especially when the claims cause confusion on safety issues, especially when the claims fly in the face of common sense, especially when the organisation is relevant to my profession.

FWIW, I can see the argument for a mandatory safety scheme - however regardless of what I think of UKLPG and their "lies", I really would rather have what we have now than persuade the government to stick their oar in. I tend to subscribe to the view that "There is nothing so bad that politics cannot make it worse." -- Thomas Sowell

I think that is behind much of what Rossko has been saying when he hints at "be careful what you wish for".

I believe Rosko said his main fear is that if the government were to make a change at all, they might opt for IVA testing and this would be bad for the industry. I agree with Rosko on that point mate. But I also suggest that Rosko holds UKLPG a bit dear because at the moment, given all the misinformation, it lifts him a peg in the eyes of customers - a peg that I don't believe would exist if more customers knew the truth on points such as professionalism, the insurance position, safety. I reckon UKLPG members might be unsure even if they want UKLPGs scheme to become mandatory, because if it were to become mandatory then everyone in the industry would be offering UKLPG installs so they wouldn't have that peg to lure customers with. UKLPG members would have to consider, would the extra income they get from doing UKLPG checks (or taking payments over the phone for registering installs with UKLPG) offset the peg that they would lose. Given that some suppliers and installers offer cheap UKLPG registration over the phone already but most UKLPG members probably don't, seems to me most UKLPG members would prefer not to lose the peg. I can make many points about the probable situation if UKLPGs scheme were to become mandatory, couple of examples: Without enforcement of fuel type change on logbooks many installs would simply not be declared to insurance companies, these installs would be more likely to be the DIY installs, these installs would be more likely to be unsafe - without enforcement of logbook fuel type change any safety system will still fail. If logbook fuel type changes were enforced there might then follow a lot of questions on why there suddenly seemed to be five times as many vehicles converted to LPG compared to previous claims by UKLPG.

Your point on government sticking their oar in is ringing well at the moment - Rosko has apparently done some research and found some Acts of Parliament which he reckons back up his arguments. My common sense position is that despite any papers, Acts of Parliament, bills etc that anyone can research / dig up, UKLPGs scheme has not been made mandatory in legislation. So... Either the Acts of Parliament Rosko linked to are irrelevant because they are not on the subject of what to do regarding LPG system safety and/or UKLPG. Or the government don't think there is any need for a safety scheme at all. Or are happy with UKLPGs none mandatory scheme (i.e. they think it important that vehicles should be safety checked but only if citizens can be bothered). Or UKLPGs scheme has been considered and dismissed by government. Or the Acts set a date that UKLPGs scheme will become mandatory.

I don't actually have any problem with what the Gov got halfway through creating - it would be a fag for some, like any red tape. It wouldn't fit Simon LPGC's stated desires, too bad.

What they describe is ...
A business like Blaze can get signed off by VCA as an approved conversion and examination centre. Conversion certification is viewed as completely seperate business from ongoing condition checks, which remains the province of the MoT.
An individual like me can be signed off as an approved examiner by VOSA. Approval is granted after paper multiple choice exam and practical vehicle examination.
It would be quite legitimate and routine for me to sign off my own work, just like MoT examiners do. Policing consists of periodic visits and random checks.
Money will change hands at each stage as VOSA/VCA/VCSA are charged with being self-financing, and quite right too; this should not be a charge on taxpayers or even other road users.
Doesn't it all sound horribly familiar .... it could happen very quickly, there being an existing voluntary scheme that touches at most points.

Even Simon can play, but he'd have to buy an emissions analyzer.

Chances of happening: nil, until an MPs auntie is fried or a fireman attending a pileup. Although given how Simon LPGC is expressing his ideas of safety standards, that could be more likely than I thought.

For clarification; in my view the single biggest contributor to LPG safety being a non-issue is the practical supply chain being almost entirely E67. That could all change if/when chinese pattern parts start turning up via ebay.

No problem buying a gas analyser if I saw a good reason mate. But there isn't a good reason in this trade really eh?
Why do you say 'Even Simon can play'? A silly comment, because of course I could. Or tell me why you would be in a better position than me to play in this government proposed scheme... You're not going to say because you're a UKLPG member are you? This scheme so far seem better than UKLPGs scheme, if only because it would be policed by Vosa, not by 2 guys who set up a profit making organisation which pretends to have a viable safety scheme.
Please explain how you reckon I am expressing my ideas on safety standards - You seem to be implying that what I suggest would be worse for safety. By all means continue to be a member of UKLPG if you want. I suggest we have a mandatory safety scheme on top of any pretend safety scheme that might already exist. To quote your mate Gilbert, you're using an incorrect term anyway - it isn't a standard, it is a Standard.

Ross has just hit on one point that nobody has yet mentioned in this never ending saga that will one day disappear up it's own starting point. Who does the MoT test on the MoT testers car? The MoT tester that's who. Now justify what is wrong with self certification.........

I have been over this point before Gilbert - If an MOT tester is discovered by Vosa to be doing an MOT test incorrectly then he will lose his licence to do MOT checks, MOT checks likely being the main part of his work.. Vosa will put him out of a job. If an installer gets kicked out of UKLPG they can legally continue to install LPG systems and will probably know a mate they can call to register installs on UKLPGs database anyway.... Vosa do unannounced checks on MOT testers, taking vehicles with specific faults etc to see if the MOT tester will discover them. UKLPG have only Mike Chapman and one other guy to do checks, they don't do unannounced checks, but even if they did, all the UKLPG members know them from a mile away anyway.

Simon