Consultation outcome

Zero emission goods vehicles: regulatory flexibility consultation response

Updated 24 November 2025

Between 24 December 2024 and 3 March 2025, the Department for Transport (DfT) ran a consultation on proposals to amend regulations which apply to large zero emission (ZE) goods vehicles with a maximum authorised mass (MAM) of over 3.5 tonnes, up to and including 4.25 tonnes. Due to the extra weight of the battery or other ZE technology, these vehicles are often heavier than an equivalently sized, and equivalently used, internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. This extra weight may move the ZE vehicle above the 3.5t threshold, over which additional regulatory requirements for heavy goods vehicles apply. In this consultation response ‘3.5 to 4.25t’ is used to describe vehicles weighing over 3.5t, up to and including 4.25t.

Some industry stakeholders have stated that they aren’t transitioning to ZE vehicles because they are subject to additional regulation compared to their ICE counterparts. They stater that this is slowing down the fleet’s transition to ZE vehicles.

The review provided an opportunity for road safety considerations to be raised. Data on the road safety implications of these measures are limited. Any future reforms will be subject to post implementation review to allow consideration of any future road safety impacts.

The proposals made in the consultation would affect the existing rules in 2 main areas:

• roadworthiness testing
• drivers’ hours and tachographs

The consultation also sought views on the speed limiter rules which apply to these vehicles (although no specific proposals for change were made in the consultation) and other vehicle classes that may experience similar issues as 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vehicles.

The proposals in the consultation would apply to Great Britain (GB) only, as the Northern Ireland Executive has legislative competence in these areas in Northern Ireland, however, we will continue to work collaboratively where there is a mutual interest. 

This consultation follows several steps taken by DfT to support the transition to ZE vehicles. These include:

• the continuation of the Plug-in Van and Truck grant into 2026
• the introduction of regulations, which came into force on 10 June 2025, which remove a requirement for category B licence holders to undertake additional training before driving ZE vehicles with a MAM of up to 4.25t and harmonise towing allowances with equivalent ICE vehicles
• announcing updates to the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate for vehicles

Respondents

Table 1: consultation respondents by category

Type of respondent	Number of responses from each category
Individual	74
Vehicle operator	38
Class 7 MOT test centre	12
Authorised testing facilities (ATFs)	9
Vehicle manufacturers	6
Other types of organisations	40
Total	179

Summary of respondents

Individual

An individual respondent not representing a view on behalf of an organisation or their employer.  

Vehicle operator

An organisation likely to be operating 3.5 to 4.25t ICE or ZE vehicles.

Class 7 MOT test centre

A Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) approved Class 7 MOT test centre where goods vehicles above 3t, up to and including 3.5t are tested to standard.

Authorised testing facilities (ATFs)

A DVSA approved ATF facility tests that heavy goods vehicles, trailers and public service vehicles like buses are roadworthy and meet safety and environmental standards.

Vehicle manufacturers

A company that designs and produces vehicles.

Other types of organisations

The other types of organisations which responded included:

• trade associations (9)
• local authorities (4, although it is noted that there were also 5 responses from local authorities who described themselves as vehicle operators and so are included in that category)
• vehicle leasing and management companies (5)
• utilities providers (2)

Overall, responses were received from a broad range of stakeholders representing a variety of interests. The largest group of respondents were individuals, highlighting a public interest in these potential changes. Organisations who responded, included those that would experience a direct impact on their operations from these changes.

Testing proposals

These questions sought views on proposed changes to the roadworthiness testing process for 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vehicles. At present, these vehicles are tested in the heavy vehicle testing system at ATFs. The first test occurs a year after first registration, and annually thereafter. The consultation proposed moving 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vehicles into the class 7 MOT testing system, where tests are carried out by the private sector, rather than by DVSA vehicle examiners at ATFs. The class 7 MOT test is currently used for vehicles weighing above 3t, up to and including 3.5t.

Respondents were asked to respond to demographic and analytical questions first. Questions for all respondents started at question 33.

Question 33: Do you agree or disagree that 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans should undergo class 7 MOT testing rather than heavy goods vehicle (HGV) testing?

Table 2: responses to question 33

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses*
Agree	146	82
Disagree	30	17
Don’t know	3	2

*Note: percentages may not total 100 due to rounding

This proposal was supported by a majority (82%) of all types of respondents to the consultation and particularly by organisations (from each of the categories set out above), with only 8 respondents from organisations disagreeing with the proposal. The types of organisations that disagreed were a mix of each category of organisation that responded (except vehicle operators).

Among respondents who provided further information to support their view that 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans should undergo class 7 MOT testing, several raised the additional administrative and financial burden of putting 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans through heavy vehicle testing, as opposed to class 7 MOT testing for equivalent ICE vans. The higher number of testing locations, reduced test fees, reduced vehicle downtime and greater flexibility were all suggested as benefits to the proposal, including by vehicle operators with experience of navigating the testing system. Examples of information provided by respondents included:

Some operators of fleets are reluctant to switch to zero emission vans because they are subjected to the HGV testing scheme. Fleets with a mix of battery electric and conventionally fuelled vans have said the booking process and variation in testing procedure is more burdensome and challenging to manage as their vehicles – mostly used for the same tasks by the same group of drivers – may be on different testing regimes and schedules…

The current requirement for testing imposes disproportionate financial and operational burdens on operators, given that these vehicles are functionally equivalent to their 3.5t diesel counterparts…

Question 34: Do you agree or disagree that 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans should undergo class 7 MOT testing rather than heavy goods vehicle (HGV) testing? Why not?

This question was only asked to the 30 respondents who answered that they disagreed with the previous question, which proposed that 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans undergo class 7 MOT testing rather than heavy vehicle testing. Of this group, 22 were individuals and 8 were from organisations.

Overall, 17 of the 30 respondents felt that a consistent approach to roadworthiness testing is required, with vehicles of the same weight being tested in the same way (regardless of their powertrain). Five respondents also suggested that heavy vehicle testing provides a more rigorous test than a class 7 MOT test and is therefore more suited to vans of this weight. A suggested consequence of this was that the proposed change would decrease road safety overall as more 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans with defects would be on the road:

Vehicles undergoing an annual test undertaken by a DVSA examiner removes any chance of these vehicles being given anything other than a ‘proper’ test…

Frequency of testing was also raised by 5 respondents (three individuals, a vehicle operator and a respondent from the ‘another type of organisation’ category), of whom many felt that waiting 3 years to test these vehicles was not sufficient because they experience a high level of wear due to their high mileage and the additional battery weight compared to an ICE equivalent. In light of this high wear, a more stringent testing regime was favoured.

Seven respondents noted that some MOT testing centres would not have the appropriate testing equipment (such as lifting equipment) to test 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans adequately.

Question 36: Respondents preferred interval for class 7 MOT testing

Table 3: responses to question 36

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses*
Prefer class 7 MOT tested in an interval of after 3 years from first registration and then annually	83	49
Prefer class 7 MOT tested in the current interval of after one year from first registration and then annually	76	45
Prefer class 7 MOT tested at an alternative interval of your choosing	3	2
Do not know which interval you prefer	7	4

*Note: percentages may not total 100 due to rounding

Twenty eight of the 38 vehicle operators agreed with the proposal to move to a first test after 3 years from first registration. Eight of the 12 class 7 MOT test centres preferred a first test from one year after first registration.

Question 37: What alternative interval for testing would you prefer?

This question was only asked to the 3 respondents who indicated that they would prefer class 7 MOT testing at an alternative interval of their choosing. Their suggestions included: after 1 year or 25,000 miles (whichever came sooner) and 2 years or a different milage (40,000 or 60,000), whichever came first.

Question 38: Do you agree or disagree that the class 7 MOT testing of 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans would provide sufficient assurance of their safety?

Table 4: responses to question 38

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses*
Agree	132	80
Disagree	28	17
Don’t know	6	4

*Note: percentages may not total 100 due to rounding

A majority of respondents agreed with this question, including a majority of each category of respondent. Most of the responses disagreeing with the proposal (23 out of a total of 28) came from individuals.

Of the 7 respondents who provided further information to explain why they agreed with the proposal, common themes raised were that a class 7 MOT test is sufficiently stringent to maintain safety, that operators have a responsibility to maintain their vehicles in a roadworthy condition at all times regardless of the test they undergo and that the vans themselves are used on the road in the same way as equivalent ICE vans. One respondent also suggested that these vehicles are likely to have additional safety features on them:

This approach acknowledges the advanced engineering and reliability of new vehicles, which are designed to meet stringent safety and performance standards from the outset…

Question 39: Do you agree or disagree that the class 7 MOT testing of 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans would provide sufficient assurance of their safety? Why not?

This question was only asked to the 28 respondents who answered that they disagreed with the previous question. Six respondents that disagreed suggested that a consistent approach is required to vehicle testing for vehicles of the same weight and 12 that MOT test centres may not have the equipment or expertise to assess these vehicles adequately:

It would allow heavier vehicles onto the roads that have not been subjected to the same rigors of safety testing as other comparable sized vehicles…

It was also suggested that the stringency of the class 7 test may not be high enough for intensively used vehicles, which may also require more frequent testing (annually from first registration rather than waiting until 3 years) due to high rates of wear for certain components:

3 years is too long especially for high mileage vehicles…

Question 40: Assuming that tachograph and speed limiter rules do not change, do you agree or disagree that the class 7 MOT test content should be changed to include the basic checks of these items?

Table 5: responses to question 40

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses*
Agree for both tachograph and speed limiter	98	61
Agree for speed limiter only	6	4
Agree for tachograph only	9	6
Disagree	42	26
Don’t know	6	4

*Note: percentages may not total 100 due to rounding

It is notable that 15 of the 38 vehicle operators disagreed with amending the content of the class 7 MOT test, 16 agreed for both tachograph and speed limiter and 3 for speed limiter only. Six of the 12 MOT test centres and 6 of the 9 ATFs agreed with changing the class 7 MOT in some way.

Question 41: Are there any HGV test features you would like added to the Class 7 MOT test if 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans were moved into this scope?

Table 6: responses to question 41

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses*
Yes	64	39
No	87	53
Don’t know	13	8

*Note: percentages may not total 100 due to rounding

The majority (53%) of respondents that answered no to this question included most of the vehicle operators (26 of 36 who responded to this question), class 7 MOT test centres (7 of 12), ATFs (5 of 8) and vehicle manufacturers (4 of 5). The 2 categories of respondent where a minority of respondents said no were ‘other types of organisations’ (16 of 33) and individuals (29 of 70).

Eight vehicle operators, 5 class 7 MOT test centres, 3 ATFs, one vehicle manufacturer, 13 ‘other types of organisations’ and 34 individuals answered yes to the question. The remainder answered don’t know.

Question 42. What HGV test features would you like to be included in the class 7 MOT test if we include these vehicles?

This question was asked to all respondents, whether they answered yes, no or don’t know to the previous question.

Table 7: responses to question 42

Feature	Number in favour	Number opposed	No response
Rear under-run bars	37	121	21
Sideguards	39	119	21
Side marker lamps	51	106	22
Side reflectors	47	110	22
Spray suppressions	41	116	22
Wings and wheel arches	42	115	22
Pawl control	29	128	22
Power train	38	119	22
Battery mountings	52	105	22
Another test feature	14	138	27

For all test features listed, a majority of respondents felt that they should not be added into the class 7 MOT test. Out of those who gave a response, the 3 features with the highest levels of support for inclusion in the class 7 MOT test were battery mountings with 33%, side marker lamps with 32% and side reflectors with 30%. Forty-one respondents were supportive of adding all 3 of these features into the class 7 MOT test (26 individuals, 4 class 7 MOT testing centres, 2 vehicle operators, 2 ATFs, one vehicle manufacturer and 6 from ‘another type of organisation’). It is noted that some of these features are, in part, included in the class 7 MOT test already.

Suggested additional features to be included in the class 7 MOT test

Fourteen respondents suggested alternative features that they thought should be included in the class 7 MOT test, beyond the options provided to the previous question. The features suggested varied significantly among respondents, with some suggesting specific items, others suggesting all elements of the heavy vehicle test should be included, as well as the suggestion that where any additional equipment was fitted to 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans, it should be tested, but that this should not be a blanket policy across all class 7 MOT tests. No respondents provided data in support of the items they proposed. The specific items proposed to be added into the class 7 MOT test included:

• battery cables and cooling systems (by 4 respondents)
• load security equipment, or other auxiliary equipment (by 3 respondents)
• motors and speed controllers (by 2 respondents)
• breaking systems (by 3 respondents)
• suspension and stability control (by one respondent)

Three respondents suggested all elements of the HGV test should be included, with one suggesting all elements of the HGV test should be included if they were relevant to the vehicle being tested.

Question 43. In your view is HGV testing for 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans more burdensome than MOT testing for 3.5t ICE vans?

Table 8: responses to question 43

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses*
Yes	106	63
No	45	27
Don’t know	17	10

*Note: percentages may not total 100 due to rounding

Thirty-three of the 37 vehicle operators who answered this question agreed that heavy vehicle testing is the more burdensome, along with a majority (63%) of all respondents. However, the responses among those involved in vehicle testing were more mixed. Seven class 7 MOT testing centres agreed, while 6 disagreed. Only one ATF agreed, while 5 disagreed.

Question 44. In your view is HGV testing for 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans more burdensome than MOT testing for 3.5t ICE vans? Explain your answer.

Of the 106 respondents who felt that heavy vehicle testing is more burdensome, the most frequent reason given (56 respondents) was that it is harder to find heavy vehicle testing slots than class 7 MOT slots, followed by the additional time (34 respondents) and expense (33 respondents) of putting a vehicle through a heavy vehicle test. Nine respondents raised that the variation in the testing process makes managing mixed fleets of ZE and ICE vans more difficult and a lack of knowledge about ZE vans at some ATFs.

Of the 45 respondents (27%) who felt that heavy vehicle testing is not more burdensome than class 7 MOT testing, 15 suggested that the test itself was fairly similar (and therefore did not represent a significant additional burden) and 12 that vehicles of the same weight should be tested in the same way, regardless of their powertrain.

Question 45. Do you agree or disagree that the moving of 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans from HGV testing to class 7 MOT testing would reduce the burden on vehicle operators?

Table 9: responses to question 45

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses*
Agree	142	84
Disagree	14	8
Don’t know	13	8

*Note: percentages may not total 100 due to rounding

A majority of all categories of respondents (142) agreed with the question. When asked to say why, 76 respondents said that tests would be easier to find, 47 that complexity would be reduced, 43 that costs would be reduced and 34 that there would be greater vehicle availability due to the reduced downtime during testing.

Of the 14 respondents who disagreed, 7 said that the maintenance being carried out on the vehicle would be the same (given that vehicle operators are required to maintain their vehicles in a roadworthy condition), with one suggesting that testing just needs to be planned better by operators to avoid difficulties securing slots at ATFs.

Question 47. Do you agree or disagree that HGV testing of 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans in the new time period of after 3 years from first registration and then annually rather than after the existing one year and then annually would reduce the burden on vehicle operators?

Table 10: responses to question 47

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses*
Agree	115	70
Disagree	36	22
Don’t know	14	8

*Note: percentages may not total 100 due to rounding

A majority of respondents in each category agreed with the question, including 32 of the 36 vehicle operators who responded.137 respondents gave reasons why they agreed or disagreed with the question. Of those who agreed, frequently raised themes were:

• reduced costs (31 respondents)
• greater vehicle availability due to lower downtime (28)
• consistency across fleets with a mix of ICE vans and 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans (21)

It is notable that 20 respondents agreed with the question but suggested that introducing this change could lead to an increase in vehicles being used while not in a roadworthy condition as not all operators would maintain their vehicles to the same level without a test in years 1 and 2 and, therefore, reduced road safety. One respondent said:

Testing 3 years from first registration would reduce the burden on fleet operators due to the removal of the annual requirement. This would improve the utilisation of vehicles on fleet. However, regard should be made to the safety of the vehicle and that it may be prudent to continue with a 12-month testing cycle from a safety perspective…

Some respondents suggested that greater compliance checks of vehicle condition on the road (outside of the annual test), or greater penalties for failing to keep vehicles roadworthy would help to reduce this risk. It was noted however that this testing type and frequency would match equivalent ICE vans and that vehicles are required to be kept in a roadworthy condition at all times, so the obligation on operators is not lessened.

Of the 36 respondents who disagreed with the question, 29 felt that vehicles of this type and weight require more regular testing and so should therefore remain on their current testing schedule.

Government response

From the responses received, there is a clear view that the existing system of roadworthiness testing for 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans is a significant burden for vehicle operators and is therefore likely to act as a barrier to their adoption. The benefits of moving these vehicles into the class 7 MOT system were agreed on by many respondents: greater flexibility, reduced costs and reduced administrative burdens including for managers of mixed ICE and ZE van fleets in providing one consistent regime. However, some risks of moving to a different system were also noted.

Some respondents suggested that both the reduced frequency of the test and the shift into class 7 MOT, coupled with these vehicles being (in some cases) intensively used would lead to worsened road safety. However, the additional safety features on these vehicles, their predominant use as part of professional fleets and the unchanging obligation to maintain vehicles in a roadworthy condition were also raised to support the argument that the road safety impact would not be significant.

Data provided to DfT by operators with fleets containing a mix of 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans and ICE equivalents up to and including 3.5t shows no increase in collision rate for the heavier ZE vans (although it does not show whether this is due to altered driver behaviour, additional safety features or other factors).

Having considered the responses provided, DfT will work to move 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans into scope of the class 7 MOT testing system (without adding features from the HGV test into the class 7 MOT), with a first test 3 years from first registration (and then annually).

Legislative change will be required to implement this and a post implementation review (PIR) of that legislation will be conducted to assess its impact. The PIR will be used to assess any future evidence of whether the changes to the roadworthiness testing system lead to a deterioration in road safety (by comparing collision rates before and after the switch to class 7 MOT testing) and, if so, whether the legislation should be amended or revoked. The number of 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans failing the class 7 MOT and roadside prohibition rates could also be monitored, to provide evidence of whether the condition of vehicles changes significantly.

Drivers’ hours and tachographs proposals

These questions sought views on proposals to alter the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules which apply to 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans. At present, these vans fall into scope of the assimilated drivers’ hours rules and therefore the assimilated tachograph rules. However, there is also a national derogation covering electric, natural gas or liquified gas powered goods vehicles weighing up to 7.5t (inclusive) used to transport goods within a 62-mile (100 kilometre) radius of their base (in this case, the GB rules apply instead).

Question 49. Do you agree or disagree that zero emission vans up to 3.5t to 4.25t should be removed from scope of the assimilated drivers’ hours rules?

Table 11: responses to question 49

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses*
Agree	112	67
Disagree	44	26
Don’t know	12	7

*Note: percentages may not total 100 due to rounding

A total of 168 respondents answered this question. Of those, 112 (67%) agreed with the proposal. Most respondents from organisations were supportive, with 36 out of 38 vehicle operators and 4 of the 5 vehicle manufacturers who responded agreeing with the proposal.

The majority of respondents who disagreed with the proposal (33 of 44) were individuals, though several local authorities also disagreed, along with 6 respondents from other types of organisations.

41 of the 44 respondents who disagreed with the proposal gave a reason why. The most commonly cited reason (24 respondents) was that removing these vehicles from scope of the assimilated drivers’ hours rules would worsen road safety. It was noted that these vehicles are often used intensively (for example, by parcel delivery firms), meaning drivers may be at risk of fatigue if the drivers’ hours rules that are applicable were changed. One respondent said that:

Anything over 3.5t needs to be on tachograph for everyone’s safety, especially when the main drivers of these vehicles over 3.5t are parcel delivery drivers and are made to work very long hours…

However, other respondents in favour of the proposal noted that due to the nature of parcel delivery work, driver fatigue is less of an issue, with one commenting that:

Their driving patterns are largely urban, with frequent stops, relatively low mileage per shift, and overall driving times comparable to 3.5t diesel vans, which do not require tachographs. Driver fatigue is naturally mitigated by the nature of the work, reducing the relevance of tachograph enforcement. Our battery electric vehicle (BEV) 4.25t vans are now making up 34% of our fleet, but only 26% of accidents that needed some sort of repair…

Some respondents also felt that the GB drivers’ hours rules (which these vehicles are proposed to come under rather than the assimilated rules), are harder to enforce than the assimilated rules and have fewer record keeping requirements, meaning compliance with them would be reduced. Smaller numbers of respondents who disagreed with the proposal felt that ICE and ZE vans should be treated in the same way, or felt that this change would add complexity for operators (although this was only mentioned by a few respondents and a clear view from many was that the GB drivers’ hours rules are simpler for drivers and operators than the assimilated rules).

Question 51.1: What, if any, in your view, are the benefits of removing 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans from the scope of the assimilated drivers’ hours rules?

The most common response to this question (57 of 102 respondents), was that it would become easier to use 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans if this change was implemented. This response was particularly prevalent among vehicle operators (18 of the 30 who answered this question) and trade associations (all of the 7 who answered this question).

Respondents explained why they felt that 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans being in scope of the assimilated drivers’ hours rules hampered their take up. Information provided by respondents included the following examples.

For standard van operators, it creates doubt, concern, additional administration and complexity in their mind…

This change would greatly reduce the operational and administrative burdens currently placed on operators managing these vehicles, particularly those with mixed fleets of ZEGVs and diesel equivalents. The assimilated rules are complex, involve significant compliance costs, and require monitoring systems such as tachographs that are both costly to install and maintain…

Tachograph use is, especially for smaller and medium-sized operators a complex and time consuming obligation and should therefore be avoided. Drivers should be able to use a ZE van with as much ease as a petrol or diesel equivalent, provided that this can be done while maintaining road safety…

Within the overarching theme of making operation of ZE vans easier, various specific reasons were provided as to why respondents supported the proposal:

• the GB rules being simpler (32 respondents)
• reduced costs (17)
• making it easier to find drivers (13)
• the extra flexibility provided by the GB rules (10)
• additional working time (9)

Question 51.2. What, if any, in your view, are the: risks of removing 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans from the scope of the assimilated drivers’ hours rules?

The most common answer to this question was that there were no additional risks introduced, or that any additional risk was negligible (41 of 81 respondents). Examples of information provided by respondents included:

The mileage range of electric vehicles in this class would limit excessive driving hours…

They operate almost identically to their 3.5t diesel equivalents, if not more easily, and have demonstrated a slightly lower accident rate, with incidents almost always occurring at low speeds. Driver feedback indicates that features such as regenerative braking improve control and reduce fatigue…

The main risk raised was of staff working excessive hours under the GB rules (either because it was felt the rules themselves were not strict enough, or they were not enforced strongly), with 24 of the 81 respondents to this question mentioning this problem (most of whom were individuals). Other risks raised by multiple respondents were the additional road safety risk (6 respondents) and the removal of consistency with heavy goods vehicle (HGV) regulations (2 respondents). Examples of the risks raised by respondents included:

Abuse by non-compliant operators…

There is the possibility that as the range increases in these vehicles driving hours could be abused…

Government response

A majority of respondents were supportive of the proposal to move 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans into scope of the GB drivers’ hours rules, with the greater simplicity, flexibility and uniformity with equivalent ICE vans all likely to be beneficial to those using these vans, supporting their uptake. While there were concerns from some respondents about this change leading to drivers working excessively, no data was provided in support of this view and it is notable that drivers are permitted to work up to 13 hours a day under the assimilated rules, compared to 11 hours in the GB rules (with a 10-hour driving limit).

Based on the potential for clear benefits for users of 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans, DfT will explore options for moving these vans from the assimilated drivers’ hours rules, into scope of the GB rules.

As with the roadworthiness proposals, legislation will be required to implement this change to drivers’ hours rules. Therefore, a PIR to understand the impact of the legislation will be carried out. If the PIR finds any evidence that the change to drivers’ hours rules led to an increase in collisions caused by driver fatigue, or to a reduction in compliance with the rules, future consideration could be given to amendment or revocation of the legislation or to enforcement action being taken.

Speed limiters

These questions sought views on the speed limiter rules which apply to 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans. At present, these vans must be limited to 56mph by built in speed limiters.

Question 52. Do you agree or disagree that the requirement for speed limiters to be fitted to 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans should be removed?

Table 12: responses to question 52

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses*
Agree	60	37
Disagree	84	51
Don’t know	20	12

*Note: percentages may not total 100 due to rounding

Vehicle operators were almost evenly split between agreeing and disagreeing with the proposal, with 15 respondents agreeing, 16 disagreeing and 3 don’t knows. Individual respondents were more likely to disagree with the proposals, of this group 46 disagreed, 15 agreed and 8 answered don’t know.

Question 53. In your view what effect, if any, would removing the requirement for speed limiters for 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans have on road safety?

Of the 129 responses received to the question, the most common theme raised was the potential impact on road safety with 65 respondents raising this as a possibility if the requirement for these vans to use a speed limiter was removed. The main reason suggested for reduced road safety was the increased likelihood of collisions and the additional damage caused in a collision if a vehicle is travelling at higher speed:

Speeding is a major contributory factor in traffic collisions. Without speed limiters, drivers of these heavier vehicles may travel at higher speeds, increasing the likelihood and severity of collisions. These higher speeds could encourage more aggressive road behaviour…

Speed is a major factor in any collision and so a speed limiter should have a positive impact…

There is already a problem with excess speed for vans up to 3.5t. The hazard will increase with the mass increase…

The other main theme raised in responses to this question was to suggest that removing the speed limiter requirements would have little or no effect on road safety, with 39 respondents holding this view. These responses often highlighted that there are other speed limits which apply to vans, so the removal of the speed limiter requirement would not make a significant difference to the speed the vehicle was able to travel at in many cases. Goods vehicles weighing up to 7.5t are limited to 60mph on single and dual carriageways, although they can travel at 70mph on motorways.

Several respondents also highlighted that many of these vans are used in urban areas, particularly for movement of parcels or in relation to servicing. Due to the lower speeds on roads in these areas, these respondents suggested that removal of the speed limiter requirement would make minimal difference to road safety.

Finally, the effect of regenerative braking (where lifting off the accelerator leads to the car braking, potentially reducing wear on the mechanical brakes) on ZE vans was suggested as a feature likely to lead to improved safety when compared to an ICE equivalent. Examples of information provided by respondents included:

As the vehicles are direct replacements for non-speed limited vehicles, there would be a minimal effect on road safety. We observe that the safety of ZE vans is potentially enhanced by regenerative braking which alters the dynamics in a safety positive manner of how such vehicles are driven compared to their diesel equivalents…

It would allow vans to keep up with the flow of traffic on dual carriageways and motorways. There are no braking issues – it is actually easier to stop a ZEV because of the regeneration braking…

A large portion of the ZE van fleet is used on last mile, urban deliveries and therefore operate in areas with speed limits that are significantly lower than the maximum speed where a speed limiter is fitted, for example 20 or 30mph zones in residential areas…

Several respondents also thought that the removal of the speed limiter requirement could be beneficial for roads safety, as it would allow 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans to move with traffic flow of lighter vehicles, rather than with HGVs:

Fifty-six mph is too low for dual carriage way and motorway use as it forces panel vans in to HGV ‘convoys’. Public perception is a ‘van’ should be driving faster than an HGV which can cause on road confrontation…

It will improve road safety by allowing these vehicles to overtake and manoeuvre more safely…

Themes raised by lower numbers of respondents were that removing the speed limiter requirement would:

• improve driver experience (8 respondents)
• reduce vehicle range (6)
• reduce costs (2)

Question 54. In your view, are speed limiter requirements a barrier to adoption of 3.5t to 4.25t zero emission vans?

Table 13: responses to question 54

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses*
Yes	51	35
No	84	58
Don’t know	9	6

*Note: percentages may not total 100 due to rounding

Of the 31 vehicle operators who answered, 12 thought speed limits were a barrier, 18 thought they were not and one didn’t know. Of the 4 vehicle manufacturers who answered, 3 thought speed limiters were a barrier and one did not. As with the first question about road safety, individual respondents were mainly of the view that speed limiters were not a barrier, with 42 answering no, 18 yes and 3 don’t know.

Question 55. Views on the barriers caused by use of speed limiters.

This question was asked to all respondents to the previous question (whether they answered yes or no).

Table 14: responses to question 55

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses*
the barrier is the speed limit imposed	13	26
the barrier is the initial fitting and maintenance of the speed limiter itself	2	4
both the initial fitting and maintenance of the speed limiter itself plus the speed limit imposed are barriers	29	58
neither the initial fitting and maintenance of the speed limiter itself plus the speed limit imposed are barriers	5	10
you don’t know if the initial fitting and maintenance of the speed limiter itself plus the speed limit imposed are or are not barriers	1	2

*Note: percentages may not total 100 due to rounding

Most respondents chose not to answer this question. The majority (58%) of those who did respond thought that both the initial fitting and maintenance of the speed limiter, plus the speed limit imposed, act as barriers to adoption of 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans. This included 8 of the 14 vehicle operators who answered this question. Of the 6 remaining vehicle operators, 4 thought the speed limit imposed was the barrier, and 2 that neither the initial fitting and maintenance of the speed limiter itself nor the speed limit imposed were barriers.

Government response

As with the responses received to the questions about drivers’ hours and tachographs, no quantitative data was received as to the effects of removing the requirement for speed limiters. A majority of respondents felt the speed limiter requirement should not be removed and that it does not act as a barrier to take up of 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans.

Most respondents who viewed speed limiters as a barrier to adoption of 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans identified both the fitting and maintenance of the speed limiter and the speed limit imposed as barriers. While the potential road safety effect of removing the speed limiter is understood, this could only lead to a significant increase in speed travelled when driving on a motorway.

Altering the additional regulatory requirements that apply to 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans for some (but not all) areas of regulation would also create a small group of vehicles with niche requirements, potentially leading to confusion and undermining the intention for regulatory consistency at the 4.25t threshold.

Before implementing any changes to speed limiter requirements, a further targeted consultation containing specific proposals for alterations to speed limiter rules would be required. This further consultation could gather more information about the road safety effects of removing the speed limiter requirement and whether maintaining it while altering other rules (on roadworthiness and drivers’ hours as proposed in this consultation) would undermine the intention to make it easier to use 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans.

Other vehicle types or classes requiring regulatory flexibility

These questions were included to understand if there are other vehicles which may experience the same issue as 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans, where a shift from an ICE to ZE powertrain increases the weight of the vehicle, leading to them being subject to additional levels of regulation.

Questions 56.1 and 56.2: In your view what, if any, other zero emission vehicle

1. types require regulatory flexibility, where they are more heavily regulated than ICE counterparts?

2. classes require regulatory flexibility, where they are more heavily regulated than ICE counterparts?

There were not many responses to these 2 questions (19 responses for vehicle types and 17 for vehicle classes) and as the topics raised in the answers were similar, they have been grouped together. The most common answer to these questions was none (8 respondents said this for vehicle types, 7 for classes), although some notable suggestions were put forward.

Several respondents to these questions suggested that any ZE vehicle which has a higher weight (and is therefore subject to additional regulation) solely because of the ZE powertrain should benefit from the type of regulatory flexibility proposed in this consultation.

Vehicles which are not used for the carriage of goods were mentioned, with minibuses a particular area of focus. It was noted that category M2 vehicles (vehicles used for the carriage of passengers with more than 8 seats in addition to the driver’s seat, and weighing up to 5t) may have been converted from ZE vans and experience similar issues related to additional regulation as the vans included in this consultation. Respondents also suggested that they may be heavier due to the installation of accessibility equipment, as well as a ZE powertrain.

Government response

The responses received suggested that there are some other vehicle types which may experience similar issues with additional regulation where they are heavier than ICE equivalents due to being ZE. We will keep the case for regulatory reform for other vehicle types under review.

Other comments

Overall, 45 of the 179 respondents made further comments which were supportive of the proposals discussed in the consultation. Several of these respondents reiterated that they thought that 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans posed no greater, or even a lesser risk to road safety than ICE equivalents. This position is corroborated by data from operators already using ZE vans that has been shared with DfT outside this consultation. That data shows that their incident rates have not increased compared to equivalent ICE vehicles. Their vehicles have features which improve safety, such as advanced driver assistance systems, collision avoidance technology and the ability for driving to be more closely monitored. This data is held by operators and is not published by DfT. 

It was noted that while in general the class 7 MOT test contains fewer checks than a heavy vehicle test, one area with a stricter requirement is tyre tread depth. In the class 7 MOT test, this is required to be at least 1.6mm, compared to 1.0mm in the HGV test. It could therefore be expected that certain vehicle handling characteristics would be improved if these vehicles were moved into scope of class 7 MOT testing, leading to an improvement in road safety.

Some respondents suggested that one approach to amending regulation would be to expand the scope of the N1 vehicle class (which currently can have a MAM of up to and including 3.5t), up to 4.25t. Goods vehicles with a MAM of 4.25t are currently included in the N2 vehicle class. It was also highlighted that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) would need to alter their vehicle data systems to allow 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans to undergo class 7 MOT tests.

One respondent noted that vans may be used as base vehicles for conversion into motorhomes. Supporting greater use of 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans would help increase the number of these vehicles available for this purpose, although it was noted that post-conversion, they would be classed as M1 special purpose vehicles.

Some respondents raised their experiences with using vans in niche applications, such as emergency utility repairs, for medical deliveries or in more rural areas. It was noted that the demands of these tasks may make deployment of ZE vans more difficult than for other applications. Several responses (particularly to the questions about speed limiters) also highlighted concern about the way that delivery vans are used generally, with long shift patterns and high delivery targets, which may lead to pressure on drivers to break speed limits.

Several respondents said that because tachographs are not required when driving an ICE van weighing up to and including 3.5t, drivers might be unfamiliar with using them and would not have tachograph cards. It was suggested that this lack of familiarity and the extra administration costs involved in drivers having to get tachograph cards would act as a disincentive to move to using 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans if rules were not altered.

Analytical questions

The consultation included questions aimed at specific types of respondents (for example, vehicle manufacturers), which were included to improve DfT’s evidence base in specific areas of interest and to improve the quality of internal cost benefit analysis. Because of the lower number of responses to these questions and their more technical focus, they are not all covered in detail. Questions were asked concerning:

• existing use of zero emission vans
• vehicle testing
• vehicle operations
• use of ICE vans
• capabilities of MOT testing centres
• tachograph installation

Eighteen respondents from organisations had ZE vans with a MAM of 3.5 to 4.25t in their fleets, with the majority having 1 to 50 ZE vans. Nineteen organisations did not have 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans in their fleets, with vehicle capability (particularly range) the most common reason for them not being used. Other reasons included the regulations applying to them (which this consultation proposed remedying), cost, charging difficulties and the vehicle’s payload. Thirty-one organisations had ICE vans with a MAM of up to and including 3.5t in their fleet.

The 19 respondents using 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans indicated that they expected vehicle downtime to be reduced if they were moved into scope of class 7 MOT testing. Thirteen class 7 MOT test centres (of 20 which responded) said they would be able to carry out a class 7 MOT test on a 3.5 to 4.25t ZE van (and information from a trade association supported this, suggesting that a high proportion of class 7 MOT test centres would have the right equipment). Of the 7 that would not be able to carry out a class 7 MOT test on a 3.5 to 4.25t ZE van, 4 said they would invest in the additional equipment and/or expertise required so they could do so (if these vans were added into scope of class 7 MOT testing).

Vehicle operators provided some detailed information related to how ZE vans are used, such as shift frequency and duration, whether ZE vans need to stop and charge and if ZE vans use the existing exemption to the assimilated drivers’ hours rules by operating with 62 miles of their base.

If 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans were moved into scope of the GB drivers’ hours rules, respondents thought it may be simpler to adopt them (in part because they could travel further from base), although it was noted that additional resources may be required to control operations if vehicles can operate for longer. Sixteen out of 18 respondents said that they would not use a tachograph if 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans were moved into scope of the GB drivers’ hours rules.

Vehicle manufacturers noted that vehicles weighing above 3.5t may be fitted with a tachograph by default, but at the customer’s request, it would be possible to remove them before the vehicle was delivered. Fourteen out of 18 respondents thought that a shift in the applicable drivers’ hours rules would increase their adoption of 3.5 to 4.25t ZE vans.

Next steps

The proposals outlined in this consultation will require legislation to take effect. DfT will investigate ways to introduce this legislation when parliamentary time allows.

Alongside legislative steps, we will work with the DVSA and the DVLA to prepare the necessary changes to their processes and systems for these changes to take effect.