Franglais:
Was there something, in the old red driving licences, about “motorcars” and “heavy motorcars” as distinct from HGVs? I`m very unsure about this, and just a n idle question about the past, not now.
That might have been very early on in the days of steam trucks and traction engines etc.But for most purposes it was simply artics being a class alone or rigids/drawbars with artics ( arguably rightly ) being considered as artics whether they had a trailer on or running as a solo unit at that time at least.
On that note the question could probably be widened.In that from memory a class 3/C chassis within 7.5 t could be driven on a car licence but not same if fitted with a truck body of whatever type because then,like a tractor unit with an open fifth wheel being considered an artic,it became designed and constructed for use as a class 3 wagon. 
blue estate:
Carryfast:
animal:
Bluey Circles:
I would have thought that the TM was correct, it has always seemed an odd rule but I also believed (up until reading this thread) that you could not drive a tractor unless the fifth wheel was removed. I have never had a class 2 or 3 licience (you could just do class 1 straight off when I was 21) so it has never been relevant to me. But I have always believed that as a rule.
So did this used to be a law that has now changed, or has it all been some sort of silly story that only ejits like me believed?
If you only had C ( class 2 ) then you could drive a tractor unit on that licence as long as 5th wheel was disabled ( covered up not able to use simple really ) not sure when it changed
So no your T M was sort of right he just like a few of us older drivers not kept up with some of the newer laws but they don’t concern us so we don’t need to know but he should have
It went along the lines of an accepted definition based on designed and constructed ‘for use as’.Not ‘being used as’.Although ironically a similar question could arise in the case of driving an empty class C rigid on a C1 or possibly a car licence because it’s not over 7.5 t.In which case I’d guess the above definition would apply regardless of whether it’s loaded or not.
No as my 18t weighs 9t empty and that’s from a weight bridge
But it’s not unheard of for a class 3 ( now C ) wagon to weigh in at 7.5 t possibly less unladen.Which assuming a rule of class 3/C regardless would fit the definition of licencing based on designed for use as not being used as.Which is more or less how solo tractor units were regarded in being artics not rigids. 
OVLOV JAY:
You wouldn’t be able to drive a registered empty class 2, as laws are based on plated weights, not gross weight at the time, hence you can’t drive a 6x2 tractor unit solo across tower bridge. There may be an argument for a chassis cab without a body, on trade plates though
Which obviously means a similar idea of designed for use as not being used as.I’d guess the turning point in the case of solo tractor units would be when Class 1 went from meaning specifically artics,to C + E with an obviously literal interpretation of +E.In just the same way that Class 3 or 2 applied whether pulling a drawbar trailer or not.
I was once told by a bloke that I met at a truck stop, (early 80s). When your daily driving hours were reached, that providing you dropped the trailer you were allowed to use the unit to go for fish’n’chips or a bar supper, obviously it had to be a short journey, he told me that was the benefit of artics over ridgids, LOL . I was in a rigid at the time and was quite jealous. anyway he invited me along, had a few beers on the way back, twas a good night out. (he was a completely barking)
Radar19:
Had an argument with my TM tonight over whether or not I’m legally allowed to drive a tractor unit sans a trailer. Allow me to set the scene.
My rigid truck that I normally drive is in for service and since its a rental I take it top the rental depot which is only up the road. Now, the usual practice is to give me either a lift back to the yard or give me a van and I’ll drive myself back. This time, the lady who deals with vehicles asked me if I could take a tractor unit back instead to which I replied “Yes” because its a rigid vehicle without a trailer. Upon getting back to the yard I go up to see the office and tell them where I parked the unit in case someone needs to moved. My TM when hearing this flipped out, saying that I can’t drive a tractor unit without the 5th wheel being covered. According to him, if you have an uncovered 5th wheel then you need a Class 1 to drive it even without a trailer on. He even got on the phone to rental agency demanding to know why they sent me back in a unit instead of a van.
After some digging I found some threads here on TNET that confirmed I was correct but they are kinda old though. I’m still staggered that people still get this wrong. My TM has over 25 years of experience as a driver plus a considerate number of years experience as a TM yet he still believes that you have to have Class 1 to drive even the tractor units.
I never had a problem whilst trade plating delivering and collecting tractor units on a class 2 licence. Fifth wheel or no fifth wheel. For what it’s worth.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
Its only in recent years that those mobile cranes have been classed as trucks.They were classed as plant and could be driven by a car driver.Why does this topic keep reappearing?
IIRC, the rule about driving a “c” vehicle on a car licence was that it had to weigh under 3 tons unladen. I certainly was driving one aged 17 with only a car licence.
The 5th wheel issue was originally caused by the legal licence definition of an artic on the original HGV licences, i.e. “a vehicle to which a trailer may be attached by partial superimposition”. certainly, at that time, a solo tractor with a 5th wheel capable of attaching a trailer was an artic, even though no trailer was present. Thus it was an offence to drive on a class 2/3 licence. No real idea what year this changed but think it was before “c and c+e” were introduced.