Keeping Heritage Safely in Motion

Historic vehicles are my profession, but they are also much more than that. Through my work with SVAMZ, FIVA, the Grom Motorcycle Museum, clubs, owners, museums and public institutions, I meet this heritage in all its forms: as a carefully restored motorcycle, a family car kept for decades, a rare museum object, a source of specialist knowledge and, sometimes, a difficult legislative question.

This experience has taught me that the future of historic vehicles will not be secured by nostalgia alone. It depends on knowledge, responsibility and our ability to explain why these vehicles still matter—and how they can remain safely in motion on modern roads.

That is why the United Nations' renewed global road-safety commitment deserves our attention. In July 2026, the UN General Assembly adopted a declaration reaffirming the ambition to reduce road deaths and injuries by at least 50 per cent by 2030. Although the declaration is not legally binding, it will influence future discussions about vehicle standards, roadworthiness testing, infrastructure, urban access, environmental zones, education and enforcement.

For Slovenia, this is not an entirely new direction. The Slovenian National Road Safety Programme 2023–2030, adopted by the National Assembly in November 2023, already incorporates Vision Zero, shared responsibility and the objective of reducing road deaths and serious injuries by at least 50 per cent by 2030. The 2026 UN declaration therefore reinforces commitments that Slovenia has already made and gives new urgency to their implementation.

For those of us who work professionally with historic vehicles, this is not a distant policy debate. It concerns the conditions under which mobile technical heritage will be preserved, understood and used in the decades ahead.

Road safety is already part of responsible preservation

Historic vehicle organisations are sometimes portrayed as becoming interested in road safety only when a restriction or new technical requirement is proposed.

My experience is exactly the opposite.

FIVA and its national member organisations have worked on responsible vehicle use for many years. FIVA's Driver's Code and its guidance for the responsible use of historic vehicles cover roadworthiness, brakes, steering, tyres, lighting, visibility, mirrors, fuel systems, seat belts, child safety and event organisation.

At national level, organisations such as SVAMZ bring these principles directly to owners. We advise them, assess vehicles, publish technical and historical information, work with clubs and encourage careful maintenance. Through the magazine Avto Motor Classic, we also explain the development of safety equipment—from mirrors and lighting to seat belts—because understanding why these systems were introduced helps owners recognise the limitations of older designs.

To me, recognised historic status is not merely a benefit or administrative privilege. It is a commitment. The owner accepts responsibility for preserving the vehicle, maintaining it correctly and using it with consideration for other road users.

A historic vehicle is not simply an old vehicle

This distinction is fundamental, yet it is still frequently overlooked.

Under the FIVA definition, a historic vehicle is at least 30 years old, preserved and maintained in a historically correct condition, not used as ordinary daily transport and recognised as part of our technical and cultural heritage. Age alone is not enough.

A neglected older vehicle used every day because it is the cheapest available form of transport is not the same as a recognised historic vehicle that is carefully maintained and used mainly for events, touring, education or cultural presentation. Nevertheless, legislation and statistics often place both in the same category simply because they were manufactured in the same decade.

FIVA's 2025 National Reports show that 86 per cent of responding countries have a legal definition of a historic vehicle. However, only 53 per cent reported full application of the FIVA definition, with a further 16 per cent applying it partially. Treatment still varies considerably in relation to registration, taxation, insurance, technical inspections, environmental zones and restrictions on use.

This is why regulation must be based on the vehicle's actual status, condition and use—not only on its age.

The Slovenian National Road Safety Programme illustrates this problem very clearly. It states that vehicles more than 12 years old represented 45.93 per cent of all registered vehicles in Slovenia in 2022. It associates the ageing fleet with a greater risk of brake failure, corrosion and deterioration of the chassis. These concerns are legitimate, but the programme does not distinguish formally recognised historic vehicles from the general ageing fleet. In fact, historic vehicles are not addressed as a separate category at all.

This omission matters. A policy based only on age cannot reflect the difference between an ordinary ageing vehicle in daily use and a recognised historic vehicle with limited mileage, documented status and specialist maintenance. Slovenia therefore already provides a practical example of why road-safety analysis should also consider technical condition, historic status, annual exposure and actual patterns of use.

What international evidence tells us

FIVA's worldwide socio-economic survey received almost 55,000 responses and included nearly 128,000 individual vehicle evaluations. It found that historic cars travel an average of 1,413 kilometres per year, while historic motorcycles cover approximately 877 kilometres.

The 2025 survey by the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs offers an even more detailed national example. The United Kingdom has almost 1.94 million registered historic vehicles, yet they account for only 0.2 per cent of total national road mileage. The average vehicle travels 837 miles—approximately 1,347 kilometres—per year and is driven only around 11 times annually.

This difference between the number of registered vehicles and their actual exposure to traffic is essential. A growing historic fleet does not automatically mean a comparable increase in road risk.

The British survey also demonstrates the wider value of the movement. It estimates an annual economic contribution of £7.3 billion, around 2,700 specialist businesses and 34,500 jobs. Forty-five per cent of these businesses offer or intend to offer apprenticeships. Historic vehicles support restoration, specialist crafts, museums, tourism, events and local communities.

What the SVAMZ survey reveals about Slovenia

Our 2026 SVAMZ survey gives us an important Slovenian perspective. Up to 541 people participated, with between 492 and 535 responses to most closed questions. It is a voluntary survey of people involved in the historic and youngtimer vehicle community, not an official census of the entire Slovenian fleet. We must therefore interpret it honestly: it describes our organised community and its behaviour, but it does not establish a national accident rate.

Even with that necessary caution, the results are revealing.

Of the 515 respondents who answered the mileage question, 20 per cent drove no more than 500 kilometres annually and another 31.26 per cent drove between 500 and 1,500 kilometres. In total, 51.26 per cent travelled no more than 1,500 kilometres per year. Only 13.01 per cent reported more than 5,000 kilometres.

Their use is strongly connected with culture, tourism and social life. Almost 74 per cent use their vehicles for meetings and events, more than 66 per cent for touring, and almost 20 per cent for exhibitions or museums. At the same time, 47.28 per cent also selected daily driving. Because respondents could choose several answers, these categories overlap, but the result reminds us not to romanticise or oversimplify the sector. Responsible policy must be based on what owners actually do.

The survey also indicates a strong culture of technical responsibility. Of 517 respondents, 61.70 per cent stated that all their historic vehicles were registered and technically roadworthy; another 19.54 per cent said this applied to most of them. Together, 81.24 per cent reported that all or most of their vehicles met these conditions.

Historic vehicle organisations do not oppose roadworthiness controls. The Slovenian programme is right to emphasise registration, technical condition, the quality of inspections and effective supervision. The relevant question is whether inspection methods recognise original construction, period technology and historically correct condition. The safety objective remains the same, but the method of assessment may sometimes need to be adapted to the vehicle.

Clubs remain a vital part of this system. Almost 64 per cent of respondents belonged to one or more clubs, and nearly 90 per cent considered clubs either crucial or important for preserving tradition. This gives SVAMZ and its affiliated organisations an effective network for safety information, technical guidance and education. It also shows why authorities should view clubs as partners rather than merely leisure organisations.

The missing link is specialist knowledge

One result of the SVAMZ survey concerns me particularly. Almost 87 per cent of respondents supported national apprenticeship programmes for restorers, mechanics and conservators of historic vehicles. Yet only 15.14 per cent said that workshops, museums or schools offering education about technical heritage existed in their area.

This is not only a heritage problem. It is a road-safety problem.

A historic vehicle cannot be maintained correctly without knowledge of its original construction, materials and mechanical systems. Modern diagnostic procedures do not replace the experience needed to adjust a period braking system, assess an old frame, repair a magneto or understand the limitations of early suspension and lighting.

If we fail to transfer these skills, we will not only lose traditional crafts. We will gradually lose the capacity to keep historic vehicles technically sound.

This is why I believe apprenticeships, museum workshops, club education and cooperation with vocational schools should become part of national heritage and road-safety policy. The continuation of our movement depends on passing on knowledge—not simply passing on keys.

Education connects heritage with safety

One of the projects closest to me is the restoration of a surviving MOPI educational car by SVAMZ and the Grom Motorcycle Museum. MOPI—short for “Moped Pioneer”—was developed between 1958 and 1963 with the involvement of SAP Ljubljana and TOMOS. These small functioning vehicles were used by pioneer traffic clubs to teach schoolchildren technical knowledge and safe behaviour in traffic.

When we presented the restored MOPI in 2021, we were not merely showing an unusual vehicle. We were reviving the story of an innovative Slovenian approach to traffic education.

This is precisely what active heritage can do. It makes technological development understandable. A child can see how brakes, lamps, mirrors and controls once worked. An adult can better appreciate both the ingenuity and the limitations of earlier engineering. The vehicle becomes a starting point for a conversation about responsibility.

Road safety is not only a question of laws, infrastructure and enforcement. It is also a culture—and museums, publications and clubs help build that culture.

Low exposure does not eliminate vulnerability

The low annual mileage of historic vehicles is an important argument for proportionate regulation, but it must never become an excuse to deny risk.

Historic vehicles generally lack modern crash structures, airbags, electronic stability systems and advanced driver assistance. Their occupants can be more vulnerable when a serious collision occurs. Historic motorcycles require particular care because their riders are exposed and the machines may have narrow tyres, period brakes and limited lighting.

The Slovenian programme contains a dedicated national pillar for riders of single-track motor vehicles. It addresses their vulnerability, visibility, speed, protective equipment, technical roadworthiness and infrastructure. This supports the need for targeted motorcycle safety measures, but it again does not distinguish between modern and historic motorcycles. That distinction is relevant when deciding how a safety requirement can be applied in a technically appropriate way.

The responsible response is targeted prevention: correct maintenance, familiarity with the vehicle, appropriate speed, realistic journey planning, good visibility, sober driving and suitable protective equipment. Seat belts should be used where they were originally fitted or can be installed safely with proper structural anchorage; an unsafe improvisation can create a new danger rather than solve one.

Infrastructure also matters. Slippery markings, damaged surfaces, abrupt traffic-calming devices and barriers designed without motorcycles in mind can be especially dangerous for older vehicles. A modern Safe System must recognise that lawful road users do not all have identical technology or performance.

We need better data, not assumptions

One of the greatest weaknesses in the current debate is the lack of accident data that distinguishes formally recognised historic vehicles from the wider ageing fleet.

Police databases normally record vehicle age or year of manufacture, not historic status. Insurers hold claims data, while national associations hold certification information, but these sources are rarely connected. As a result, a carefully preserved historic vehicle and an ordinary old vehicle can appear identical in statistics.

I believe FIVA should promote a common framework for anonymised data, supported by pilot projects involving national associations, registration authorities, police, insurers and road-safety bodies. Slovenia has already committed itself to systematic data collection and to giving non-governmental organisations access to non-personal road-safety information. The next step should be to extend this framework so that accident and exposure data distinguish formally recognised historic vehicles from the general ageing fleet. Cooperation among SVAMZ, the Police, the Slovenian Traffic Safety Agency, insurers and the vehicle register could make this possible.

We need more than the absolute number of accidents. We need rates per registered historic vehicle and per kilometre travelled, together with information about technical condition, purpose of use, road circumstances and severity. Without such evidence, policy will continue to be shaped by assumptions.

Consultation must start before legislation is written

In my professional work, I have repeatedly seen how important timing is. If a specialist organisation is consulted only after the central decisions have been made, it is no longer genuine participation. It is merely a request to react to an almost finished proposal.

FIVA's national associations possess knowledge that public authorities may not hold internally: original construction, preservation standards, period materials, patterns of use and the practical consequences of technical requirements. This expertise does not replace the role of the legislator, but it can help create rules that are safer, workable and proportionate.

This position is also consistent with Slovenia's own national programme. The resolution expressly recognises non-governmental organisations as partners in road-safety education, policy monitoring, access to information and cooperation with public authorities. It states that they can identify shortcomings, propose improvements and contribute to more comprehensive policy. Structured involvement of SVAMZ would therefore not require a new policy principle; it would put an existing national commitment into practice for the historic vehicle sector.

Sometimes a modern requirement will be fully appropriate. Sometimes an adapted inspection, a reversible improvement or a specific condition of use can achieve the same safety objective. In other cases, a narrowly defined exemption may be the only technically responsible solution.

The objective is not privilege. It is intelligent differentiation.

Before applying a new road-safety measure to historic vehicles, I believe policymakers should ask five questions:

Is the measure based on evidence concerning recognised historic vehicles rather than old vehicles in general?
Does the assessment consider their actual mileage, frequency and purpose of use?
Is the requirement technically compatible with the vehicle's original construction?
Could the same safety objective be achieved by a less intrusive solution that preserves authenticity?
Were representative historic vehicle organisations involved early enough to contribute evidence and workable alternatives?

These questions do not guarantee an exemption. They help guarantee a rational decision.

Our community is ready to take responsibility

The SVAMZ survey also provides a more nuanced view of sustainability than is often presented publicly. More than 91 per cent of respondents saw the future of historic vehicles in their preservation under a special status. Support for sustainable fuels was more cautious: 29.14 per cent answered yes and 27.26 per cent perhaps. However, when asked whether they would use an alternative fuel that did not affect vehicle operation, 49.62 per cent said yes and another 22.18 per cent said perhaps.

The message is clear. Owners are not necessarily opposed to change. They want confidence that a proposed solution will not damage the vehicle, compromise its operation or destroy its authenticity. Compatibility and trust matter.

This is a reasonable position. A sustainable transition cannot be built by dismissing technical concerns. It must be developed with evidence, testing and dialogue.

Safety and heritage belong together

After years of working with owners, clubs, museums, policymakers and international organisations, I do not see road safety and historic vehicle preservation as opposing interests. They belong together.

Historic vehicles represent only a small part of road use, but they carry a much larger cultural meaning. They preserve engineering knowledge, craftsmanship, design, social memory and the history of mobility. They support specialist businesses, tourism, education and communities. At the same time, their continued use carries responsibilities—towards the vehicle, its occupants and everyone else on the road.

Preservation cannot mean placing every vehicle permanently behind museum doors. We understand engineering most fully when we can see, hear and experience it in operation. But movement must be supported by knowledge, maintenance and respect for the realities of modern traffic.

The right objective is therefore neither unrestricted use nor automatic prohibition. It is to keep this heritage safely in motion through evidence, education, shared responsibility and proportionate law.

And to achieve that, FIVA's national associations must have a seat at the table from the beginning.

Sources and further reading