100% Biker & Trike Magazine Forums

Go Back   100% Biker & Trike Magazine Forums > 100% Biker > Biker Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 20-01-2012, 04:43 PM
wurzel wurzel is offline
Billy No Mates (only virtual ones!)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,012
Default Latest EU update

From Paddy at MAG


The world of motorcycle politics is so terrifically exciting and fast moving, it's small wonder we don't sleep! (Or is it just me that finds it so?)

The proposed EU Regulation on type approval and market surveillance that we've come to know and love over the past 16 months, did pass its 'first reading' on 5th December when the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) voted on it and the near 300 amendments that been put forward.

You'll also be aware (unless you are new to these mailings) that not only did they accept the bulk of the original proposal, but added a few extra bits that aren't exactly in the best interests of the consumers they are meant to be protecting. One of my emails last week outlined horrified responses from both the European motorcycle retailers (ETRA) and the manufacturers association (ACEM) so it's good to know that apart from the UK Government, much of the rest of the bike industry is now aware of the power and possible outcome of this legislation. ABS for everything from 50cc up and the new article 18a which now covers modifications 'by the users or those acting on their behalf', which has got the retailers and bike shops upset. The new article 3 paragraph 68 now also specifies 'engine management systems or any other control module' which of course covers the power commanders etc that we highlighted a year ago and were told was nonsense. It also reiterates 'the transmission and its control, either a drive shaft or belt drive or chain drive, the differentials, the final drive and the driven wheel tyre (radius)' which is all a bit belt and braces.

But aside from the content, there is much that is concerning about the legislative process, as was highlighted last weekend when MAG organised another Riders Are Voters event in Crawley at P&H Motorcycles.
Peter Skinner, Labour MEP for the South East has received more correspondence on this Regulation than any other (he first became an MEP in 1994) so he agreed to meet riders in one go so that he could hear all the concerns.

The bulk of the questions he was asked were about procedure:
How could the Committee have voted before the impact assessment results were in?
Why does the EU Parliament have to vote on a regulation when the specific technical elements of what is affected, will be decided after the vote?
How can they make an informed decision when the 'Delegated Acts' (the technical bits) that are central to this, will be written later?
If we are now seeing drafts of the Delegated Acts and they include mention of cycle parts, surely that is outside the scope of the Regulation?
If the Commission didn't do the research before they introduced the proposal (saying as they did, that they had no baseline data but hoped they'd get some later) is it even legal?

Mr Skinner was really taken aback by the breadth of knowledge the assembled 100 or so riders had, and their articulate nature, but he was more taken aback by the legislation itself, having had to read it all before the event (which is of course, the very nature of what MAG does- getting representatives to actually read what they are going to vote on.)

He did say that we must never stop writing to MEPs about this, but what surprised me was that he said pro-forma letters are still OK, if you add the following; Please reply to the Central Office of the Motorcycle Action Group who are compiling responses.

His advice was that a standard and irrelevant response cannot be churned out by reply. The MEP will have to direct their attention to every part of the letter as numbers grow, in the knowledge that their response will be made very public, that they will be publicly held to account and that their later vote in the EU Parliament will be monitored. On the plus side, they only have to write one letter! Everyone's a winner.

So, given all of the above here is a suggested letter. If you don't wish to use it, please do try to use some of the points within it.

Please click here www.ridersarevoters.org and press the button that says 'Find Your MEP'. Remember, you probably have 6 or 7 MEPs so please write to each one of them.



Dear

As a constituent, I would like to raise my concerns regarding the content and progress of a piece of European Legislation, currently timetabled for Plenary vote on 14th March.

The proposed EU Regulation on Type Approval and Market Surveillance of two and three-wheeled vehicles passed its first reading, Committee stage, on 5th December even though an impact assessment on many elements of the proposal was ongoing.

Some new text adopted by the (IMCO) Committee, especially the extension of mandatory ABS to all scooters and motorcycles, the introduction of a new Article 18a (see below) and the Delegated Acts (drafts of which are now available), appear to have moved well outside the scope of the Commission's original proposal. Article 18a also relies on Member States to establish National policing.

ABS is being adopted by some riders, but the technology is not as advanced as for cars and there are many riding conditions where it is not suitable, or where combined braking systems (in which the industry has invested heavily) are more suitable, especially with smaller scooters. The Commission’s mandating of ABS is therefore inappropriate for both the market and manufacturing.

Articles 17 and 52 also directly impact on motorcyclists as consumers, controlling the sale and availability of after-market parts within the EU and the modification of certain aspects of the machine to suit riding conditions.

The Plenary session vote has now been timetabled for 14th March, which is too soon to enable sufficient discussion beforehand and which permits no time within the chamber for debate.

This debate is necessary, as there are many parts of this Regulation which I, as a rider and consumer, welcome, so this cannot be a yes/no vote on the acceptance or rejection of the proposal as a whole.

It is welcome for example, that Article 22 will lead to CO2 emissions being published at point of sale for every model. Similarly, paragraph 9 (page 11) which aims to over-turn the earlier decision to introduce power limits for motorcycles (1995), on the basis that no evidence can be found of a correlation between safety and power. This assertion rather undermines one of the central tenets of the whole proposal, that speed or 'tuning' has a detrimental effect on safety, again forcing the assumption that the Commission’s proposals appear not to be evidence led.

I urge you to read the Regulation COM (2010) 542 and the consolidated text post the IMCO Committee vote, which is not in the public domain and use your influence to delay the Parliamentary vote.

Could I respectfully ask that you send your reply to Central Office of the Motorcycle Action Group who are compiling replies in order to monitor voting behaviour. This can be either electronically to

campaigns-coordinator@mag-uk.org

or by post to
MAG (UK)
PO Box 750
Warwick
CV34 9FU

Yours Sincerely



Article 18a- Measures and Proceedings regarding modifications to L-category vehicles by the users or those acting on their behalf

1. If substantial modifications are made to the powertrain components by the user or by those acting on his behalf the vehicle shall comply with the technical requirements of the initial vehicle category and subcategory, or, if applicable, the new vehicle category and subcategory, which were in force when the original vehicle was sold, registered or entered into service. Those modifications shall be inspected and approved by the competent authorities in the Member States.

3. A modification is substantial when it affects the safety of the vehicle or its emissions to the environment. A modification is deemed to be substantial when it renders the original type approval obsolete.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 26-01-2012, 02:03 PM
wurzel wurzel is offline
Billy No Mates (only virtual ones!)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,012
Default

Now, if you haven't managed to write yet, you may want to change some bits of your letter, because following long meetings and phonecalls with Malcolm Harbour's offices (IMCO committee chairman) in UK and in Brussels yesterday, and further discussions with other MEPs, some new things have transpired. I know I said motorcycle politics could move quickly, but sometimes I don't joke.

One- following our work to date and the efforts of those of you have been consistently writing to your MEPs, we can confirm that the Parliamentary vote has already been moved back to April.
Yippee and a pat on the back for all, but we are aiming for a further delay, as even that may not provide us enough time to ensure this is Type Approval Regulation is properly debated and that all the MEPs get a chance to focus on it.

Please do write to all of yours, don't leave to chance that someone else will do it for you, and remember, the more correspondence they get the more they have to do something about it.

Two- the results of the impact assessment that began in November and which the IMCO committee chose not to wait for, are due at the end of this month. The UK Government had already done their own Impact Assessment which drove coach and horses through the EU Commission's original one, and that was central to the EU Parliament demanding the one that'll be completed any day soon. A wee bird, no, make that a flock of birds in Brussels believe that the impending results may not look good for the Commission (or indeed the Committee who voted in December ahead of having all the info) and if that's the case, we may find a lot of MEPs being even more receptive to our case and a further delay as National Governments reassess their position. There are 73 MEPs in the UK and that is 10% of the whole Parliament.
I'll be in Brussels in a couple of weeks working to ensure our Riders' Rights colleagues in Germany, France, Belgium and Netherlands get writing too, because combined, that would be nearly 300 of the 736 total MEPs.

Three- there are ongoing legal challenges into the validity of the whole Regulation as proposed in the first place and the EU Commission's procedural behaviour, but now, given the wording of the new article 18a, there may be another legal case to answer, as the ambiguity present in the text, could create categories of machine for which anti-tampering may be retrospective, which is definitely way outside the scope of the original proposal and puts all the onus on us and on bike shops, instead of the manufacturers of new machines.

As ever, Motorcycle Action Group will do its best to keep you informed as things progress, but in the meantime, you may want to change the text in your letter to make it clear you now know the full Parliamentary vote (plenary session) is tabled for April, which is still too soon. Huge thanks to all of you in sunny Scotland by the way, who seem to be putting in major effort judging by the volume of responses I'm getting from Scottish MEPs.

Kind Regards

Paddy Tyson
Campaigns Coordinator
Motorcycle Action Group
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 27-01-2012, 04:52 PM
wearthefoxhat wearthefoxhat is offline
Type like a Twat Me...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 911
Default

I'm glad to see that we might be moving forward in out attempts to stop the EU Commission from their 'picking on an easy target to get their foot in the door' policies.

I understand that there are no MoT tests for motorbikes in Belgium and Holland.
Why can't we be like them??
__________________
Nema jebene bonbon
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 27-01-2012, 05:05 PM
wurzel wurzel is offline
Billy No Mates (only virtual ones!)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,012
Default

Actually the lack of Bike MOT's in all EU states is the excuse being given for why they were proposing the power to stop bikes at the roadside for roadworthiness inspection so be careful what you wish for.

I would rather have a once a year check than the threat of plod being able to pull me over whenever and whever he liked to "check my bike is roadworthy" we would be back into stop and search territory all over again.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 27-01-2012, 05:26 PM
Mc Nasty's Avatar
Mc Nasty Mc Nasty is offline
Chat Slut
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wurzel View Post
Actually the lack of Bike MOT's in all EU states is the excuse being given for why they were proposing the power to stop bikes at the roadside for roadworthiness inspection so be careful what you wish for.

I would rather have a once a year check than the threat of plod being able to pull me over whenever and whever he liked to "check my bike is roadworthy" we would be back into stop and search territory all over again.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 27-01-2012, 07:01 PM
wearthefoxhat wearthefoxhat is offline
Type like a Twat Me...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 911
Default

If those are the only two options, then what choice do we have?
For us in the UK, it isn't broken so why do we have to fix it?

And how long can the Commission resist the temptation to make 'standards' or 'minimum levels' for these annual inspections?

I'm annoyed. If these laws are being introduced through the back door 'for European Harmony and Standardisation' why are we involved?
We are alone because we drive and ride on the left, we measure distance and speed in MPH and have headlights that dip in the opposite direction to everyone else's. There will NEVER be harmony and standardisation so why not just leave us out of it!
__________________
Nema jebene bonbon
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 27-01-2012, 08:59 PM
excalibur's Avatar
excalibur excalibur is offline
It's about time I shut the fuck up!
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 1,510
Send a message via MSN to excalibur
Default

As long as we stay involved in this failed experiment controlled by the franco prussian alliance then we are going to get more of this. The only way to really take back control is leave the united states of europe but cant see that happening
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 28-01-2012, 01:23 AM
ChopperFXR's Avatar
ChopperFXR ChopperFXR is offline
Talk, Type, Breath, Talk, Type, Breath....
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somerset
Posts: 2,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wearthefoxhat View Post
If those are the only two options, then what choice do we have?
For us in the UK, it isn't broken so why do we have to fix it?

And how long can the Commission resist the temptation to make 'standards' or 'minimum levels' for these annual inspections?

I'm annoyed. If these laws are being introduced through the back door 'for European Harmony and Standardisation' why are we involved?
We are alone because we drive and ride on the left, we measure distance and speed in MPH and have headlights that dip in the opposite direction to everyone else's. There will NEVER be harmony and standardisation so why not just leave us out of it!
Try and convince ANY fuckwit, shitferbrains politician that harmony and standardisation do not work. Never have and never will, simply because the vast majority of people have a brain and thier own individual character.

ALL of the worlds totalitarian regimes have come to an abrupt and usually bloody end. Think Phol Pot, Stalin, Hitler. They all wanted and aspired to having all of thier people look, behave and think exactly the same. Anyone that had a different opinion was quickly silenced.

The EU has grown out of what was meant to be a trade agreement. It has been corrupted by those with no spine, intelligence or character but very weak minds. Those people fear the individual and anything they do not have direct control over.

Hence the EU in all its various forms fears the biking community in general and individuality in particular. The vast majority of bikers want to make thier bikes thier own, by altering or building something unique. An extension of themselves, much more than just a means of transport.

Various european governments have tried to accuse various biker groups of all manner of things to cause alarm and unrest among Joe Public. The great unwashed are largely ignorant of the way bikers do things. Humans fear the unknown. The government telling Joe Public that we are all drug crazed, drunken criminals makes the average bloke in the street believe that creating bullshit legislation aimed at controlling the biking community is a good thing.

There is NO JUSTICE............ JUST US!

Chopper
__________________
MADE IN ENGLAND.
MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG.


WELCOME TO GREAT BRITAIN.
WE ARE FULL UP, SO FUCK OFF.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 28-01-2012, 11:22 AM
John Hopkins's Avatar
John Hopkins John Hopkins is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tredegar, South Wales
Posts: 16,062
Default

With any luck the EU will blow itself out of the water soon..The idea of the euro might have worked if the same currency could buy the same things for the same price in each country..Labour..same wages for the same job..beer, food, cigarettes, hotels, fuel, public transport, taxi's, everything the same price in each country..but having a fixed value money unit and everything else varied means there are rich and poor dependant on which country you live in, the poor countries will never be able to afford holidays in the rich countries and inequality is built in as a cornerstone of the common currency...

One problem we have is that although the EMP's can see this, they are not going to lift their snouts out of the trough as long as they are getting everything they want..

John.
__________________
Beauty is skin deep; ugly goes right to the bone
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-02-2012, 05:03 PM
wurzel wurzel is offline
Billy No Mates (only virtual ones!)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,012
Default

FARAGE Nigel nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu

16:27 (29 minutes ago)

to me
Re: motorcycle regulations and restrictions, updated situation

Dear

Thank you for your email to Nigel Farage, detailing your concerns with
the ongoing motorcycle regulation process. You do well to be concerned,
and as you may know, UKIP MEPs in the European Parliament have taken a
relatively high level of interest in this issue, which is an attack on
personal freedom and a restriction on the most liberating of modern
forms of private road transport. It is for these reasons that the EU
wishes to ultimately control and regulate motorcycles off the road by
making life expensive and difficult for the biker, despite the obvious
truth that efficient modern bikes produce the most miniscule amounts of
pollution and noise compared to other road users. The EU wishes to force
us all onto public transport which is easily controlled and taxed.

The IMCO committee process and submission of the final documents to
parliamentary vote is progressing, and it looks as if little has changed
in respect to any and all representations for less heavy-handed and
expensive regulation. You can see the results of their machinations here
(Ctrl-click in Word to go to the website):

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/docume...112/20111207AT
T33503/20111207ATT33503EN.pdf

In sum, this document shows that they have taken little if anything on
board about the general complaints of over-regulation, particularly of
the dangers of ABS on some off-road capable bikes, and for all bikes in
some conditions, and are determined to ride roughshod over biker privacy
with additional onboard monitoring equipment to reveal what has been
done to a bike and potentially disable it if 'illegal' modifications are
detected. Of course they are trying to weasel-word their way around
these intentions, but the direction of things is clear. The IMCO
committee, led by a Conservative UK MEP, is clearly adding icing to the
Commission cake by extending the ABS ruling down to two-wheelers of 50cc
capacity. They want to tighten the noose of red tape over our lives and
strangle all our freedoms.

Please rest assured that UKIP will do all it can to stop, dilute, or
slow down this type of anti-motorcycle legislation. As I compile voting
lists for the UKIP MEPs, I will be in a position to influence matters. I
will certainly advise in a manner to defend the rights of UK
motorcyclists and our industry. As many of the issues are 'green'
propaganda items, they will therefore also be going through the
Environment (ENVI) committee for consultation, which I cover, and I also
prepare voting lists for ENVI matters to guide the MEPs. The EU, to pick
up the phrase used by MAG, does work in a 'one size fits all' manner.
This wilfully ignores the fact that the UK is one of the most advanced
industrial nations in the world and has been successfully making its own
laws for nearly a thousand years. Our only solution is to oppose the EU
in any and all ways possible until we are finally rid of it, and this
certainly involves opposing all new EU laws, all of which remove our
democratic right to rule ourselves by Members of Parliament we elected,
as opposed to unelected Commission bureaucrats who draft all the laws,
as MEPs can only make minor amendments at any stage of the process.

I hope this helps you to understand that we have complete sympathy with
your position, and enables you to rest assured that we are doing all we
can for the UK motorcyclist, and our manufacturers and businesses.
Please feel free to write further on this topic, and consider voting for
UKIP in future elections, the only party defending UK freedom and
democracy. We are always concerned with your concerns.

Yours sincerely


Michael Jose
Policy Advisor, Transport and Environment
Office of Godfrey Bloom
00 32 228 47407
michael.jose@europarl.europa.eu
http://blog.godfreybloommep.co.uk/

Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-02-2012, 11:16 PM
Bodge's Avatar
Bodge Bodge is offline
Need to Get out More!
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South Worcestershire (and a long way from home)
Posts: 483
Default

A good reply, shame the link they gave was a dud!
__________________
A dog is for Friday night not for life.
My Katana trike build. it broke
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-02-2012, 10:21 AM
wurzel wurzel is offline
Billy No Mates (only virtual ones!)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,012
Default

No i think that was my crap copy and pasting

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/docume...ATT33503EN.pdf

that should work but be prepared to read a bunch of over simplified and lying crap about how it is all a storm in a teacup - to quote "But in practice the bikers will have the same possibilities to modify their motorcycles, not to tamper with them. These are two different things"

I wish they would define their difference between "to modify" and "to tamper" as my dictionary says

Modify - to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend:.

Tamper - to meddle, especially for the purpose of altering, damaging, or misusing

So it seems that tampering is modifying with the "intention" of misuse so anything we change with intention of improvement must be modification and not tampering.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-02-2012, 08:36 AM
wearthefoxhat wearthefoxhat is offline
Type like a Twat Me...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 911
Default

I suspect Wim de Camps understanding of the difference between 'Modification' and 'Tampering' is down to "Who is making these changes?"

I reckon 'modification' will be anything that is carried out by a main dealer or an authorised mechanic.
I also reckon 'tampering' will be the any alterations carried out by a private individual.

Certain alterations would be covered by Type-Approval, anything else would be via an SVA.
I also suspect that they will achieve this by building in 'anti-tamper' measures such as shear bolts, special fixings and the like. It also implies that if a bike is taken to SVA for approval for modifications, then the examiner would require proof of modification to ensure it was done correctly and by the authorised person.
__________________
Nema jebene bonbon
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-02-2012, 09:51 AM
XJphil's Avatar
XJphil XJphil is offline
Type like a Twat Me...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Black Country
Posts: 763
Default

Email i got the other day
Dear all,Due to the overwhelming response we have had on this piece of draft regulation, we thought it best to keep you up to date on the latest developments for the approval and market surveillance of two or three-wheeled vehicles and quadricycles.For those of you who have sent your latest campaign letter from MAG, we have made contact with your General Secretary, Nich Brown. So, please find below Malcolm’s latest report. If there are any further updates, I will inform you in due course.Best wishes,Rebecca Harding
UK Assistant to Malcolm Harbour MEP “Thank you for your email raising a number of detailed and important questions on the draft Regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two-or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. We have received many similar queries from interested citizens, who have, like you, displayed remarkable technical knowledge, as well as a mastery of the internal workings of the European legislative process, even on such detailed subjects as “delegated acts”. I can assure you that our team on the Internal Market Committee, chaired by myself, is taking all your points into consideration. I have had extensive consultations with motorcycling organisations, especially with MAG, who are based in my constituency. The Committee has taken its responsibilities very seriously and has given detailed consideration to the complex technical issues involved. They have now voted on a first package of amendments, but the substantive opinion will not be final until it has been voted on by the full Parliament. Before the final vote, there will certainly be fresh amendments tabled by MEPs from different political families, including our own ECR Group. We expect that these amendments will take into account the results of the Parliament's own impact assessment on certain of the Committee's amendments, which should be published on our Committee website in about two weeks. This impact assessment as well as the March/April timetable for a vote by the full Parliament were both planned by the Committee, and had nothing to do with lobbying by external groups. They are part of a “better regulation” process that we aim to follow throughout. There is a possibility that the working group of Member State ministries, now under the Chairmanship of Denmark, may invite the Parliament to open negotiations for an early agreement on a final Directive text, if they perceive there is a chance of reaching a well balanced compromise. However, this is by no means certain. We are waiting to see what view the governments will take and it could well be that final approval is only achieved after a second round of discussions and votes that will run well into 2012 or even 2013. We are well aware of the issues that enthusiastic motorcyclists have repeatedly raised with us about anti lock braking and tampering and have considered them in great detail. Most of these concerns are being covered in our impact assessment and I can assure you that your concerns on anti-tampering will also be taken into consideration before the final vote by the full Parliament.You also raise a number of highly detailed points about delegated acts. These are now under discussion within the working group of Member State ministries. The recent document from the Commission you refer to is intended to aid these discussions so that governments can better view the emerging legal framework and identify potential problems early on. The document only represents the Commission's starting pitch. In any event, the European Parliament will formally scrutinise these delegated acts in due course, when and if they are published, as will the working group of ministries.Finally, owing to the time required for translations into all official languages, the final version of the Committee Report is not yet available but it will be published shortly. In the meantime, a near final English version is available for information purposes (see below).http://www.europarl.europa.eu/docume...ATT36219EN.pdf I hope that we have successfully responded to your queries.Yours sincerely,Malcolm Harbour MEP
Chairman of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee”
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.