100% Biker & Trike Magazine Forums

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-09-2012, 08:12 PM
wurzel wurzel is offline
Billy No Mates (only virtual ones!)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Default Might get support from Car drivers now

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/2383.html

Motorists face EU ban for modifying cars
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-09-2012, 10:04 PM
Gregg1100 Gregg1100 is offline
Chatter Box
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: South Wales
Posts: 370
Send a message via AIM to Gregg1100
Default Might get support from Car drivers now

There is a huge array of customisable bits, suppliers and workers in the car industry--they will not take this crap, or will they?. About time the europrats pissed off and leave us alone.
When plonker Heath took us into the eec in 71, he conveniently forgot to tell us that we would be taking orders from them. In that case, why have we got 650+ politicos in London.?? Sack them all and their hangers on, level Westminster and use ground as an overnight lorry park, except for johnny foreigners. Stop them coming into this country at all, causing untold grief.
__________________
90 Kwak EN500A- now running-
90 Kawa GPZ 500 A4- Sick as a parrot-
98 Xantia TD 1.9SX-needs work
92 Kawa GT 550 G7 Shaft ( or me shafted)
04 Kawa GPZ 500 E10
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-09-2012, 07:40 AM
stufb's Avatar
stufb stufb is offline
Chat Virgin
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: ipswich--suffolk
Posts: 40
Default

i agree with all above
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-09-2012, 07:48 AM
rob rob is offline
It's about time I shut the fuck up!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,809
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg1100 View Post
hey will not take this crap, or will they?
course they will, a small amount of moaning, and a large amount of apathy..... it's the english way.....
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-09-2012, 08:51 AM
pale rider pale rider is offline
It's about time I shut the fuck up!
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,801
Default

our parliment is now no more than a local Eu council,central government is now in brusals
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-09-2012, 03:27 PM
wearthefoxhat wearthefoxhat is offline
Type like a Twat Me...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg1100 View Post
When plonker Heath took us into the eec in 71, he conveniently forgot to tell us that we would be taking orders from them.
Heath held a referendum 'do we want to join the Common Market'?
No-one dreamed we would be discussing the likes of Turkey and Albania joining the EU, nor did we realise the excesses of the commission.

However,

It is easy to forget that Harold Wilson held a 'do we want to stay in the Common Market?' referendum in 1975.

It's Wilson's fault, not Heath's, because Wilson held the last referendum.

[/pedantmode]
__________________
Nema jebene bonbon

Last edited by wearthefoxhat; 08-09-2012 at 03:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 27-09-2012, 07:15 AM
shaggy696969's Avatar
shaggy696969 shaggy696969 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,654
Default

Some reading nicked from a car forum for you .......

It's long make a coffee first and grab the popcorn ....

It’s human nature to believe the things we are told by our peers, as we grow up, but there comes a point in our lives when we stop believing everything we are told. Take for example some of the replies from MEP’s, MP’s and other parties over the “Armageddon” article.

Some of the forums have run extensive threads and inevitably most have followed predictable lines of denial, anger, frustration and disbelief. Some of you have been inquisitive enough to write to those in power and express your concerns. But we question some of those replies as being misleading, diverting and downright wrong.

One of the most common themes running through replies is that the UK government will have a say in the process and ultimately whatever the EU decided is irrelevant until the UK parliament agrees upon it.

The below example was kindly posted to another forum and in the public domain.

http://retrorides.proboards.com/inde...135328&page=18

Thank you for your email about the European Commission’s proposal for an EU Roadworthiness Testing Directive, which was published in July 2012. Many of my correspondents, like you, have been concerned about the alarmist comments on this proposal that have appeared on some car enthusiasts web sites. We want to reassure you that it will certainly not be rushed into approval in its present form, to the detriment of owners and users of historic, modified and low volume specialist vehicles.

On the contrary, this proposal is very far from being agreed, despite the fact that it has already been subject to extensive consultation. It will go through a full Co-Decision procedure involving the European Parliament and all the EU Member Governments. The proposed content will certainly be modified extensively. It has many flaws and it is not at all clear that there will be a majority of Member States in favour of any EU intervention in this policy area. The UK has yet to take a position on it.

Within the European Parliament, review of the dossier is being led by the Transport Committee, and 3 other Committees will have key roles. A large number of UK MEPs will be examining the dossier and proposing amendments. No work has yet started in Parliament. We would not expect agreement before the end of 2013. You will be able to follow its progress through the web site of the European Parliament and also see a live web cast of all the discussions.

The attached file shows the current procedure that will be followed, with links to the key proposal documents. The full timetable and the appointment of the key MEPs on the file (rapporteurs) will be decided in September. It is likely that there will be a public hearing at which the case for amendments can be made.

Parliaments in Member States will also be able to give their opinions, and the proposal will already have been sent to the Westminster Parliament for a response.

The UK Government is also very deeply involved through the Department of Transport. They will have representatives in all the negotiations with the European Commission. It is already consulting stakeholders, and we attach their request for views from interested parties for your interest.

Conservative MEPs will take great care to ensure that sympathetic treatment for historic and modified vehicles will be encompassed in any final legislation. For several years we have been working with the Federation of British Historical Vehicles Clubs, and their European Federation, to respond to consultations that the EU has been having on this proposal. The attached note from the FBHVC web site shows what has been going on. In the European Parliament we have a well supported, all party and cross country Historic Vehicles Group that meets regularly to co-ordinate activities. We are very much aware of the economic importance of the historic vehicle movement.

It will be important for the historic vehicle movement, the specialist niche vehicle and kit car producers across Europe to examine the details and make a considered case to amend the flaws in this proposal. We are confident that MEPs will be very receptive to suggested changes form experts in this area.

Your sincerely

Ashley Fox MEP

Okay, the key issue is in the first sentence, where Ashley Fox thanks you for the email about the directive, she makes the mistake in thinking this is a directive when it is clearly titled a regulation. Many other letters also assume the proposal is a directive and the message given out by Ashley and others follows from this assumption, is that the UK government will have an opportunity to mould it at a local level.

Take for example the FBHVC press release on EU Roadworthiness testing, that also attempts an address of the same issue.

http://fbhvc.co.uk/2012/08/23/eu-roa...iness-testing/

When the European Parliament Historic Vehicle Group (EPHVG) met in May, Szabolcs Schmidt the head of the EC Road Safety Unit, mentioned that proposals for revisions to the Roadworthiness Testing Directive, following a 2010 consultation, were expected ‘in the summer’. In July, the European Commission published the detail which turned out to be a proposal to replace the current Roadworthiness Testing Directive (2009/40/EC) with a completely new Directive.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 27-09-2012, 07:15 AM
shaggy696969's Avatar
shaggy696969 shaggy696969 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,654
Default

The draft of the new Directive has implications for all motorists, not just historic vehicle owners. Amongst other things, the draft includes requirements to test all trailers (which in turn implies a registration system) and requires tests to make reference to a vehicle’s original ‘technical characteristics’. The meaning of this expression is not defined. National governments are granted the right to make their own testing arrangements for ‘vehicles of historic interest’. A vehicle of historic interest is then defined as one that
» • Was manufactured more than 30 years ago
» • Is maintained by use of replacement parts which reproduce the historic components of the vehicle
» • Has not sustained any change in the technical characteristics of its main components such as engine, brakes, steering or suspension; and
» • Has not been changed in its appearance.

FBHVC considers this definition to be unworkable and completely unacceptable. FBHVC also rejects the suggestion that Roadworthiness Testing should relate to a vehicle’s ‘technical characteristics’, whatever the age of the vehicle. Modifications, alterations and improvements are all part of the history of motor vehicles and the older the vehicle, the more likely it is that it will have been altered at some stage. At present the basic tenet of a UK MoT test is that it is one of mechanical fitness. There is no database of original specifications for UK vehicles, so testing to original ‘technical characteristics’ is simply pie-in-the-sky.

Earlier this month, the Department for Transport asked stakeholders for comment on the proposals. FBHVC will be responding formally to this request when further analysis of the detailed proposals has been completed. FBHVC will be discussing the implications of the proposal with the international organisation, FIVA, and through them with the EPHVG group as well as with the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicle Group in the UK.

It should be remembered that this is still just a proposal. It has to have approval by each EU member country before it is adopted. Some media commentary on this topic has tended towards the ‘we’re doomed’ end of the scale. It is certainly a serious issue and FBHVC is treating it accordingly.

The FBHVC also take the assumption that this is a Directive and point out “it has to have approval by each EU member country before it is adopted” 100% correct if it’s a Directive. But this is not how the EU works when it comes to Regulations.
ACE wonder why so many people have missed this important change in the type of proposal, when the title of the paper is very clear?

Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing
Directive 2009/40/EC

That clearly states it’s a Regulation that will replace an older Directive!

So what’s a Regulation when it’s at home?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)

A regulation is a legislative act of the European Union that becomes immediately enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously. Regulations can be distinguished from directives which, at least in principle, need to be transposed into national law.

Legal effect

Regulations are in some sense equivalent to “Acts of Parliament”, in the sense that what they say is law and they do not need to be mediated into national law by means of implementing measures. As such, regulations constitute one of the most powerful forms of European Union law and a great deal of care is required in their drafting and formulation.

When a regulation comes into force, it overrides all national laws dealing with the same subject matter and subsequent national legislation must be consistent with and made in the light of the regulation. While member states are prohibited from obscuring the direct effect of regulations, it is common practice to pass legislation dealing with consequential matters arising from the coming into force of a regulation.

Well that seems plain and simple, the UK doesn’t have a direct say at all!

But hold on a minute Ashley Fox told us all:
It will go through a full Co-Decision procedure involving the European Parliament and all the EU Member Governments.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutp...procedure.html

The co-decision procedure was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty on European Union (1992), and extended and made more effective by the Amsterdam Treaty (1999). With the Lisbon Treaty that took effect on 1 December 2009, the renamed ordinary legislative procedure became the main legislative procedure of the EU´s decision-making system.

It is nothing to do with shared decision making between UK and EU (as I feel it hints at) it’s the methodology used where the two EU chambers agree upon things, not the UK and EU (as implied in Ashley Fox’s letter), this is misleading, at best.
It’s fundamental to the way in which the EU will approach this proposal and change the law with so little understanding of the unique culture and heritage of the UK scene.

This is why ACE has been so critical of the process and urged you to write to the MEP’s.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 27-09-2012, 09:58 AM
wurzel wurzel is offline
Billy No Mates (only virtual ones!)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Default

Add to that the fact that the proposed test includes visual inspection of brake shoes for contamination which means the removal of the rear wheel and suggestions we go to an Irish model of state run test centres I have emailed one of the SE MEP's who is a green and sits on the panel to point out the extra contamination of all that brake dust and the extra pollution from all the miles driving to and from super test centres as opposed to the local garage and the environmental cost of not being able to use used parts from other vehicles to keep a vehicle on the road and instead needing to buy newly manufactured parts or scrap a vehicle for the want of not being able to find an original gromit flange or whatever. Might as well play to the greenies fears
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 27-09-2012, 10:18 AM
harry's Avatar
harry harry is offline
Techno Guru! He's Good! He Knows Everyfink!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Taunton
Posts: 3,399
Default

Simply point out to DfT VOSA that removing brake parts as part of the test runs the risk of claims for brake failure.

In the unlikely event that it happens, return your bike after every test complaining that the "brake doesn't feel right". Or the chain is too tight/ loose. Who will pay the bill for rechecking brakes etc after dismantling.

Who will be responsible for compensation if there is a serious accident after the brakes have been dismantled.

I work for them the people at the top are risk averse.
__________________
si is does non opportunus vos postulo a maior pango
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 27-09-2012, 10:28 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by wearthefoxhat View Post
Heath held a referendum 'do we want to join the Common Market'?
No-one dreamed we would be discussing the likes of Turkey and Albania joining the EU, nor did we realise the excesses of the commission.

However,

It is easy to forget that Harold Wilson held a 'do we want to stay in the Common Market?' referendum in 1975.

It's Wilson's fault, not Heath's, because Wilson held the last referendum.

[/pedantmode]
I voted with my feet in 1971 by moving to New Zealand for seven years..even back then I knew lies when I heard them..If we don't join the common market we will be black listed and nobody in the common market will buy our products... We have to go metric because the Europeans are our main market..(nothing said about all the countries still using imperial)...We will have a whole new market for our products...(Nothing said about all the European countries already supplying that market with cut price goods)..It didn't take a genius to see that we would lose half our factories because the owners would decide it wasn't worth converting and half our shops for the same reason..

I wasn't here for that referendum in 1975 but I think it was tagged on to the voting system as a vote for us is a vote for the EU..and no matter who you voted for would have said you voted for the EU....but I could be wrong because I only heard about it from relatives and on the NZ news..

John.
__________________
Beauty is skin deep; ugly goes right to the bone
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 27-09-2012, 10:47 AM
wurzel wurzel is offline
Billy No Mates (only virtual ones!)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,007
Default

This was the latest from Paddy at MAG - I believe DEKRA is the company behind German inspections and they do fleet inspections across europe so obviously no vested interest there.

(Paddy's email below)

The Transport and Tourism Committee (TRAN) of the European Parliament have now had time to look at the new Super MoT proposals from the Commission, so it's time, as voters, that we make contact with them.

They had their first discussion on the topic a week ago and are due to meet again on the 8th October, but I haven't seen the agenda to know if they'll discuss it again so soon.

MAG has been in contact with the Department for Transport here in the UK, so we know that we share many of the same concerns about this proposed legislation, but there is a long way to go as the legislative process has just begun.

You may remember the public consultation was held back in 2010 and is now the subject of an investigation by the Ombudsman, after MAG member John Strong formally complained that it wasn't fit for purpose. This case is ongoing, but I have read erroneous statements on some web forums that no-one was ever consulted. Over 9000 people did respond even though the questions were laughable, and I'm pleased to say many of them were MAG members.

Last weekend saw the demo in Brussels organised by MAG Netherlands and MAG Belgium, there were demos in France by FFMC and in Dublin by MAG Ireland, countries where the Super MoT will have an even more profound effect.
You may be interested to know that FFMC members also recently attacked the DEKRA headquarters in Paris, blocking the entrance with motorcycles before covering the front of the building in flour and oil and then dumping a ton of gravel immediately outside. Sometimes you've got to admire the French direct action! DEKRA is the private company who offer road worthiness testing facilities and who provided the research to the EU Commission to demonstrate that 8% of all bike accidents were caused by technical failures...

Here in the UK, the impact of this legislation won't be as profound, but will still cause considerable unnecessary change if we don't challenge it.
The first thing we must do is contact the British members and substitute members of the TRAN committee, so that they know we are watching what they are doing.

There is a letter below that you may wish to personalise, print off and sign or just cut and paste into an email, but please remember this isn't for every MEP, just those listed below, so if you live in the S West, Yorkshire, East Mids, Wales, N Ireland or Scotland, just relax for a minute.
Be warned, some in the car world who misunderstand the issues have been writing to MEPs already, so please do remain polite, don't forget to sign the letter and follow up the response if it appears your MEP has sent you the wrong reply.

First up is the North West.
Brian Simpson (TRAN Chairman) Labour briansimpson.labour@virgin.net Lakeside, Alexandra Park, Prescot Road, St Helens WA10 3TT

Jacqeline Foster (full member) Conservative office@jacquelinefostermep.com Thursby House, i, Thursby Rd, Bromborough, Wirral CH62 3PW

Eastern:
Geoffrey van Orden (substitute) Conservative geoffrey.vanorden@europarl.europa.eu 88, Rectory Lane, Chelmsford CM1 1RF

London:
Syed Kamall (substitute) Conservative syed.kamall@europarl.europa.eu 3, Bridle Close, Kingston upon Thames KT1 2JW

West Midlands:
Philip Bradbourne (full member) Conservative philip.bradbourn@europarl.europa.eu 285, Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common, West Mids CV7 7EL

Mike Nattress (full member) UKIP ukipmep@hotmail.co.uk 48, Fentham Rd, Hampton in Arden, B92 0AY

Phil Bennion (substitute) Lib Dem phil.bennion@europarl.europa.eu 6b Bolebridge Street, Tamworth, Staffordshire B79 7PA

South East:
Keith Taylor (full member) Green keithtaylor@greenmeps.org.uk CAN Mezzanine, 49-51 East Road, London N1 6AH

Catherine Bearder (substitute) Lib Dem catherine@bearder.eu 27, Park End St, Oxford OX1 1HU


Dear

I’m writing to you as a constituent and motorcyclist with some concern about elements of the newly proposed EU Road Worthiness Regulation COM(2012)380.
I understand that you are a member of the Transport and Tourism Committee (TRAN), which will be leading for the European Parliament on this issue.
Although the UK already has a motorcycle road-worthiness test in place (MoT), many of the requirements contained in the new proposal appear unfounded and will I feel add unnecessary expense and inconvenience.
The proposal specifies the visual examination of brake drum linings for scoring and oil contamination for example, and ensuring that motorcycles adhere to their original form as constructed, which the UK Department for Transport considers may prevent many modifications owners wish to make, either for personal reasons or indeed to improve safety or fuel efficiency.
The Commission may require the registration of even the smallest trailers and the withdrawal of a vehicle's registration should they fail the test on what is considered a ‘major’ defect. Perhaps most concerning in the UK, is the financial and regulatory pressure faced by small bike shops who may not be able to continue offering road worthiness testing. This could ultimately lead to a small number of large centres, inconvenient for many riders, but certainly exacerbating recovery charges should a vehicle fail the test and not be permitted to use the highway following removal of its registration.
The public consultation completed in 2010 was deemed by many unfit for purpose, and it is the focus of a complaint to the European Ombudsman, who has found the Commission has indeed a case to answer.
I urge you to consult the Department for Transport and the UK's leading riders organisation the Motorcycle Action Group for advice on this matter and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours Sincerely
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 27-09-2012, 12:49 PM
John Hopkins's Avatar
John Hopkins John Hopkins is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tredegar, South Wales
Posts: 16,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaggy696969 View Post
The draft of the new Directive has implications for all motorists, not just historic vehicle owners. Amongst other things, the draft includes requirements to test all trailers (which in turn implies a registration system) and requires tests to make reference to a vehicle’s original ‘technical characteristics’. The meaning of this expression is not defined. National governments are granted the right to make their own testing arrangements for ‘vehicles of historic interest’. A vehicle of historic interest is then defined as one that
» • Was manufactured more than 30 years ago
» • Is maintained by use of replacement parts which reproduce the historic components of the vehicle
» • Has not sustained any change in the technical characteristics of its main components such as engine, brakes, steering or suspension; and
» • Has not been changed in its appearance.
30 years ago all brake and clutch linings were made from asbestos..since then because of the danger to lungs asbestos has been banned in most countries..

Before they make this a law maybe it is time to rethink the " you can't change that part for a safer / better alternative" part of the law.

John.
__________________
Beauty is skin deep; ugly goes right to the bone
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 03:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.