RE: Modified cars safe, for now.
Discussion
Shakotan, none of that short circuits the legislative process, and the DfT is presently consulting a few groups in the UK. The draft still has to pass the Council and the Parliament. The Council stage is more important, as the Parliament is mainly a talking shop. Member State Governments will argue the toss before any draft is put to any vote. There is no budget for this, and little appetite in the UK for major change. I doubt that many other member States will be keen on major change either.
My views are based on real world experience of working with UK and EU institutions in an advisory capacity and arguing cases as an Advocate, not some ivory tower theories. Of course, I may be wrong. I have no stake in being proved right (unlike , perhaps, people who have been playing the role of Prophet of Doom for several years). It may be that ACE and others are now wedded to a position. They will look silly if they now say "Er, it's not as bad as we thought". They should, I think, have read the proposal more carefully, and taken legal advice, before announcing that Mark Twain was dead.
My views are based on real world experience of working with UK and EU institutions in an advisory capacity and arguing cases as an Advocate, not some ivory tower theories. Of course, I may be wrong. I have no stake in being proved right (unlike , perhaps, people who have been playing the role of Prophet of Doom for several years). It may be that ACE and others are now wedded to a position. They will look silly if they now say "Er, it's not as bad as we thought". They should, I think, have read the proposal more carefully, and taken legal advice, before announcing that Mark Twain was dead.
DFT speaks with forked tongue.
History suggests that it is not the EU that is the problem but the excuse that any EU directive or regulation gives the Whitehall commissars to control and direct, and blame it on the EU.
They pretend to love localism whilst centralising every tiny decision. This will go through and the next thing you know you will have a mass of regulations and restrictions 'required' by Brussels but not supported the originating directive or whatever. MPs have no idea(lobby fodder)and do as they are bidden, fishing regulations, abattoirs...the list is endless.
Rant over.
History suggests that it is not the EU that is the problem but the excuse that any EU directive or regulation gives the Whitehall commissars to control and direct, and blame it on the EU.
They pretend to love localism whilst centralising every tiny decision. This will go through and the next thing you know you will have a mass of regulations and restrictions 'required' by Brussels but not supported the originating directive or whatever. MPs have no idea(lobby fodder)and do as they are bidden, fishing regulations, abattoirs...the list is endless.
Rant over.
PH says:-
"Best of all, the DfT is adamant it will be "pushing back" against anything that has a cost implication for the government, the industry and - vitally - car owners as well. The press office was also keen to explain that EU legislation always takes a long time to go through. If there is a threat, it is very far from being an imminent one.
Perhaps most reassuringly, the bloke on the phone this morning literally burst out laughing when we explained some well-meaning folk fear the EU is attempting to outlaw modified cars entirely. Not a suggestion that this is a laughing matter, but a reflection of how absurd the idea is from any rational perspective."
Things that sound like sense often are. Thinks that sound daft often are. Compare PH's sensible reporting of the story to the OH. MY. GOD. approach elsewhere.
"Best of all, the DfT is adamant it will be "pushing back" against anything that has a cost implication for the government, the industry and - vitally - car owners as well. The press office was also keen to explain that EU legislation always takes a long time to go through. If there is a threat, it is very far from being an imminent one.
Perhaps most reassuringly, the bloke on the phone this morning literally burst out laughing when we explained some well-meaning folk fear the EU is attempting to outlaw modified cars entirely. Not a suggestion that this is a laughing matter, but a reflection of how absurd the idea is from any rational perspective."
Things that sound like sense often are. Thinks that sound daft often are. Compare PH's sensible reporting of the story to the OH. MY. GOD. approach elsewhere.
Breadvan72 said:
PH says:-
"Best of all, the DfT is adamant it will be "pushing back" against anything that has a cost implication for the government, the industry and - vitally - car owners as well. The press office was also keen to explain that EU legislation always takes a long time to go through. If there is a threat, it is very far from being an imminent one.
Perhaps most reassuringly, the bloke on the phone this morning literally burst out laughing when we explained some well-meaning folk fear the EU is attempting to outlaw modified cars entirely. Not a suggestion that this is a laughing matter, but a reflection of how absurd the idea is from any rational perspective."
Things that sound like sense often are. Thinks that sound daft often are. Compare PH's sensible reporting of the story to the OH. MY. GOD. approach elsewhere.
All well and good and I believe that a sensible outcome for the UK can be achieved within the EU 'requirements' ................... but only if you don't let DfT out on their own!"Best of all, the DfT is adamant it will be "pushing back" against anything that has a cost implication for the government, the industry and - vitally - car owners as well. The press office was also keen to explain that EU legislation always takes a long time to go through. If there is a threat, it is very far from being an imminent one.
Perhaps most reassuringly, the bloke on the phone this morning literally burst out laughing when we explained some well-meaning folk fear the EU is attempting to outlaw modified cars entirely. Not a suggestion that this is a laughing matter, but a reflection of how absurd the idea is from any rational perspective."
Things that sound like sense often are. Thinks that sound daft often are. Compare PH's sensible reporting of the story to the OH. MY. GOD. approach elsewhere.
Breadvan72 said:
Nice swerve to migrant bashing! I go to Court for HMG and get illegal immigrants chucked out, quite often. What do you do about problems facing the UK? Moan on websites, maybe?
Wake people up to the ones who really control our governments, media, banking, etc. and are using these positions to commit genocide against us.
Get a real job!!Not read any of the comments but here's my thoughts.
Even if it is just a proposal at this stage there is nothing currently to stop it happening.
If everyone with a few makes this known to their MP, MEPs and the DfT it will go towards stopping it.
TBH most of the document is introducing standards that are still below those in the UK and one of the main points seems to be to promote cross border used car sales but the market for lefthand drive cars is still extremly limited in main land Europe.
Even if it is just a proposal at this stage there is nothing currently to stop it happening.
If everyone with a few makes this known to their MP, MEPs and the DfT it will go towards stopping it.
TBH most of the document is introducing standards that are still below those in the UK and one of the main points seems to be to promote cross border used car sales but the market for lefthand drive cars is still extremly limited in main land Europe.
Its not really a lot of fuss about nothing, cause car manufacturers would LOVE that kind of legislation. Think about it. You can't use 3rd party parts and you can price small garages out the market (just charge them over the roof for parts) - now everyone has to service their car at the dealership. Dream come true. Not only they make new cars significantly less reliable that they were 20 years ago but when they inevitably go wrong you have to fork out thousands at the dealership.
As a snap shot have a think about some of the cars you see at meets or track days that are road legal, i pass every morning a young lad in an MX-5 stupidly low and cambered up to the point of cartoon, stickers blocking most of the windscreen at the bottom.
I am not some old fuddy duddy i drive an Alfa 155 BTCC rep, race seats big brake conversion, aftermarket alloys, exhaust system, super chip, mapped etc etc. loads of mods, including racing wheel.
Fact is surely it cant he long till they faze out allowing such cars to be on the roads legally? Whatever breadvan says as soon as possible they will want cars that are functional only as means of safe enviro friendly transport. Not moblie hobbies.
I am not some old fuddy duddy i drive an Alfa 155 BTCC rep, race seats big brake conversion, aftermarket alloys, exhaust system, super chip, mapped etc etc. loads of mods, including racing wheel.
Fact is surely it cant he long till they faze out allowing such cars to be on the roads legally? Whatever breadvan says as soon as possible they will want cars that are functional only as means of safe enviro friendly transport. Not moblie hobbies.
Ah, the mysterious "they". Are "they" the same "they" who should "do something about it" when something goes wrong, or is that a different "they"?
Anyway, I'm off out to play with an incredibly stupid and somewhat modified left hand drive* car, if it passes its (still boringly ordinary) MOT Test this morning. Debating a draft of a draft may have its interests for academics, but I'm not an academic, so now I think I'll wait until we have a draft that is close to being enacted before engaging in fervent discussion of whether it means X or Y.
Anyway, I'm off out to play with an incredibly stupid and somewhat modified left hand drive* car, if it passes its (still boringly ordinary) MOT Test this morning. Debating a draft of a draft may have its interests for academics, but I'm not an academic, so now I think I'll wait until we have a draft that is close to being enacted before engaging in fervent discussion of whether it means X or Y.
- Yes, one of those that LHD cars that, according to "talkingcars" above, there's an extremely limited market for in mainland Europe. Pity that no one told all those millons of LHD car drivers over there, but that's Johnny Foreigner for you, I suppose.
Breadvan72 said:
PH says:-
"Best of all, the DfT is adamant it will be "pushing back" against anything that has a cost implication for the government, the industry and - vitally - car owners as well. The press office was also keen to explain that EU legislation always takes a long time to go through. If there is a threat, it is very far from being an imminent one.
Perhaps most reassuringly, the bloke on the phone this morning literally burst out laughing when we explained some well-meaning folk fear the EU is attempting to outlaw modified cars entirely. Not a suggestion that this is a laughing matter, but a reflection of how absurd the idea is from any rational perspective."
Things that sound like sense often are. Thinks that sound daft often are. Compare PH's sensible reporting of the story to the OH. MY. GOD. approach elsewhere.
So who was the bloke on the phone? "Best of all, the DfT is adamant it will be "pushing back" against anything that has a cost implication for the government, the industry and - vitally - car owners as well. The press office was also keen to explain that EU legislation always takes a long time to go through. If there is a threat, it is very far from being an imminent one.
Perhaps most reassuringly, the bloke on the phone this morning literally burst out laughing when we explained some well-meaning folk fear the EU is attempting to outlaw modified cars entirely. Not a suggestion that this is a laughing matter, but a reflection of how absurd the idea is from any rational perspective."
Things that sound like sense often are. Thinks that sound daft often are. Compare PH's sensible reporting of the story to the OH. MY. GOD. approach elsewhere.
As for things that sound daft... You mean like closing the DVLA regional offices. Doing away the garage stamped MOT cerificates. Daft things like that?
While ACE may well be the doomsayers for many things, they are hardly the only lobby group who waved the banner on this issue. Though there will always be those that like to put the knife in and turn it ever so slightly. At least now people are aware, and some debate has been created to shake the sand from the ears of those that have had thier heads burried for so bleeding long they don't know what day it is.
who put money above all else no matter how they portray themselves 
Breadvan72 said:
Do not believe all that you read in the tabloids. Germany, for example, has had a bigger problem with refugee claimants than the UK. Also, the Dublin Convention, under which asylum claimants are sent back to the first country that they claimed protection from, is enforced, and upheld by other EU states. I am not saying that the system is flawless, as it isn't, but, as with most things that the press like to go on about, it is both more complex and less outrageous than the press suggests.
Hasn't the Dublin Convention been replaced by the Dublin Regulation, or is that still pending ratification?Be that as it may, surely your position that "asylum claimants are sent back to the first country they claimed protection from" presents the (flawed) reality, as opposes to the legal intention that might be summed-up as "asylum claimants should be sent back to the first Dublin country that they entered"? The whole premise of such disgraces as Sangatte (sp?) was AFAIK to allow asylum claimants to circumvent the law and replace it with the 'realpolitik' that your summary implies? France should have processed those claims, or sent the claimants back to their country of entry, yet instead they actively facilitated their onward transit to the UK.
My apologies if I've totally misunderstood the legal framework; I've relied upon my reading of what I can find, and certainly not on the outpourings of our red-tops.
The Dirty Bubble said:
What exactly is in store for bike owners, and how set in stone is it? Could be an indication of what is to come for us 4 wheeled tinkerers.
BMF said:
THE REALITY CHECK
PROPOSAL:
· Anti-Tampering – The European Commission wants powers (via a delegated act) to introduce rules to make changes more difficult to the engine and drive train of motorcycles (“be regarded as difficult to tamper”)
Mythbusting:
IMCO voted to make governments test bikes after changes made by users
· The original proposals will not make it illegal to change components on a motorcycle (unless IMCO change is adopted)
· There will not be spot checks of motorcycles on the road
· It will only apply to new motorcycles
· These rules currently exist on 50cc mopeds (which are routinely tampered with)
British Government says:
· No – not necessary on larger bikes and expensive; also has a problem with “delegated act” aspect
BMF says:
· No, nay, never
PROPOSAL:
· Commission wants powers (via a delegated act) to specify minimum safety equipment for motorcycles including mandatory ABS on larger bikes or CBS on smaller bikes (from 2017) as well as Automatic Headlights On (AHO) on all bikes
Mythbusting:
· Original text excludes enduro and trail bikes
· Off switch probably up to manufacturer discretion
· AHO already on nearly all bikes sold in EU
IMCO voted to extend ABS to all motorcycles (excluding mopeds)
Govt says:
· ABS likely to have safety benefit (although no examination of extension to 125s as proposed after government exam of original proposal); still against delegated powers.
BMF says:
· ABS should be consumer choice, at this stage far too expensive for small motorcycles, still opposed to mandatory AHO
PROPOSAL:
· On Board Diagnostics (OBD) will be compulsory in two stages
Mythbusting:
· Not an onboard tracking device – only shows component failure or component out of its design parameters
· Will not stop bike working
Govt says:
· Too expensive to implement OBD II (more advanced system), but OBD I is supported.
BMF says:
· May make repairs cheaper and quicker so could have net benefit, error codes must be available to consumers and should not disable bikes
PROPOSAL:
· Bring pollutant limits for bikes in line with cars in three stages over the next decade. Bikes must remain compliant for 50,000km (less for smaller bikes)
Mythbusting:
· Bikes release a much higher amount of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and some other nasties than cars
· Catalytic converters can be fitted to motorcycles and routinely are
· Bikes over 7 years old will not be banned from entering town centres
Govt says:
· Too expensive to implement later stages compared to benefits, but support initial reduction
BMF says:
· Strongly support as political support for bikes depends on bikes being at least as clean as cars
PROPOSAL:
· Manufacturers to publish emissions figures for CO2 and therefore fuel consumption
Govt says:
· Support
BMF says:
· Strongly support as part of a long campaign to get fuel consumption information for motorcycles
PROPOSAL:
· Repair and maintenance information must be made available outside dealer network
Govt says:
· Support, although small producers should be exempt on cost grounds
BMF says:
· Strongly support as it will create better competition amongst garages and will allow users to service more complicated bikes at home
PROPOSAL:
· Member states can approve a motorcycle individually for use across the EU (similar to current MSVA (Motorcycle Single Vehicle Approval), but for whole of EU), however bike must conform closer to rules of directive
Govt says:
· Current IVA system is adequate so no change needed
BMF says:
· Can see some benefit to allowing EU wide individual approval, but rules must be looser
PROPOSAL:
Commission will produce a list of components that must also be type approved for safety and environmental reasons.
Mythbusting:
Aftermarket components will not be banned
Some components will have to meet the same standards as original components
BMF Says:
We see that aftermarket manufacturers can get away with less stringent control than bike manufacturers and there may be an imbalance of costs, but we’re not convinced the problem is big enough for this solution
PROPOSAL:
· Anti-Tampering – The European Commission wants powers (via a delegated act) to introduce rules to make changes more difficult to the engine and drive train of motorcycles (“be regarded as difficult to tamper”)
Mythbusting:
IMCO voted to make governments test bikes after changes made by users
· The original proposals will not make it illegal to change components on a motorcycle (unless IMCO change is adopted)
· There will not be spot checks of motorcycles on the road
· It will only apply to new motorcycles
· These rules currently exist on 50cc mopeds (which are routinely tampered with)
British Government says:
· No – not necessary on larger bikes and expensive; also has a problem with “delegated act” aspect
BMF says:
· No, nay, never
PROPOSAL:
· Commission wants powers (via a delegated act) to specify minimum safety equipment for motorcycles including mandatory ABS on larger bikes or CBS on smaller bikes (from 2017) as well as Automatic Headlights On (AHO) on all bikes
Mythbusting:
· Original text excludes enduro and trail bikes
· Off switch probably up to manufacturer discretion
· AHO already on nearly all bikes sold in EU
IMCO voted to extend ABS to all motorcycles (excluding mopeds)
Govt says:
· ABS likely to have safety benefit (although no examination of extension to 125s as proposed after government exam of original proposal); still against delegated powers.
BMF says:
· ABS should be consumer choice, at this stage far too expensive for small motorcycles, still opposed to mandatory AHO
PROPOSAL:
· On Board Diagnostics (OBD) will be compulsory in two stages
Mythbusting:
· Not an onboard tracking device – only shows component failure or component out of its design parameters
· Will not stop bike working
Govt says:
· Too expensive to implement OBD II (more advanced system), but OBD I is supported.
BMF says:
· May make repairs cheaper and quicker so could have net benefit, error codes must be available to consumers and should not disable bikes
PROPOSAL:
· Bring pollutant limits for bikes in line with cars in three stages over the next decade. Bikes must remain compliant for 50,000km (less for smaller bikes)
Mythbusting:
· Bikes release a much higher amount of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and some other nasties than cars
· Catalytic converters can be fitted to motorcycles and routinely are
· Bikes over 7 years old will not be banned from entering town centres
Govt says:
· Too expensive to implement later stages compared to benefits, but support initial reduction
BMF says:
· Strongly support as political support for bikes depends on bikes being at least as clean as cars
PROPOSAL:
· Manufacturers to publish emissions figures for CO2 and therefore fuel consumption
Govt says:
· Support
BMF says:
· Strongly support as part of a long campaign to get fuel consumption information for motorcycles
PROPOSAL:
· Repair and maintenance information must be made available outside dealer network
Govt says:
· Support, although small producers should be exempt on cost grounds
BMF says:
· Strongly support as it will create better competition amongst garages and will allow users to service more complicated bikes at home
PROPOSAL:
· Member states can approve a motorcycle individually for use across the EU (similar to current MSVA (Motorcycle Single Vehicle Approval), but for whole of EU), however bike must conform closer to rules of directive
Govt says:
· Current IVA system is adequate so no change needed
BMF says:
· Can see some benefit to allowing EU wide individual approval, but rules must be looser
PROPOSAL:
Commission will produce a list of components that must also be type approved for safety and environmental reasons.
Mythbusting:
Aftermarket components will not be banned
Some components will have to meet the same standards as original components
BMF Says:
We see that aftermarket manufacturers can get away with less stringent control than bike manufacturers and there may be an imbalance of costs, but we’re not convinced the problem is big enough for this solution
magician said:
Breadvan72 said:
I've probably already said too much.
On another side topic, my summary re Dublin was pretty skimpy, and wasn't meant as a careful analysis. My experience, and that of some Judges and civil servants whom I know who deal with these issues, is that the system doesn't work as it should, but is not as bad as the papers tend to say that it is.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 30th August 16:53
Edited by Bill on Thursday 30th August 20:37
magician said:
If I told you who has monopolized our media and banking, and who controls our governments, and are using these positions to commit genocide against us, I'm sure I would be banned. That tells you something in itself. If I said it was Martians I wouldn't be banned and my comment would stay up because it would be ridiculous, but if I said who really controls these things I would be banned and censored. Only those who have something to hide would feel the need to do that.
I'll say this, the race/religion who has monopolized our media and banking and controls our governments begins with a J, and regard themselves as the "chosen people".
I've probably already said too much.
fI'll say this, the race/religion who has monopolized our media and banking and controls our governments begins with a J, and regard themselves as the "chosen people".
I've probably already said too much.
king Jedi at it again. Damn you George Lucas!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff