Brussels demand tighter restrictions
Discussion
So not actually a tighter definition, just looking for the current baseline definition - which the UK doesn't use - to be legally recognised across Europe.
A very sloppily-written and clearly politically biased (Daniel Hannan MEP chosen for the quote, not Greg Knight MP?), as well as clearly factually inaccurate - the pre-60 MOT exemption was purely a UK decision, and is actually incompatible with the European baseline definition, since it doesn't have any originality test, which is why there's been all the recent fuss over the roadworthiness directives.
Get away from the politics, and surely it makes sense to have a single test for whether a tourist can drive into central London, Paris or Berlin with an older vehicle and know whether he's going to get a fine for breaking the local LEZ regs or if he's OK?
A very sloppily-written and clearly politically biased (Daniel Hannan MEP chosen for the quote, not Greg Knight MP?), as well as clearly factually inaccurate - the pre-60 MOT exemption was purely a UK decision, and is actually incompatible with the European baseline definition, since it doesn't have any originality test, which is why there's been all the recent fuss over the roadworthiness directives.
Get away from the politics, and surely it makes sense to have a single test for whether a tourist can drive into central London, Paris or Berlin with an older vehicle and know whether he's going to get a fine for breaking the local LEZ regs or if he's OK?
t article that C&S should be embarrassed by. Must be work-experience week.Breadvan72 said:
C and SC has form for publishing nonsense of this kind. The article is embarassingly rubbish.
Exactly.More constructively, I understand the DVLA are close to having a consultation exercise on how the actual directive might be met and implemented. I've not seen any sign yet, but anyone who does, please post widely as no matter what your views are, the more people who respond the better.
Slidingpillar said:
More constructively, I understand the DVLA are close to having a consultation exercise on how the actual directive might be met and implemented. I've not seen any sign yet, but anyone who does, please post widely as no matter what your views are, the more people who respond the better.
I know BV's views on the FBHVC don't align with mine, but... <grin>If I hear anything from them (I'm on their news circulation list), I'll try and remember to post here.
Breadvan72 said:
I distrust all of these self appointed clubs and associations that claim to speak on behalf of enthusiasts for a hobby, sport, whatever. Blazered buffoons, for the most part.
They're not self-appointed. Club officials are voted for by those who turn up to club AGMs, and FBHVC officials are voted for by those who turn up from member clubs to the Fed AGM.Blazered buffoons? They do largely mirror the membership of many clubs, then... <grin>
If not many people can be arsed to stand up, then either it doesn't get done, or it gets done by those who do stand up - and that doesn't just apply to clubs. Parish councils etc are exactly the same. At the end of the day, they might not be perfect, but they're the only people who can credibly claim to represent us.
If I choose not to participate in any of these clubs they have no claim to represent me. I don't feel the need to be organised, regimented, whatever. I am just someone who likes old cars. I don't want special treatment. Indeed, special benefits could mean special limitations as well.
If I am biased, it's towards being free to use my classic car as and when I please without any form of restriction. FIVA's clear agenda to broaden the application of its definition is a step in the direction of greater restriction that I think should be resisted and challenged. They are actively lobbying using a definition that excludes a huge number of British classics.
The pre-1960 MoT exemption was a UK only decision, which followed published exceptions from the roadworthiness directive set out in 2009 that say member states may set their own testing standards for vehicles considered to be of historical interest – vehicles which were manufactured before 1 January 1960. As I understand it, the requirement for historical vehicles to be in original condition and not having undergone substantial changes to which TooMany2CVs is referring was introduced later.
We approached Greg Knight but his office declined to comment directly. Daniel Hannan was approached due to his insight as a member of European Parliament and for no other reason.
The pre-1960 MoT exemption was a UK only decision, which followed published exceptions from the roadworthiness directive set out in 2009 that say member states may set their own testing standards for vehicles considered to be of historical interest – vehicles which were manufactured before 1 January 1960. As I understand it, the requirement for historical vehicles to be in original condition and not having undergone substantial changes to which TooMany2CVs is referring was introduced later.
We approached Greg Knight but his office declined to comment directly. Daniel Hannan was approached due to his insight as a member of European Parliament and for no other reason.
My colleague Greg's response addressing some of the complaints against the actual article allows me to throw in my two-penneth solely as an enthusiast and not as a representative of C&SC. And while I agree that the whole situation seems utterly ridiculous and is probably just FIVA being incredibly clumsy, we can only go on what we know at the moment and the situation as it stands. So this is why I think this is a big deal and something that needs to be nipped in the bud.
It doesn’t matter what we think of FIVA, as far as the powers that be are concerned it officially represents the interests of 1.5million enthusiasts in 62 countries (including the UK), and is therefore representative of all our views.
Via its president Patrick Rollet while negotiating an exemption from ULEZ restrictions (which as far as I know, no one actually asked for), FIVA has officially called upon the European Union to establish a harmonised description of an “historic” vehicle across the entire economic community, of which the UK is (currently) part and would therefore be subject.
The definition suggested by FIVA would apply in all circumstances (not just with regard to the ULEZs in whose name it would be raised) and would exclude any car that is deemed either unoriginal, modified, fewer than 30 years old, or is used very regularly.
Ignore what are to me the largely irrelevant side-issues of qualifying for exemptions from ULEZ etc, this is about the protection currently afforded to our classics by “historic” status in the UK.
Like me, most of you probably don’t give a fig if our classics lose their historic status and we have to pay for VED and can’t drive through an ULEZ, as long as our unrestricted freedom to use our cars as we wish remains.
Obviously one immediate issue – underlined by M Rollet's emphasis on "historic" cars being ones that are only very rarely used – is the fear that FIVA’s negotiations will enable and encourage restrictions on those cars that do make the grade in return for “historic” status. To my mind, however, there is a far greater potential danger.
If the FIVA definition were formally adopted and rigidly applied across the EU, how many cars owned by normal enthusiasts would meet the new criteria to qualify as “historic”? Yes, even those four-pot calipers and rear belts you fitted for safety would technically disqualify your car.
So what would happen to those that don’t meet the criteria? Well, by FIVA’s own definition, all other classic cars would lose their historic status and instead just be “old” and therefore subject to the same current and future legislation as all non-classic “old” cars.
If you cannot see the potential dangers in that, so be it, but try to imagine the carnage if even the current MoT emissions test were applied to what are currently post-1960 historic vehicles, but would then become just “old” cars. Obviously I write not just as an enthusiast, but as an Interceptor owner!
Yes, we have been here before with other European issues and, hopefully FIVA will have the good sense to rapidly “clarify” its position as it has in the past, but until that happens, I intend to make as much noise about this as possible. Am I paranoid? Well, that’s what they said about <insert name of someone dismissed as paranoid who turned out to be right here>
It doesn’t matter what we think of FIVA, as far as the powers that be are concerned it officially represents the interests of 1.5million enthusiasts in 62 countries (including the UK), and is therefore representative of all our views.
Via its president Patrick Rollet while negotiating an exemption from ULEZ restrictions (which as far as I know, no one actually asked for), FIVA has officially called upon the European Union to establish a harmonised description of an “historic” vehicle across the entire economic community, of which the UK is (currently) part and would therefore be subject.
The definition suggested by FIVA would apply in all circumstances (not just with regard to the ULEZs in whose name it would be raised) and would exclude any car that is deemed either unoriginal, modified, fewer than 30 years old, or is used very regularly.
Ignore what are to me the largely irrelevant side-issues of qualifying for exemptions from ULEZ etc, this is about the protection currently afforded to our classics by “historic” status in the UK.
Like me, most of you probably don’t give a fig if our classics lose their historic status and we have to pay for VED and can’t drive through an ULEZ, as long as our unrestricted freedom to use our cars as we wish remains.
Obviously one immediate issue – underlined by M Rollet's emphasis on "historic" cars being ones that are only very rarely used – is the fear that FIVA’s negotiations will enable and encourage restrictions on those cars that do make the grade in return for “historic” status. To my mind, however, there is a far greater potential danger.
If the FIVA definition were formally adopted and rigidly applied across the EU, how many cars owned by normal enthusiasts would meet the new criteria to qualify as “historic”? Yes, even those four-pot calipers and rear belts you fitted for safety would technically disqualify your car.
So what would happen to those that don’t meet the criteria? Well, by FIVA’s own definition, all other classic cars would lose their historic status and instead just be “old” and therefore subject to the same current and future legislation as all non-classic “old” cars.
If you cannot see the potential dangers in that, so be it, but try to imagine the carnage if even the current MoT emissions test were applied to what are currently post-1960 historic vehicles, but would then become just “old” cars. Obviously I write not just as an enthusiast, but as an Interceptor owner!
Yes, we have been here before with other European issues and, hopefully FIVA will have the good sense to rapidly “clarify” its position as it has in the past, but until that happens, I intend to make as much noise about this as possible. Am I paranoid? Well, that’s what they said about <insert name of someone dismissed as paranoid who turned out to be right here>
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff