RE: Modified cars safe, for now.
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Gaz, there is a proposal to revise the extant EU wide rules on roadworthiness tests.
There is also a widely misunderstood proposal to render vehicles more than 30 years old free of testing, but only if they are in original condition. Some think that this means that other old cars will be unusable, but the proposal does not say that.
The proposal has been widely misreported by car clubs who do not appear to have read or understood it.
There is no need to panic.
A proposal which has been widely msiunderstood by organisations such as FHBVC and FIVA???There is also a widely misunderstood proposal to render vehicles more than 30 years old free of testing, but only if they are in original condition. Some think that this means that other old cars will be unusable, but the proposal does not say that.
The proposal has been widely misreported by car clubs who do not appear to have read or understood it.
There is no need to panic.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 29th August 13:58
And a proposal which appears to have been understood by you but not by anyone else????
But then, we don't need to worry about it do we...
I think that they have misunderstood the proposal. They are not lawyers, and do not appear to have taken legal advice. Please read the other thread. I am not the only one who thinks that the proposal has been misunderstood.
I have concerns about the proposal, but do not regard it as Armageddon. I have offered to provide pro bono legal advice to a non special interest, general motoring lobbying group. I do not think that minority interest groups are likely to be listened to, especially if they misrepresent the proposal.
Shall we just repeat the other thread here?
I have concerns about the proposal, but do not regard it as Armageddon. I have offered to provide pro bono legal advice to a non special interest, general motoring lobbying group. I do not think that minority interest groups are likely to be listened to, especially if they misrepresent the proposal.
Shall we just repeat the other thread here?
A Scotsman said:
Frankly I wouldn't trust the DFT to do anything other than keep their bureaucratic pals in Brussels happy.
I work with senior civil servants on many issues. From this I have learned that the Government's stance towards Brussels at present is actively to seek conflict, and to resist all pressure from the EU. The Government is going around looking for arguments to have with the EU. 
Breadvan72 said:
I work with senior civil servants on many issues. From this I have learned that the Government's stance towards Brussels at present is actively to seek conflict, and to resist all pressure from the EU. The Government is going around looking for arguments to have with the EU.
That is one of the funniest things I have read. Not doing a very good job are they?!dazsmith69 said:
... Not doing a very good job are they?!
Maybe, and maybe not, but my point is that the stance is not one of letting things go easily. The UK is arguing the toss with the EU on many subjects. It may or may not win those arguments. I am very sorry to allow actual practical experience of Government to break in on anyone's prejudices and assumptions. The scare stories usually have some small basis in a misunderstood rule or proposal, as here. I am not saying that there is nothing to be concerned about, but the bananas can stay bendy.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 29th August 15:01
1960Zody said:
But then, lets look at the process...
I own a vauxhall Cresta PA whcih is modified by having the bulkhead cut out to fit a Chevy Small Block and a flip front (For instance)
A historic vehicle is defined, and as such it is outside the requirements for the MOT test, however, if my vehicle doesn't fit the definition I can't keep it's identity and lose it's registration. (This is the INF26 8-Points system)
Having failed to retain 8 points I now go to DVLA for an inspection (This is the VIC)
As a result of this I have to go for a 'Compliance test' (This is BIVA)
That is already the case and nothing to do with the proposed EU legislation. Once you start chopping structural bits out of a monocoque body (or the chassis on something like a Land Rover) you are going to need to put it through IVA. Having seen some of the stuff that people regard as structurally adequate, I'm quite happy with that.I own a vauxhall Cresta PA whcih is modified by having the bulkhead cut out to fit a Chevy Small Block and a flip front (For instance)
A historic vehicle is defined, and as such it is outside the requirements for the MOT test, however, if my vehicle doesn't fit the definition I can't keep it's identity and lose it's registration. (This is the INF26 8-Points system)
Having failed to retain 8 points I now go to DVLA for an inspection (This is the VIC)
As a result of this I have to go for a 'Compliance test' (This is BIVA)
In summary:-
The draft Regulation is mainly about an EU minimum standard for roadworthiness testing.
It is not mainly about modifications, or classic cars.
The draft regulation will not prevent all modifications.
It will regulate modifications which affect safety or environmental characteristics.
It will allow for testing of modifications.
It will allow for testing by reference to national legislation.
It will create a new and limited category of historic vehicles, which will not require testing. This will not affect UK road tax rules. Those are a matter for the UK.
Many or even most classic cars will need testing, but will be tested by the standards applicable when they were new. (Note that "historic" and "classic" are not legal terms at present, save that historic has a limited meaning in the UK for road tax purposes, and MOT exemption).
There remains uncertainty because parts of the draft Regulation and Annexes are ambiguous, and some local rules will be in place in any event.
There is reportedly no budget to implement this (masermartin's good point, not mine). Large scale changes appear unlikely.
There may be hassle for trailer and caravan users.
The draft Regulation is in many ways poorly drafted, but it is not Armageddon.
NB: These are my opinions. and I may be wrong, but I add that I am a practising barrister with over two decades experience, including extensive experience in EU law.
The draft Regulation is mainly about an EU minimum standard for roadworthiness testing.
It is not mainly about modifications, or classic cars.
The draft regulation will not prevent all modifications.
It will regulate modifications which affect safety or environmental characteristics.
It will allow for testing of modifications.
It will allow for testing by reference to national legislation.
It will create a new and limited category of historic vehicles, which will not require testing. This will not affect UK road tax rules. Those are a matter for the UK.
Many or even most classic cars will need testing, but will be tested by the standards applicable when they were new. (Note that "historic" and "classic" are not legal terms at present, save that historic has a limited meaning in the UK for road tax purposes, and MOT exemption).
There remains uncertainty because parts of the draft Regulation and Annexes are ambiguous, and some local rules will be in place in any event.
There is reportedly no budget to implement this (masermartin's good point, not mine). Large scale changes appear unlikely.
There may be hassle for trailer and caravan users.
The draft Regulation is in many ways poorly drafted, but it is not Armageddon.
NB: These are my opinions. and I may be wrong, but I add that I am a practising barrister with over two decades experience, including extensive experience in EU law.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 1st September 06:57
Breadvan72 said:
A Scotsman said:
Frankly I wouldn't trust the DFT to do anything other than keep their bureaucratic pals in Brussels happy.
I work with senior civil servants on many issues. From this I have learned that the Government's stance towards Brussels at present is actively to seek conflict, and to resist all pressure from the EU. The Government is going around looking for arguments to have with the EU. Gary
230TE said:
That is already the case and nothing to do with the proposed EU legislation. Once you start chopping structural bits out of a monocoque body (or the chassis on something like a Land Rover) you are going to need to put it through IVA. Having seen some of the stuff that people regard as structurally adequate, I'm quite happy with that.
I wasn't suggesting that it was part of the EU proposal.I was simply using it as an example of how modified cars can be 'banned' by the back door, without needing EU legislation and as an example of why the 'Guy on the phone' at Dft may have found it so funny bthat anyone should suggest that the EU were trying to directly ban them, which no-one did, apart from PH.
And, just to clarify your comment above, the bits you chop do not have to be structural.
ANY modification to the monocoque renders a vehicle liable to BIVA.
jaf01uk said:
Breadvan72 said:
A Scotsman said:
Frankly I wouldn't trust the DFT to do anything other than keep their bureaucratic pals in Brussels happy.
I work with senior civil servants on many issues. From this I have learned that the Government's stance towards Brussels at present is actively to seek conflict, and to resist all pressure from the EU. The Government is going around looking for arguments to have with the EU. Gary
Breadvan72 said:
shakotan said:
.... the Euro Government ...
Have we got one of those? When did that happen?Er... we haven't. Oh well, never let accuracy get in the way of a good scare!
I've already admitted on the other thread that after reviewing the full Annex that I'm on 'your side' in regards to the current Legislation proposal not really harming our hobby. At first you were helpful, now you're just taking cheap shots at those who having mistakenly got their facts wrong.
I erroneously typed 'Government' instead of 'Council', happy now?
Edited by shakotan on Wednesday 29th August 16:12
It is hard not to be facetious when dealing with the credulous and the lazy. People keep on repeating the same stuff. They can look stuff up, but they prefer, it appears, to believe the Prophets of Doom. I can't point you to a website that says that there isn't a Euro Government, because no one has bothered to make such a website. The Euro Government isn't in the phone book either. EDIT: I see that you have now edited Government to Council, but, alas, my telepathy skills are a bit rusty.
You can if you wish study the legislative processes of the EU on the EU's own websites. The published proposal is, as the DfT says, a proposal. It is a long way off being enacted as legislation. It reflects a view from the Commission, but not the views of Member States, the Council, or the Parliament of the EU.
You can if you wish study the legislative processes of the EU on the EU's own websites. The published proposal is, as the DfT says, a proposal. It is a long way off being enacted as legislation. It reflects a view from the Commission, but not the views of Member States, the Council, or the Parliament of the EU.
1960Zody said:
I wasn't suggesting that it was part of the EU proposal.
I was simply using it as an example of how modified cars can be 'banned' by the back door, without needing EU legislation and as an example of why the 'Guy on the phone' at Dft may have found it so funny bthat anyone should suggest that the EU were trying to directly ban them, which no-one did, apart from PH.
And, just to clarify your comment above, the bits you chop do not have to be structural.
ANY modification to the monocoque renders a vehicle liable to BIVA.
Sorry, misunderstood the point you were trying to make. It's hard to think of any part of a monocoque that isn't structural - the VOSA wording says 'original unmodified bodyshell', but I don't think they'd be too fussed if you welded on a couple of extra exhaust brackets for example. Changes to engine and gearbox mounts are a bit more of a grey area but I don't know of anyone that has run into trouble as a result. I was simply using it as an example of how modified cars can be 'banned' by the back door, without needing EU legislation and as an example of why the 'Guy on the phone' at Dft may have found it so funny bthat anyone should suggest that the EU were trying to directly ban them, which no-one did, apart from PH.
And, just to clarify your comment above, the bits you chop do not have to be structural.
ANY modification to the monocoque renders a vehicle liable to BIVA.
The ACE website STILL says this:-
"ACE has always been of the opinion that modifying of vehicles would eventually end by the ability to do so being slowly eroded by small pieces of legislation rather than one single regulation.
We have unfortunately now been proved correct with a single item before the EC parliament that will prevent any modifying and will, currently, render already modified cars illegal."
Leaving aside the internal contradiction in that passage, and noting the self congratulatory tone of "we told you so", the serious point is that ACE's interpretation of the proposal is not supported by the language used in the proposal. I will go so far as to say that no sensible reading of the proposal could accord with ACE's interpretation. Their reading of it seems to be almost wilfully perverse. In addition, the proposal has yet to be debated by the EU Council or Parliament.
This seems to me an irresponsible stance for ACE to take, but it perhaps makes some of the pipe smokers feel warm and snuggly, as they appear to love a good bit of Armageddon.
"ACE has always been of the opinion that modifying of vehicles would eventually end by the ability to do so being slowly eroded by small pieces of legislation rather than one single regulation.
We have unfortunately now been proved correct with a single item before the EC parliament that will prevent any modifying and will, currently, render already modified cars illegal."
Leaving aside the internal contradiction in that passage, and noting the self congratulatory tone of "we told you so", the serious point is that ACE's interpretation of the proposal is not supported by the language used in the proposal. I will go so far as to say that no sensible reading of the proposal could accord with ACE's interpretation. Their reading of it seems to be almost wilfully perverse. In addition, the proposal has yet to be debated by the EU Council or Parliament.
This seems to me an irresponsible stance for ACE to take, but it perhaps makes some of the pipe smokers feel warm and snuggly, as they appear to love a good bit of Armageddon.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 29th August 16:32
dazsmith69 said:
Breadvan72 said:
I work with senior civil servants on many issues. From this I have learned that the Government's stance towards Brussels at present is actively to seek conflict, and to resist all pressure from the EU. The Government is going around looking for arguments to have with the EU.
That is one of the funniest things I have read. Not doing a very good job are they?!What they say and what they do are 2 completely different things.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff