|
230TE
528 posts
56 months
|
Rich G said: As you say, the key paragraph in the EU proposal is:
"Vehicles of historic interest are supposed to conserve heritage of the époque they have been built and considered to be hardly used on public roads, it should be left to Member States to extend the period of periodic roadworthiness testing for such vehicles. It should also be for Member States to regulate roadworthiness testing of other types of specialised vehicles."
...and they key wording is in (my) bold - my reading of that means unmodified (and the rest of that bit leaves the door open for restrictions on use!). To me, the key bit is "it should be left to Member States to extend the period of periodic roadworthiness testing for such vehicles". So VOSA can either adopt this bit, complete with the insane and unworkable definition of 'historic vehicle', or not. I'm betting on them doing nothing.
|
|
|
Rich G
1,044 posts
88 months
|
230TE said: Rich G said: As you say, the key paragraph in the EU proposal is:
"Vehicles of historic interest are supposed to conserve heritage of the époque they have been built and considered to be hardly used on public roads, it should be left to Member States to extend the period of periodic roadworthiness testing for such vehicles. It should also be for Member States to regulate roadworthiness testing of other types of specialised vehicles."
...and they key wording is in (my) bold - my reading of that means unmodified (and the rest of that bit leaves the door open for restrictions on use!). To me, the key bit is "it should be left to Member States to extend the period of periodic roadworthiness testing for such vehicles". So VOSA can either adopt this bit, complete with the insane and unworkable definition of 'historic vehicle', or not. I'm betting on them doing nothing. The frequency of testing may well be left to member states but the EU-wide definition of what an historic car is (i.e unmodified from stock) will stand for all member states and VOSA won't have a say in that, and that is where one of the major problems lies.
|
|
|
mattberkshire
55 posts
13 months
|
|
|
djdestiny
1,424 posts
48 months
|
|
|
hot metal
1,176 posts
63 months
|
this is so much bullcrap...........ignore
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
T0nup
472 posts
70 months
|
hot metal said: this is so much bullcrap...........ignore What, ignore you?.. Yeah, ok.
|
|
|
hot metal
1,176 posts
63 months
|
T0nup said: hot metal said: this is so much bullcrap...........ignore What, ignore you?.. Yeah, ok. fool
|
|
|
Stinkfoot
1,645 posts
62 months
|
SuperchargedVR6 said: Podie said: The aftermarket parts industry is worth billions - are the EU really going to wipe this out in one go? Yeah and car makers want those billions!! Choices will be:- - Manufacturer applied modifications only (£2000 for a remap instead of £500) - If you insist on owning a modified car, SVA test. Cash for the goverment. Either way, someone makes money out of this. I suspect they will introduce a new 'catch all' CO2 tax bracket, so big V8s fitted to older cars will be taxed off the road. But how they will test so many individual vehicles, I don't know. The cost will be crazy. But if all this removes the dubious chassis modifications I see on the roads, such as wheels poking 4" past the arches, cars so low they can't get over speed humps and massive spoilers held on with self-tappers, then I'm all for it! Your talking about the loss of 1000's of jobs via the closure of the 100's of tuning companies out there. No politician is going to put their name to that I can assue you. It needs to be discussed yes but I think its nowhere near as bad as being made out.
|
|
|
clum
24 posts
100 months
|
Yes - it has been corroborated, our MEP is commenting that we should make a lot of noise as members of the kit car industry, VOSA have said the same. This "safe for now" line is simply rubbish. Everyone with a vague interest in the subject should sign the e-petition against it. (100,000 signatures needed before a discussion is held in parliament) http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/37784
|
|
|
v8250
950 posts
81 months
|
clum said: Yes - it has been corroborated, our MEP is commenting that we should make a lot of noise as members of the kit car industry, VOSA have said the same. This "safe for now" line is simply rubbish. Everyone with a vague interest in the subject should sign the e-petition against it. (100,000 signatures needed before a discussion is held in parliament) http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/37784so how many PH'ers have signed? still only 5362 signatures. come on folks get signing.
|
|
|
keefr22
55 posts
69 months
|
hman said: - or it may push those who want to modify their cars into proper motorsport ? And how would you define 'proper motorsport'. I assume you basically mean circuit racing, Formula Libre & the like classes in hillclimbs & sprints and similar in drag racing. Because this stupid legislation will instantly kill off one of the most popular forms of motorsport - ie rallying. It would also mean the end of road going modified car classes in hillclimbing & sprinting (which I would suggest make up most of the entries in most events) & much of drag racing including most of the 'run what you brung' classes. As well as sports such as off road 4x4's etc. I would suggest that rallying, speed events & properly organised drag racing all count as 'proper motorsport' - & all would be wiped out overnight if this nonsense becomes law. Or should we go back to rallying standard cars as in the fifties - with no cages or harnesses, crossply tyres, drum brakes & driver/navigators wearing a pudding bowl helmet & collar & tie!! No thanks... OK, when are we going to blockade the M4? My son, myself & our fully rally prepared & heavily modified Mini will be there. Keith PS somebody asked would they get a refund from Adrian Flux if this becomes law. I venture to suggest not, as they will probably have gone bankrupt as I would think premiums from modified car owners will make up a significant proportion of their business. As it does the local broker we are insured with, & presumably a number of other companies that invest heavily in advertising in magazines that tend to specialise in features on modified cars. And there's another two industry sectors that need to get their ar*es in gear & fight this nonsense.
|
|
|
Rich G
1,044 posts
88 months
|
|
|
v8250
950 posts
81 months
|
At last, some press recognition on this subject. As posted earlier, as of 10.53 this morning there are only 7006 signatures on the Govt' epetition. How many modified cars and bikes are there in the UK? There are at least 165,000 classic cars with the classic owners very actively pushing to stop this proposal in any way possible. So, I urge all PH'ers to take only 5mins and complete the following...and that means you too...the quiet chap sat at the rear of the class; yes you! http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/37784
|
|
|
keefr22
55 posts
69 months
|
v8250 said: So, I urge all PH'ers to take only 5mins and complete the following...and that means you too...the quiet chap sat at the rear of the class; yes you! Who? Me?? I already have Sir. Honest....
|
|
|
Perd Hapley
1,452 posts
43 months
|
|
|
SomeMinorTrouble
378 posts
12 months
|
Urm......What about roof racks and roof bars on vans?
|
|
|
v8250
950 posts
81 months
|
pls note that a certain Mr Roger Mellie has today put forward the following to he Commission: Roger Mellie says: September 12, 2012 at 12:24 pm Thank you very much for the posting. Could you please answer the following so that we have proper clarification? What is meant by ‘day to day’ use? Does this mean commercial use, or simply a historic vehicle used as daily transport? And how will it be enforced? Can you please respond to the other press/internet hype concerning: Harmonisation of EU transport rules http://www.the-ace.org.uk/armageddon/Rules on vehicle modifications to Historic Vehicles Trailer registration and testing Rating: 0 (from 0 votes) Log in to Reply uk.admin says: September 12, 2012 at 3:23 pm several questions here…we’ll look into it and respond Rating: 0 (from 0 votes) http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/press-reports-...
|
|
|
BAS231187
42 posts
11 months
|
iv not read through all these posts but i have read through this: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/doc/roadworthiness-p...The only mention of modified cars is: 4. Notwithstanding the date of its last roadworthiness test, the competent authority may require that a vehicle be subject to a roadworthiness test or additional testing before the date referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, in the following cases: – after an accident with serious damage to the main safety related components of the vehicle such as wheels, suspension, deformation zones, steering or brakes, – when the safety and environmental systems and components of the vehicle have been altered or modified, – in case of a change of the holder of the registration certificate of a vehicle. in the uk the roadworthiness test being an MOT. doesn't this just mean that any modifications to a cars safety or environmental systems would require a new MOT to ensure they have been installed correctly and safely and also make sure they haven't effect emissions too detrimentally. i could be wrong but is this not a case of Chinese whispers. yes all your cars will be illegal till they have had an MOT to prove road worthiness and environmental friendliness iv signed the petition anyways as i think the government should keep there mits off my car.
|
|
|
Quietlybonkers
3,455 posts
14 months
|
BAS231187 said: The only mention of modified cars is:
– in case of a change of the holder of the registration certificate of a vehicle. So the car has to have a new MOT to be sold.....or just a current one? Must say I prefer to buy cars with 12 months MOT anyway. Other issues spring to mind though: Scenario 1.: I have just changed the rear shocks on my TVR for adjustable Gaz Nickels, partly because I want to adjust them to track settings for track days, and partly because they were cheaper than OEM Bilsteins. Is this a problem, or will an MOT or IVA test deal with it? I agree with being safe, I have a duty to other road users and pedestrians to make sure my car is safe. Scenario 2.: TVR replacement windscreens are getting to be unobtainable, so we are ganging together to get spares made. Will this be a problem? Scenario 3.: I use non standard wheels in summer so that I can have non-standard tyres on the car for better dry weather handling......but the wet handling is compromised. So I don't go out if it is raining. Are the wheels a problem? Are any tyres other then those specified by the manufacturer a problem?
|
|
|
Bluebottle
2,927 posts
110 months
|
Quietlybonkers said: So the car has to have a new MOT to be sold.....or just a current one? Must say I prefer to buy cars with 12 months MOT anyway.
Other issues spring to mind though:
Scenario 1.: I have just changed the rear shocks on my TVR for adjustable Gaz Nickels, partly because I want to adjust them to track settings for track days, and partly because they were cheaper than OEM Bilsteins. Is this a problem, or will an MOT or IVA test deal with it? I agree with being safe, I have a duty to other road users and pedestrians to make sure my car is safe.
Scenario 2.: TVR replacement windscreens are getting to be unobtainable, so we are ganging together to get spares made. Will this be a problem?
Scenario 3.: I use non standard wheels in summer so that I can have non-standard tyres on the car for better dry weather handling......but the wet handling is compromised. So I don't go out if it is raining. Are the wheels a problem? Are any tyres other then those specified by the manufacturer a problem? More importantly, with a defunct factory and parts supply, any part replaced will effectively be a modification as it will enevitably not be an oem part.
|
|
