Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1
3 4 ... 8 9
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

SystemParanoia

9,696 posts

82 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
no more greenlaning then frown

v8250

1,218 posts

95 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
fesuvious said:
I would happily take part in a 'rolling protest' over this. Monstrously, ridiculously unfair.
Unfair? It's fking-well appauling. No non-UK MEP has the 'right' to elect this type of legislation. We do, as a nation, have the legal right under both UK and EU law to veto any proposed EU regulation that is deemed as being not in the national interest.

1. I stongly suggest the PH massive gets an active move-on against this legislation. And when I say active, I mean today. This is VERY serious.

2. I have emailed the PH management team this morning asking why they are not spear-heading a campaign against such nonsense.

3. I urge all of you to email Nigel Farage, asking him for direct representation against this within the European Parliament. Nigel and his UKIP colleagues are the only UK MEP's who have the balls the stand up against the EU/EP gravey train.

http://www.ukip.org/page/ukip-meps

PS are you aware the UK Taxpayer pays Brussels £10.78BN per annum?? YES £10.78 BILLION MILLION PER ANNUM to cow-tail to this type of bullst EU legislation.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bop/united-kingdom-b...


OllieC

3,469 posts

98 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
I think the EU come up with this kind of stuff to keep themselves busy, and to justify their existence.

The sooner we are out the better. Not that our domestic lot are any better, but at least it would be one less set to worry about !

Johnnytheboy

10,169 posts

70 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
What about dealer-fitted mods?

What about manufacturer approved packages (e.g. what Mountune do to Fords?)

What about old cars? I've just bought one the last available 'pattern' exhausts for my old Fiesta; shortly ALL I will be able to buy are non-standard spec exhausts.

Idiocy.

m8rky

1,894 posts

43 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
I have had a bit more of an in depth read of this,is it not just about the new MOT regs regarding warning lights etc ? that were introduced to the test earlier in the year and will be fully enforced soon.
Advertisement

Rich G

1,110 posts

102 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
m8rky said:
I have had a bit more of an in depth read of this,is it not just about the new MOT regs regarding warning lights etc ? that were introduced to the test earlier in the year and will be fully enforced soon.
No - in a nutshell it's that you will not be able to MoT any car that is not presented in the form that it was when it was first registered, be that 2012, 2002, 1992, 1972, 1932 or 1902. If you can't MoT it then you can't use it legally on the road.

mrmr96

13,561 posts

88 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
JPG said:
mrmr96 said:
Has this story been independantly corroborated elsewhere? Sounds like scaremongering to me at the moment TBH.
The legislation linked in the ACE article is frighteningly real.
But surely this doesn't sound too onerous?
theseoldcars said:
For example: "(9) ‘roadworthiness test’ means a verification that the parts and components of a vehicle
comply with its safety and environmental characteristics in force at the time of
approval, first registration or entry into service, as well as at the time of retrofitting;"
Sounds like you can't make the vehicle less safe than it was when it was made, which won't prevent any sensible mods IMO.
Regards the environmental characteristics, well that is a bit more of a concern. If you just have to pass an MOT emissions test, then no problem - that rule is the same as we have currently. If they are telling you that the MPG has to be the same, then that would be a problem, since most cars MPG will be lower in real life vs. the manufactures claims. Plus performance mods will likley reduce MPG. However, how on earth would you test/enforce that?

Kozy

2,859 posts

102 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
Doesn't this 'threat' pop up on a regular basis until someone properly reads the regulations and realises it's not at all what it first looked like?

I simply refuse to believe that the EU and the UK govt would outlaw an entire industry like that.

v8250

1,218 posts

95 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
Johnnytheboy said:
What about dealer-fitted mods?

What about manufacturer approved packages (e.g. what Mountune do to Fords?)

What about old cars? I've just bought one the last available 'pattern' exhausts for my old Fiesta; shortly ALL I will be able to buy are non-standard spec exhausts.

Idiocy.
Precisely. You've struck the enormity of this legislation; it's huge. 99% of folk who have some interest in classic and modern cars upgrade them in some way. I'm a simple car user, having my company car and an MGB for weekend fun. The B' has some modifications which are non-standard but are specified for better running & greater fuel efficiency. Inversely, I have friends with extensive car collections, the majority of which have some level of associated modification and non-original parts. This legislation will force ALL of us to revert ALL cars to the original manufacturers specification OR to complete an IVA. This is absolute madness!

Krikkit

4,947 posts

65 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
Can anyone find that parargaph that ACE are quoting (or anything like it) in the directive pdf issued by the EC below?

I've read it and can't see any mention of the vehicle needing to match type approval spec at first registration, just that it complies with environmental standards at registration (covered by MOTs) and that it be inspected for roadworthyness on a regular basis (covered by MOT, more often than the EC directive mandates in fact).


Rich G

1,110 posts

102 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
mrmr96 said:
JPG said:
mrmr96 said:
Has this story been independantly corroborated elsewhere? Sounds like scaremongering to me at the moment TBH.
The legislation linked in the ACE article is frighteningly real.
But surely this doesn't sound too onerous?
theseoldcars said:
For example: "(9) ‘roadworthiness test’ means a verification that the parts and components of a vehicle
comply with its safety and environmental characteristics in force at the time of
approval, first registration or entry into service, as well as at the time of retrofitting;"
Sounds like you can't make the vehicle less safe than it was when it was made, which won't prevent any sensible mods IMO.
Regards the environmental characteristics, well that is a bit more of a concern. If you just have to pass an MOT emissions test, then no problem - that rule is the same as we have currently. If they are telling you that the MPG has to be the same, then that would be a problem, since most cars MPG will be lower in real life vs. the manufactures claims. Plus performance mods will likley reduce MPG. However, how on earth would you test/enforce that?
What it means is that those disc brakes you fitted to your Morris Minor do not comply with its original type approval so they have to go. Any change away from the original type approval will not be acceptable - even it it were to make the car safer.

230TE

556 posts

70 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
Having read through the EU proposal, I don't see anything in there that would indicate that the type approval conformity will be made retrospective. I have no doubt that the proposal will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to modify any car made after the legislation comes into force. This will create a big problem for the high-end tuning houses, and for makers of alloy wheels and sports exhausts. (On the upside, it might put Kahn Design out of business.)

If the law was applied retrospectively, the compensation bill would be truly awesome. Ironically, the weapon which would ensure compensation is the European Convention on Human Rights...

The definition of 'historic vehicle' is unworkable in practice. DVLA just do not have the data to determine whether an old car has been modified from original specification, and the MoT testers don't have the knowledge to do the job for them. The only thing the Govt can do with that bit is ignore it and continue to apply their own criteria for MoT exemption for historic vehicles.

So I can't get hugely excited about this yet, even though about 75% of my business is in fitting non-original mechanicals to old vehicles. But if I worked for Hartge I'd be seriously worried right now.

HorneyMX5

1,728 posts

34 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
What about non EU type approved cars like Jap imports of models never sold in Europe or yank muscle cars?

Nick

230TE

556 posts

70 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
Rich G said:
What it means is that those disc brakes you fitted to your Morris Minor do not comply with its original type approval so they have to go. Any change away from the original type approval will not be acceptable - even it it were to make the car safer.
A Morris Minor would never have had EU type approval in the first place, as it was built before we joined. That's one of the main reasons why I can't see this being made retrospective.

Rich G

1,110 posts

102 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
230TE said:
Having read through the EU proposal, I don't see anything in there that would indicate that the type approval conformity will be made retrospective.
No? What about this bit then?

‘roadworthiness test’ means a verification that the parts and components of a vehicle
comply with its safety and environmental characteristics in force at the time of
approval, first registration or entry into service"

Rich G

1,110 posts

102 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
230TE said:
Rich G said:
What it means is that those disc brakes you fitted to your Morris Minor do not comply with its original type approval so they have to go. Any change away from the original type approval will not be acceptable - even it it were to make the car safer.
A Morris Minor would never have had EU type approval in the first place, as it was built before we joined. That's one of the main reasons why I can't see this being made retrospective.
Agreed, a Minor wouldn't have been type approved but as it qualifies as a historic vehicle (under the EU 30 year rule), their definition of historic means "as it left the factory" so you're caught that way.

hman

5,733 posts

78 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
SystemParanoia said:
no more greenlaning then frown
For modified 4x4 cars maybe - but my enduro bike is sold fully ready to race off road and is also road legal so this won't affect me at all!

Perhaps you 4x4 guys should all invest in bowler wildcats ?!

Maybe this will force a resurgence in specialist production cars - or it may push those who want to modify their cars into proper motorsport ?

Personally I don't think it would really come into effect - if it did then maybe an sva is a good thing as the quality of modified cars would improve.

Just think... no more Barry boy ford focuses with the wrong offset wheels, body kits hanging off and cut suspension springs instead of lowering kits!!!


230TE

556 posts

70 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
Rich G said:
No? What about this bit then?

‘roadworthiness test’ means a verification that the parts and components of a vehicle
comply with its safety and environmental characteristics in force at the time of
approval, first registration or entry into service"
"For the inspection of vehicles and especially for their electronic safety components it is crucial to have access to the technical specifications of each single vehicle. Therefore vehicle manufacturers should not only provide the complete set of data as covered by the certificate of conformity (CoC) but also the access to data necessary for verification of the functionality of safety and environmental related components."

The authorities are going to have some fun trying to dig up that information for a Jowett Javelin. It wouldn't work, would it?

Retrospective legislation in this area is very, very rare. Aftermarket HID headlamps are the only example I can think of. Even now, cars manufactured 1965 or earlier are not required to have seatbelts. Applying this legislation retrospectively across Europe would be so expensive that it would probably bring down the Euro.

scratchchin

230TE

556 posts

70 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
Rich G said:
Agreed, a Minor wouldn't have been type approved but as it qualifies as a historic vehicle (under the EU 30 year rule), their definition of historic means "as it left the factory" so you're caught that way.
Only if you want your Minor to be exempt from MOT. That's what the 'historic' definition is about, and it's an option in the legislation, not compulsory for all member states. Our Govt won't take the option IMHO, because it opens up a whole new can of worms in relation to historic vehicle tax exemption.

HorneyMX5

1,728 posts

34 months

[news] 
Wednesday 22nd August 2012 quote quote all
hman said:
Personally I don't think it would really come into effect - if it did then maybe an sva is a good thing as the quality of modified cars would improve.

Just think... no more Barry boy ford focuses with the wrong offset wheels, body kits hanging off and cut suspension springs instead of lowering kits!!!
The problem is standard cars can fail an SVA, something like an 80's hatchback won't pass even in bog standard original condition. To get my Race/track Golf through SVA would cost so much money it won't be worth it.

Nick
1
3 4 ... 8 9
Reply to Topic