Armageddon for modified car owners
Discussion
Art0ir said:
Could you expand upon this?
A Corsa with a 4" diameter exhaust pipe would be unacceptable, as an example.The problem with lowering is 'how much lowered'? You can lower a road car by the suggested 20 mm and almost no-one would notice and, agreed, it would not affect safety - the opposite on smooth roads in fact. However, take a look at how lowered some cars are. I saw a VW Beetle yesterday anbd it was down on its bump stops. Now that car would not steer or handle properly in a difficult situation, so should it be allowed. The EU think not, so they set a regulation which will, or possibly could, catch unintended victims.
That's a common problem with many regulations in many fields of life. You just have to live with it.
This needs to be fought but... in the mean time, does anyone know a way around? Like registering a car in Albania, Estonia, etc?
I also saw that a car needs to be up to spec before going to market. Does this man you can't sell an old car unless it already passed inspection and has a good sticker, whatever?
And "characteristics" probably means oem specs exactly. And then you have to buy from the oem. I doubt they mean better is ok.
I also saw that a car needs to be up to spec before going to market. Does this man you can't sell an old car unless it already passed inspection and has a good sticker, whatever?
And "characteristics" probably means oem specs exactly. And then you have to buy from the oem. I doubt they mean better is ok.
Edited by 4spark on Thursday 23 August 20:22
As I read it Characteristics does not mean exactly as original specification or only repaired with OEM parts. It is not always possible to buy OEM parts now. For example, you can't buy an OEM part for a Rover, just repro/aftermarket parts or old stock.
personally I think there is a lot of panic here for nothing.
A car will be taken for an MoT. If the MoT tester thinks it's been modified and is potentially unsafe then he mnay fail it and it will then need an IVA test. This would probably be the case with the VW Beetle with suspension down 'on the bump stops', but would not be an issue with a car lowered by 15 mm or so and with stiffer dampers.
personally I think there is a lot of panic here for nothing.
A car will be taken for an MoT. If the MoT tester thinks it's been modified and is potentially unsafe then he mnay fail it and it will then need an IVA test. This would probably be the case with the VW Beetle with suspension down 'on the bump stops', but would not be an issue with a car lowered by 15 mm or so and with stiffer dampers.
Cooperman said:
personally I think there is a lot of panic here for nothing.
Is fine as an opinion, until someone says your car is no longer legal, everythings will be fine I'm sure.Thing is this... Would it be better to have a lot of fuffle now, and have the so called 'proposal' fizzle to nothing. Or do jack, and then moan when the EU nanny state has taken over and the custom car scene has become a thing of the past?
One thing I do find ominus, is the FBHVC's silence on the matter (Has anyone seen anything from them other than a sentence to acknowledge they have seen it)... They were in full support of the Charter of Turin, and were keeping their heads down over that. Doesn't the definition in this proposal read suspiciouly like that? So it wouldn't surprise me if they were secretly in favour of this as well - For all the wrong reasons. I belong to a member club, and I for one would not be happy if they decided to back this.
Mind you, take a look at the committee of the FBHVC and that of FIVA (The authors of the Charter), and you'll see a few names pop up on both.
T0nup said:
One thing I do find ominus, is the FBHVC's silence on the matter (Has anyone seen anything from them other than a sentence to acknowledge they have seen it)... They were in full support of the Charter of Turin, and were keeping their heads down over that. Doesn't the definition in this proposal read suspiciouly like that? So it wouldn't surprise me if they were secretly in favour of this as well - For all the wrong reasons. I belong to a member club, and I for one would not be happy if they decided to back this.
Mind you, take a look at the committee of the FBHVC and that of FIVA (The authors of the Charter), and you'll see a few names pop up on both.
The FBHVC now seem to be back-pedalling on that support faster than a politician found with their pin-stripes round their ankles. Mind you, take a look at the committee of the FBHVC and that of FIVA (The authors of the Charter), and you'll see a few names pop up on both.
Cooperman said:
With Historic cars so long as they are to the homologation standards of the original cars, e.g. only have the optional extras as specified by the original manufacturer there should not be a problem. So 'period modifications using O.E.M parts' should be fine IMHO..
So all those originally drum-braked Minis and Morris Minors will have to lose their disc conversions and revert to drums. Same goes for my Wolseley 1500 or indeed most 1940s, 50s or 60s cars that have had their brakes upgraded as not many of these came with disc brakes as optional extras - heaters were pretty much an optional extra until the late 50s!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!
There was a story a couple of months back about the government scrapping the MOT for Vehicles over a certain age. Not sure how this would tie in with that.
Also are cars over 30 years exempt? If so is it a rolling period? IF so I'll just garage the Alfa for 5 years and wait. In the mean-time the government won't get my road fund licence, fuel duty, tax on insurance, tax from MOT etc...
Also are cars over 30 years exempt? If so is it a rolling period? IF so I'll just garage the Alfa for 5 years and wait. In the mean-time the government won't get my road fund licence, fuel duty, tax on insurance, tax from MOT etc...
robemcdonald said:
There was a story a couple of months back about the government scrapping the MOT for Vehicles over a certain age. Not sure how this would tie in with that.
Also are cars over 30 years exempt? If so is it a rolling period? IF so I'll just garage the Alfa for 5 years and wait. In the mean-time the government won't get my road fund licence, fuel duty, tax on insurance, tax from MOT etc...
Yes, pre-60 cars will be MoT exempt as from November. How does that tie in with this, because it is an EU wide policy which our gubberment have adopted.Also are cars over 30 years exempt? If so is it a rolling period? IF so I'll just garage the Alfa for 5 years and wait. In the mean-time the government won't get my road fund licence, fuel duty, tax on insurance, tax from MOT etc...
The problem with this legislation is the definition the EU wants to make it (rolling) 30 years old and over exempt - providing those vehicles are as they left the factory. If you're Alfa is stock as a rock you'll be okay, otherwise you won't be able to MoT it.
Rich G said:
The problem with this legislation is the definition the EU wants to make it (rolling) 30 years old and over exempt - providing those vehicles are as they left the factory. If you're Alfa is stock as a rock you'll be okay, otherwise you won't be able to MoT it.
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."
In other words, it is up to our own Govt to decide whether to introduce an exemption based on the EU's definition of a historic vehicle. It isn't compulsory. VOSA have just finished a consultation exercise on exactly this issue, resulting in all pre 1960 vehicles being MoT exempt from November. That exercise was a direct result of the EU proposal, so I am assuming the 'historic vehicle' issue has been put to bed for now.
In fact, that whole paragraph might be a massive get-out clause for VOSA, especially since 'specialised vehicles' is not actually defined anywhere in the draft. It could be argued that a Mk2 Golf extensively modified for track day use is 'specialised', likewise a Defender with a big V8 and a 3 inch suspension lift for serious off-roading. A bit further down the document talks of "specialised vehicles transporting circus and funfair equipment", but it isn't clear whether these are the "other types of specialised vehicles" referred to above.
As others have already said, the whole document is sloppily drafted, ambiguous and unclear in many areas, and much of it appears to have been written by Eurocrats who think a car is something the EU provides you with, along with a driver.
Madness
Some mods are for safety or logical improvements, like brake upgrades and roll bars.
Really pushing me out of the UK now. Have always hated this Europe nonsense and this just gives another reason to want out.
Totally up for demonstration, however, our Gov never seems to listen and even less hope with the EU Wayne Kerrs!
Lets hope sense prevails
Some mods are for safety or logical improvements, like brake upgrades and roll bars.
Really pushing me out of the UK now. Have always hated this Europe nonsense and this just gives another reason to want out.
Totally up for demonstration, however, our Gov never seems to listen and even less hope with the EU Wayne Kerrs!
Lets hope sense prevails
230TE said:
Rich G said:
The problem with this legislation is the definition the EU wants to make it (rolling) 30 years old and over exempt - providing those vehicles are as they left the factory. If you're Alfa is stock as a rock you'll be okay, otherwise you won't be able to MoT it.
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."
In other words, it is up to our own Govt to decide whether to introduce an exemption based on the EU's definition of a historic vehicle. It isn't compulsory. VOSA have just finished a consultation exercise on exactly this issue, resulting in all pre 1960 vehicles being MoT exempt from November. That exercise was a direct result of the EU proposal, so I am assuming the 'historic vehicle' issue has been put to bed for now.
In fact, that whole paragraph might be a massive get-out clause for VOSA, especially since 'specialised vehicles' is not actually defined anywhere in the draft. It could be argued that a Mk2 Golf extensively modified for track day use is 'specialised', likewise a Defender with a big V8 and a 3 inch suspension lift for serious off-roading. A bit further down the document talks of "specialised vehicles transporting circus and funfair equipment", but it isn't clear whether these are the "other types of specialised vehicles" referred to above.
"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!).
VOSA's consultation was to bring the UK in line with much of the rest of the EU, but again the definition of an historic vehicle in this proposal is radically different to what is curent under our "Historic" tax class - the EU definition of historic is:
[i](7) ‘vehicle of historic interest’ means any vehicle which fulfils all the following conditions :
•It was manufactured at least 30 years ago,
•It is maintained by use of replacement parts which reproduce the historic components of the vehicle;
•It has not sustained any change in the technical characteristics of its main components such as engine, brakes, steering or suspension and
•It has not been changed in its appearance.[/i]
This would wipe out our current 8-point rule for modifications and remove a large number of vehicles from our current "Historic" tax class. So, no, the 'historic vehicle' issue hasn't even got its pyjamas on yet.
Edited by Rich G on Friday 24th August 15:26
230TE said:
Rich G said:
The problem with this legislation is the definition the EU wants to make it (rolling) 30 years old and over exempt - providing those vehicles are as they left the factory. If you're Alfa is stock as a rock you'll be okay, otherwise you won't be able to MoT it.
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."
In other words, it is up to our own Govt to decide whether to introduce an exemption based on the EU's definition of a historic vehicle. It isn't compulsory. VOSA have just finished a consultation exercise on exactly this issue, resulting in all pre 1960 vehicles being MoT exempt from November. That exercise was a direct result of the EU proposal, so I am assuming the 'historic vehicle' issue has been put to bed for now.
In fact, that whole paragraph might be a massive get-out clause for VOSA, especially since 'specialised vehicles' is not actually defined anywhere in the draft. It could be argued that a Mk2 Golf extensively modified for track day use is 'specialised', likewise a Defender with a big V8 and a 3 inch suspension lift for serious off-roading. A bit further down the document talks of "specialised vehicles transporting circus and funfair equipment", but it isn't clear whether these are the "other types of specialised vehicles" referred to above.
As others have already said, the whole document is sloppily drafted, ambiguous and unclear in many areas, and much of it appears to have been written by Eurocrats who think a car is something the EU provides you with, along with a driver.
Finally having just renewed by insurance with Adrain Flux for a year. If this rule comes into force will i get a refund?
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."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!).
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."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!).
This has been going on in the motorcycling world for months. We've had plenty of columns written about it and protest rides. Here's what the BMF have to say http://www.bmf.co.uk/pages/briefing_room.php?fulls...
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff