EU attacking us again?

[cackshifter]

Ok just considering a new one. (Why me? why not?) working title "Reject EU proposed legislation disallowing vehicle modification" (you can only have 150 chars)

[CwazyWabbit]

Sounds ok.

[cackshifter]

How about this for the details..

The EU is proposing legislation tightening Type Approval laws to prevent either modification of, or fitment of after market parts to motor vehicles. This will raise costs for ordinary motorists as well as preventing many people from pursuing what until now has been a legitimate hobby, giving employment to many. Moreover many vehicles already modified will be rendered unusable.

The government should reject this proposed legislation as unwarranted interference in the existing national arrangements which have proved satisfactory, and if they are allowed to become law will have a severe impact on both private individuals and industry

Feel free to critique

[UdderlyOffroad]

Go for it Crackshifter!!

Perhaps we need some way to emphasise that the duration (and therefore cost) of the MOT will go up for everyone, including Eurobox drivers.

[cackshifter]

I've just realised the directive includes testing of trailers under 3.5 tonnes GVW !!! That should stir anyone with a caravan up as well, so I need to add a bit about that

[cackshifter]

Take 2...

The EU is proposing legislation tightening Type Approval laws to prevent either modification of, or fitment of after market parts to motor vehicles, and to severely tighten testing. This will raise costs for ordinary motorists as well as preventing many people from pursuing what until now has been a legitimate hobby, giving employment to many. Moreover many vehicles already modified will be rendered unusable. Tests are proposed for trailers (including caravans) below 3.5 tonnes, and for vehicles more stringent testing including checking for modifications, and this will cost everybody more.

Especially at this time of economic austerity, the government should reject this proposed legislation as unwarranted and unnecessary interference in the existing national arrangements which have proved satisfactory over many years, and if it is allowed to become UK law will have a severe impact on private individuals industry and the economy.

[cackshifter]

I've submitted it, but they say it might take up to 7 days to go through the Downing St sausage machine. Nigel

[UdderlyOffroad]

Nice work!! You clearly think quicker than many of us (I...) can type!

Let us know when it's online and we'll get signin'

[simonr]

That's good - but I would not use it as an easy substitute for writing to MP / MEPs.

We need to persuade the people who are actually going to object on our behalf rather than persuade the government to persuade them. It sounds like this is going to be accepted by default if there are no objections in the next few weeks. I don't think there is time for a petition.

Si

[cackshifter]

Yes I agree totally there is no time to lose. I made the petition last 3 months only for that very reason; if there aren't enough signatures in 3 months there never will be. But, if enough people sign soon, it will attract media interest and that does make politicians (and the man on the Clapham omnibus) take more notice. But taking your point too, I guess it's MEPs that need writing to. You can find out who they are here http://www.europarl....-by-region.html ( I had to look it up) I guess irrespective of ones own political colours, from a targetting point of view it's the (Eurosceptic) Tory and UKIP ones most likely to do something.

[Big.Mike]

This is bad, but in reality will it actually be enforceable?

Essentially it means that anyone that strays away from the original manufacturers tyre choice is outside the law, which is just plain daft.

This includes brand choice. That effects 90% or more of the cars on the roads, which is a nonsense.

Perhaps a "Q" plate will become the norm? That'll bamboozle VOSA!

[cackshifter]

The petition has been rejected 'because one already exists'. I think it's http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/37784 this one, but I think they have not realised this is only referring to historic vehicles, ie those over 30 years old.

[CwazyWabbit]

The petition has been rejected 'because one already exists'. I think it's http://epetitions.di...petitions/37784 this one, but I think they have not realised this is only referring to historic vehicles, ie those over 30 years old.

Is it possible to appeal that pointing out it's not just historic vehicles?

[cackshifter]

I think you have to just resubmit. Tempted to get the existing one and scan and replace 'historic' with 'non-historic' TBH I think if any petition gets a lot of signatures they have to look at it, witness the Virgin/West Coast mainline thing at present.

[q-rover]

Write another with reference to the actual EU proposal, not just wording.

[Julian]

I've just realised the directive includes testing of trailers under 3.5 tonnes GVW !!! That should stir anyone with a caravan up as well, so I need to add a bit about that

Yes, one or two hear seem to be of the opinion that trailers should be tested - failing brakes being cited as the reason. (Good thing as I've just managed to narrowly escape yet another runaway trailer with failed brakes this morning :-) )

But I suspect that any trailer that has been modified, is home made and/or doesn't carry a 'CE' marking or have a data plate with serial/type approval number will no longer be allowed on the road. So the likes of Sankey trailers, anything 'home-spun' or tailored for a specific purpose or older trailer without identification will be fubarred!

Be careful what you wish for folks...

Julian.

[Snagger]

Write to your MEP?

I sent this to all my local MEPs and have a had some automated replies to acknowledge receipt:

Dear Robert Sturdy, Geoffrey Van Orden, Andrew Duff, Richard Howitt, David Campbell Bannerman, Vicky Ford and Stuart Agnew,

I hope you are already aware of the proposal to changes to the periodic vehicle inspection (MoT test). This proposal has the potential to cause massive financial loss to tens of thousands of UK drivers and also to cost thousands of jobs.

Much of the proposal seems well intended, such as testing of trailers, motorbikes and faster tractors, but plans to apparently outlaw modification to vehicles outright are less so.

While I'm sure that particular element of the proposal is to remove dangerously modified vehicles from the road, such as the stereo-types' young man's hot-hatch with butchered suspension, darkened lights and cherry-bomb exhaust, many very well and expensively modified vehicles will also be affected.

The well modified vehicles are usually altereded carefully for their specific purpose, either business or hobby, and in the case of the latter, also tend to be maintained to a higher standard than the average road car. This includes hot-rods, "character cars" like the local Pixar Cars film replicas, many classic vehicles and, perhaps most commonly and in my case, Land Rovers.

In my elderly Land Rover's example, some of the alterations I have done include modern lights, modern seat belts added to all seats, a more modern engine which has halved fuel consumption and brakes from a contemprary Land Rover. None of the alterations have adversely affected the vehicle and most have vastly improved its safety and environmental impact.

In the example of Land Rovers, many are used for a wide variety of business and personal applications, and so the "one size fits all" standard production vehicle would be unuseable to the majority of owners. Farmers and utility companies like Eon, BT and so on, would be unable to operate their vehicles and unable to go about their work. The many, many specialist companies in and around Bedforshire like Patriot, Ashcroft Transmissions, Lumsden Land Rovers, Rogers of Bedford, Oak Tree Garage and other specialists would close overnight, not to mention big national players like Britpart, Exmoor Trim, Bearmach, Mantec, Safety Devices, Devon 4x4 and even Land Rover's own Special Vehicles Operations department; all stand to be shut down because of this draconian proposal.

It is worth noting that as the proposal stands, it would appear that even fitting a tow ball, roof rack or even another brand of tyre to a completely standard road car would render it non-compliant.

Please take a look at the proposal and ensure that vehicle modification and personalisation is still permitted if carried out in a safe manner. There is no benefit in banning most modified vehicles and much economic damage will be wrought by doing so.

Yours sincerely,

Nick ....

[Snagger]

Written separately to the above to avoid confusion, I don't think that having tests on all road going vehicles and equipment is a bad idea - a dodgy trailer can be just as dangerous as a dodgy car, and I hadn't realised bikes weren't tested - given the damage they could do witht he speeds they regularly travel at, a test seems reasonable.

The trick is in making the tests pragmatic. I have a Sankey, and the prospect of it being banned because of a lack of an E-mark is ludicrous; they're amongst the safest trailers to put behind a Land Rover. I'm not averse to having it tested to make sure it's in safe condition, though, even though that means forking out more money. To be honest, I can't help feeling that bicylces should be tested and insured, considering how badly many of them are maintained and used - how many bicycles are used with no brakes, no lights and no reflectors, even at night? Of course, the logic of pragmatism still needs to apply, with the test being simple and cheap (less than five pounds seems fair). For trailers, anything used under the existing rules should continue to be legal, and a simple test at MoT time (booked in with the vehicle, but treated separately) for an additional £10 can't be too unrealistic?

[CwazyWabbit]

..... I hadn't realised bikes weren't tested - given the damage they could do witht he speeds they regularly travel at, a test seems reasonable.

......

If by bikes you mean motorbikes (fair assumption as you mention speed) then they are already tested, their MOT is shorter than a car MOT as there is less to test. I believe it is not the case in some other european countries though.

[cackshifter]

Yes I think the UK is unusual at the moment in testing motorbikes. Now if pedal bikes were to be tested, imagine Boris's reaction! Surely we have enough laws? What values do the new ones add? If you go out on the road with a trailer without brakes and they should work you can be prosecuted now. And if they pass a test today they could be duff tomorrow.

[Julian]

I have a Sankey, and the prospect of it being banned because of a lack of an E-mark is ludicrous;

You know that, I know that, but a regulation is a regulation - what chance do you think you've actually got keeping it on the road in the face of EU legislation? Do you think for one minute that they will make an exception for a few jolly nice chaps with old Landrovers who like to potter around taking the hedge clippings down to the tip in a Sankey on a Sunday? Trying to sound reasonable by saying that you don't mind it being tested will cut no ice, end of story.

There's only one way to fight this in my opinion, stop all the woolly words and letters and let's have some direct action. We need something akin to the demonstrations in London before the ban on hunting with horses. MP's won't listen, they never do, the only chance you have is on the run-up to an election when they suspect they may have their ars3s kicked down the road. In particular you can expect zero support from MEP's. Why not, well here's a clue. Clegg is going to get £250,000 per annum MEP pension when he retires - do you seriously think anyone will upset the apple cart when that's at stake? We are of secondary importance I'm afraid....

Julian.

[Landy-Novice]

so thats it then.. i now need to replace my 300tdi with a 19j and lt77.

[FridgeFreezer]

Is it worth pointing out the UK's motorsports heritage as a slightly broader angle in all this - or do we really think anyone in whitehall has heard of Joe Bloggs Roofracks or gives the first toss if they go under? Smaller companies worth mentioning are the likes of Lotus or McLaren.

This is about standardising regulations, which in theory should lead to a less chaotic and potentially more coherent system. After all, even though the current MOT/SVA etc. works OK, it is far from ideal and it's quite easy to either fall foul or avoid it completely.

If (like the bike petition) you get all frothy and Daily Mail about it, it will come across as ill-informed and reactionary (as 99% of the petitions on that site are). The motor industry is worth billions, this legislation is a big deal for thousands of people and companies and car fans are a tiny and insignificant minority, so there's no point demanding they forget about it. It's also worth remembering that there are an awful lot of badly chavved up motors out there, well-done mods are likely in the minority.

The important thing is that modifications or builds which are safe and reasonable are still permitted without expensive or overbearing type-approvals, while unsafe stuff, be it modified or not, is caught. One suggestion might be to demand all modifications are listed with the insurance co & approved by an MOT tester - yes, potentially more hassle than we currently have, but some hassle is better than an outright ban.

Also worth looking out those MP's which are car nuts, they're not all tree-huggers.

Just to add - I reckon trailer MOT's are a damn good idea, there's so many completely shagged out ones running round just waiting to cause an accident. Trailer V5's are a reasonable plan too, given how easily they're stolen.

[Julian]

If (like the bike petition) you get all frothy and Daily Mail about it, it will come across as ill-informed and reactionary (as 99% of the petitions on that site are)..

But it's already happened in other EU member states, we've seen it on this forum regarding engine swaps!!!!! I'm not sure what the reasons would be for us _Not_ to comply, we comply (and gold plate - Cameron) every other bloomin regulation.

I believe we have to get our heads out of the proverbial sand and act now!

Julian.

[Snagger]

It's not just the smaller or niche suppliers that will fold though. Without wheels, stereos, blingy lights and a load of carp to hand from the mirror, how long do you think chains like Halfords will last? What about Foleys, or even Land Rover Special Vehicles themselves? And how can the utilities companies service phone lines and power lines, gas or water pipes and the like in remote areas without vehicles akin to Land Rovers with the mods they specifically need? Even the Transit based dairy delivery vehicles would be stuffed... The repercussions of this are absolutely enormous and just show that whoever is behind it has never looked at vehicles on the road and wondered how standard they all are. There are similar discussions going on on forums of all sorts of marques, from Audi to Zonda. It's not just 4wd cars that are getting caught up in this but most sports cars and a hell of a lot of saloon, hatch and super-mini models too.