EU attacking us again?

[TFC]

While discussing this with the guys at work, it was suggested that the proposed legislation under discussion is merely the first part of an attempt to have a "Spy in the cab" device fitted to all new cars. Big Brother at work. I thought the idea might have some merit, knowing the way 'our' legislators work!

Tony

[fozsug]

I too used the links at the begining of this thread and Simons template letter, i have had 3 replies so far, one which i think is of good reading which is below.

"Dear Campaigner

Thank you for writing to Nigel Farage about the EU's latest move to

tighten the screw on motorists in general, and the owners of historic

and customised vehicles in particular, by means of further modifications

to the MOT-test, which require (Art.3(9)) 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".

This will effectively put an end to car-customisation.

The Regulation appears to exempt "vehicles of historic interest", until

we look at the definition of such vehicles, which states (Art.3(7)) that

"'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;"

This will effectively ban historic cars from the roads.

Like its predecessor (Directive 2009/40/EC) the Regulation enforces the

"Vehicle-Type Approval" requirements, issued by the United Nations

Organisation.

The Regulation also delegates, to the EU-Commission, the ability "to

adopt acts" and to exercise "implementing-powers", to modify the

Regulation further, at the EU-Commission's own discretion (Art.18) and

requires that test-results, from all EU-states, be collected centrally

(Art. 14)

The general effect is to continue the construction of monolithic

EU-control. UKIP will, of course, oppose this in every way possible.

Unfortunately, the opposition mounted by UKIP's 13 members at the EU's

"parliament" is rarely supported by more than 60 of the other 740

members, and indeed, the "parliament" has rejected only two of the

tens-of-thousands of proposals, which the EU-Commission has made this

century.

The UK-government could refuse to implement this particular Regulation,

because "vehicle-testing", surprisingly enough, is - as the Regulation

puts it - "a sovereign matter"; but the chances of "our" pro-EU

government doing that are, I would think, nil.

It seems most unlikely that this Regulation will not become law,

whereupon the only way to repeal it will be to repeal the European

Communities Act, which is the basis of all EU-authority in the UK. The

repeal of this Act is UKIP's central aim.

Yours sincerely

Andrew S. Reed

Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels"

[Julian]

Slightly off on a tangent (but far less so that the posters telling me to get a decent web browser :-0 ) but did you know that out of the 600 or so politicians in the UK only about 150 of them have ever been involved with business or industry and out of them only about 60 have any science based experience.

What this means, in effect, is that the concept of modifications, alterations, testing etc on vehicles is purely an esoteric concept.

I guess that's the downside of career politicians, much better we go back to unpaid ones.....

Julian.

[DrRob]

http://www.lro.com/news.php?sid=1355&page=1

[MECCANO]

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=26260

[alfaman]

I've also had 3 replies so far from my local MEP's, one of them is copied below;

"Thank you for taking the time to write to me over your concerns regarding the Proposed EU regulation for Vehicle Roadworthyness Testing.

Sadly this is just another example of needless meddling and an additional tier of EU Bureaucracy that nobody wants, much less needs.

I am currently personally involved in a campaign to have similar legislation affecting bikes thrown out, as the EU also wants to ensure that the many modified trikes, bikes and quads are subject to similar draconian and utterly pointless rules.

Just like the bikes, this legislation seeks, under the auspices of 'road safety' to effectively end the modification of cars.

I would be totally opposed to this on a number of fronts but here are my principal objections:

• We already have a perfectly adequate system in the UK under the form of MOT certification. To add another EU wide certificate is unnecessary and an attempt to supersede our UK based decision making authorities.
  

• Modified cars - provided of course they are deemed roadworthy by the relevant UK authority - add colour and fun to our roads and allow an individual to express themselves, often with fantastic results.
  

• The EU is seeking the homogenisation of our cars and bikes, meaning that we cannot change them to suit our needs and personalities. This to my mind is an attack on a way of life for many, and indeed an attack on the huge, profitable and exciting 'custom' industry.
  

• The laws affecting cars of 30 years and older are completely unrealistic: How on earth can a car of over 30 years old be expected to be kept in its completely original condition? Of course modifications of parts would be necessary to ensure it can run properly! In addition many would need new fuel systems or engines to ensure that they can run on unleaded or diesel as opposed to the now almost obsolete 4 star leaded fuels.
  

It goes without saying that I will be opposing this proposed legislation tooth and nail. It is my intention to raise awareness of this matter in the specialised magazines sector and national and local press, as well as lobbying my colleagues here in the European Parliament on the relevant Committee to ensure that, just like the bikes legislation, this idea is put to the legislative bin where it belongs.

In the meantime if I can be any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards

Marta Andreasen MEP

UKIP South East England"

[disco_al]

On the other hand, if you want to make your own views heard, you could always track down Siim Kallas on Twitter, EU Vice President and commissioner for transport. Not that we could possibly condone that kind of thing.

hmmmmmmm, interesting one. how long before the facebook campaigns start then???

or better still, get it sent to the bbc or other news network, give it a good doom n gloom headline grabbing topic, and see what happens - The Sun springs to mind, especially as they don't like the EU much anyway....

[alfaman]

...the EU's "parliament" ... has rejected only two of the tens-of-thousands of proposals, which the EU-Commission has made this

century.

Erm, nothing to worry about, then.

[alfaman]

http://www.motor-vision.co.uk/....roadworthiness-package-probably-nothing-to-worry-about/

[Julian]

one which i think is of good reading which is below.

It seems most unlikely that this Regulation will not become law,

whereupon the only way to repeal it will be to repeal the European

Communities Act, which is the basis of all EU-authority in the UK. The

repeal of this Act is UKIP's central aim.

Yours sincerely

Andrew S. Reed

Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels"

Good reading? bloomin heck, I wonder what bad reading looks like?

Well, in a previous post I've already (falsely) been accused of 'throwing in the towel.' I think UKIP makes our plight abundantly clear. Heads need to be pulled free of the sand ASAP....

...the EU's "parliament" ... has rejected only two of the tens-of-thousands of proposals, which the EU-Commission has made this

century

Erm, nothing to worry about, then.

QED alfaman!

What did Camaron say a few years ago? 'No more war of the motorist' ' for every new law we will repeal two old ones' Bla bla bla, lying toads, the lot of them.

Julian.

[UdderlyOffroad]

If I lived in the South East Marta Andreasen MEP would have my vote. Very articulate of her and I might even attach the her words as a (quoted) addendum to my own later.

However, the problem with UKIP is borne out by the letter Fozsug recieved from Nigel Farrage's office. Perversely, the more idiotic legislation the EU passes, the better it is for him electorally.

Despite the Pistonheads article however (and the DfT's reassurances), I personally am not convinced. Usually people only wake up to the smell of sh** when the law has been passed by the EU and the relevant UK government department is implementing it to the letter with jack-boot-style enforcement. By then of course, it's too late.

[tacr2man]

The likelyhood of this becoming legislation is very high , as its part of standardisation of testing which is a big aim in the EU HGV sector , allowing all eu goods vehicles to be tested in whichever country they happen to be in without having to travel all the way back to country of origin , also the standard ( I use the term loosely) in some is very variable and low JMHE

ps it even includes testing of fast agri tractors , and testing as already mentioned light trailers , which will need a registration system set up which will bring UK into line with EU countries by the back door .

[Snagger]

I've had a few replies from East Anglia MEPs now and they all seem very supportive, not just the UKIP ones, but also the Conservative and Lib Dems. Interestingly, I haven't had any replies from any Labour MEPs, but they never want to rock that boat...

[missingsid]

right... so it may be of little use, and normally ignored. however i thought i would take the 1 minute to sign it as there is a small possibility it may raise awareness if nothing else.

http://epetitions.di...petitions/37519

Signed

[wanderlust4ever]

The sooner we get out of that EU the better Britain will be.

[Julian]

The sooner we get out of that EU the better Britain will be.

+1

Julian

[ejparrott]

+1

[discomikey]

+ a million

[Snagger]

I think the main parties really underestimate public ill-feeling about EU membership, espacially with what is happening with the Euro. It's a shame that the EU-exit parties seem to have few other policies or enough credibility, but that is slowly changing.

[Gruntfuttock]

Response from Derek Clarke UKIP MEP, para four say's it all.

It seems the only responses I'm getting are from UKIP MP's, I know which way I'm voting next time!

Thank you for your message about Historic Vehicles. You have my support in

continuing to enjoy your motoring this way.

I am not surprised that an organisation like FIVA would introduce a

different definition to that which is accepted in the UK. This whole

proposal is an EU scheme with a FIVA label, which means you have a problem.

I know that those who have such vehicles in the UK have to comply with the

appropriate UK laws. I am very happy with that as I hope are you. There is

absolutely no need for the EU to become involved.

Please be aware that all such new regulations of the EU are bureaucrat

driven. Someone, usually a commissioner, has an idea and sets the process in

motion. The difficulty is that those who both propose it, and those who draw

up the paperwork, have no experience in that field. They have little

experience in anything beyond an office desk. Thus are we subject to a

deluge of regulations running to some 3000 ever year.

As and when this comes before the European Parliament I shall vote against

anything which conflicts with UK practice. With my UKIP colleagues we are

doing that all the time but, unfortunately, we are almost always heavily

outvoted so the real answer to your problem is to support UKIP in its policy

of getting out of the EU altogether.

Yours sincerely

Derek Clark MEP

[nickwilliams]

I've been on holiday with only limited internet access so today is the first chance I have had to download and read the Commission proposal. I don't think it has anything like the intentions which have been attributed to it, nor will it have anything like the impact on LR4x4 members' activities which people here fear.

Basically, the proposal is to introduce a general requirement for an MOT for all road vehicles and most trailers, but with an exception for un-modified historic vehicles which meet certain specific criteria. The proposal is not to outlaw vehicle modifications (how could it - there is a huge industry based on this for all kinds of commercial purposes, never mind the amateur interests of people like us), it is simply to ensure that when modifications take place after a vehicle is first brought into service, they are checked by a 'competent' authority. One of the main purposes of the proposal is to define the criteria for competence so that there is an acceptable degree of independence, competence and consistency for all such people across the EU.

The people who will be most affected by this proposal in the UK are farmers who have tractors or trailers which are designed to exceed 40kph. Under current rules there is currently no requirement for any MOT or road worthiness tests for any agricultural tractors or trailers in the UK, and there are many who believe it's long overdue that the law is changed in this area. Also likely to be affected will be trailer owners (such as myself) and caravan owners who are likely to have to submit their trailers for an annual inspection.

Based on actually having successfully influenced the content of legislation (both EU and UK) previously, I'd also like to make a couple of points on the more general issue of making representations about this or any other EU proposals.

Firstly, unless you respond to what is actually in the proposal, as opposed to what you have heard someone else tell you is in the proposal (or you would like to think is in the proposal based on your prejudices) then your response will certainly have a reduced impact, and will most likely be ignored. This is also true of any representations made on your behalf by MPs or MEPs. Most of the responses posted above from UKIP etc. are good soap box material, but they are going to achieve nothing because they don't address what is actually in the proposal at all.

Secondly, it's a waste of time complaining about this proposal to UKIP or any other minority party - they don't have the clout to make the Commission change their mind, and they never will have. If you really want to make a difference to what is being proposed, you need to find out who actually has the ear of the Commission and get them on your side, as well as getting this on the radar of the main stream parties.

I'm happy to debate whether my interpretation of the proposal is correct with anyone else who would care to provide a reasoned analysis at odds with what I have said, and I think there is a useful function for LR4x4 as a forum for that kind of technical debate. I'm not going to engage in further debate on the general issue of Europe, UKIP or the way in which the UK is going to the dogs - I can get everything I need in that department by going to the Daily Telegraph.

Nick.

[steve b]

Thats an interesting and measured post Nick , it sounds like you know your legislation/beaurocracy , where do you think the power lies then ? or how would one go about finding this out ?

cheers

Steveb

[nickwilliams]

Yes, I do have some experience of this - I deal with EU legislation for a living, and I've also had some success with getting UK legislation re-written to suit the needs of cavers.

I'd start by speaking to the relevant people at DfT. I find that civil servants are usually only too glad to speak to real people so long as they actually engage with the issue. The name on the consultation form is Mark Heverin.

I note that the DfT have requested responses by tomorrow but that does not necessarily mean that later responses will be ignored, particularly if they provide useful analysis for the civil servants who will actually do the majority of the legwork with any proposal such as this.

It's also true that responses from groups which represent particular interest will frequently be given greater weight than those from single individuals. For instance, if LR4X4 were to put in a group response, it is likely to be taken much more seriously than if I were to put in a response as an individual.

I can't claim to speak on behalf of LR4X4, but if the moderators approve, I'm happy to submit a response on the forum's behalf so long as enough other people also agree with what I say. We may not have any formal association but that does not stop us from being a group of stakeholders with similar interests.

DfT have posed a series of questions in their consultation. I've given them below (in blue italics) with some proposed responses (in red) for debate. Please feel free to comment.

Nick.

The Commission proposes to bring all trailers capable of more than 40kph into the scope of periodic testing. This includes all currently exempt trailers below 3,500 kg (including caravans).

The proposal includes a very wide range of trailer. While it may be beneficial to introduce inspections for heavy trailers or those subjected to high milage, it is difficult to conceive that the cost of the proposal is justified for small trailers, particularly if a registration system (which would presumably be required to make the proposal workable in practice) is introduced. We would suggest that the proposal is modified to exclude all trailers under 750kg and any trailer or caravan rated at less than 3500 kg used for non-commercial purposes.

The Commission proposes to bring motorcycles into scope of periodic testing. This is already done in GB but will become a requirement EU wide. It will add analysis of exhaust fumes.

LR4x4 does not represent motorcycle users and so we have no comment to make on this proposal.

The Commission proposes to introduce a definition for a roadworthiness test that components of the vehicle must comply with characteristics at the time of first registration. This may prevent most modifications to vehicles without further approval of the vehicle. (this will apply to many components and to all types of vehicle)

LR4X4 members are particularly concerned by this proposal since we believe that if it is introduced in its current form it may be used to limit the scope of modifications which can be undertaken to road going vehicles after they have been first registered. It is not clear to us whether this is in fact what the Commission proposes, and we would be very concerned if it was. We would point out that there is a very considerable industry in the UK which supports after-market modifications to vehicles, and would urge DfT to ensure that this industry's interests are fully represented. While we accept that all modifications to road going vehicles must be safe, and that there may be circumstances where that safety should be independently verified, we are adamant that the principle of vehicle modifications being permitted must remain. We do not accept that it is necessary to introduce anything more stringent, expensive or frequent that the current UK's SVA/IVA/MOT test regime.

The Commission proposes to change the definition of an Historic Vehicle that may be exempt from periodic testing. This may allow vehicles older than 30 years to be exempt from testing providing the vehicle has been maintained in its original condition, including its appearance.

We believe that this it is sensible to exempt historic show vehicles from testing subject to certain conditions. However, our members do not consider their vehicles as historic and would not be eligible to apply this exemption so it must not be used as a basis for failing to address our concerns expressed in the previous point.

The Commission proposes that all vehicles must be subject to periodic testing except historic vehicles, forces and emergency vehicles, agricultural vehicles limited to less than 40kph and specialist funfair/circus vehicles limited to 40kph.

If safety is the primary concern then it may not make sense to exempt even the above vehicles, but any measures taken must be proportionate to the risk (based on scientifically gathered and publicly available evidence) and must not increase financial or other burdens on operators.

The Commission proposes that new tests and testing equipment are introduced. The equipment details are contained in Annex V of the proposed Periodic Testing Regulation. New elements include testing of brake fluid, light intensity, shock absorber testers, changes to brake testing equipment and a number of others.

There is insufficient time given for a detailed response to these proposals, but as a general principle, tests should only be introduced for which there are already commercially available test equipment from competitive sources. We would also observe that in many cases it is not necessary for expensive test equipment to be used in order to provide for a test requirement - a properly designed simple visual test will provide most of the safety benefits at minimal cost.

The Commission proposes that all Member States make it compulsory for odometer distances to be shown on test certificates and that tampering with an odometer becomes an offence subject to a penalty.

We agree with this proposal (which we understand is already a requirement in the UK).

The Commission proposes to introduce definitions of severity into test. Minor defects would result in a test failure but would not prevent a certificate being issued. (The vehicle owner is expected to correct the failure without needing to have it re-confirmed by the tester).

We agree with this proposal.

The Commission proposes that in the case where a vehicle has dangerous defects discovered at test, that the vehicle shall not be used on public roads and the registration of the vehicle must be withdrawn until the defects are rectified.

We agree with this proposal (which we understand is already a requirement in the UK).

The Commission proposes new rules regarding the training of vehicle testers. This includes new areas of knowledge and compulsory annual retraining for all testers. (details are contained in Annex VI of the draft Periodic Testing Regulation).

Clearly vehicle testers must be competent and their knowledge must be up-to-date, but we are concerned that a formal requirement for annual training will result in an unnecessary increase in costs. Most vocational training in the UK requires three or five yearly compulsory refreshers with intermediate training only required when necessary. A system with similar flexibility for vehicle inspectors should help to minimise the costs for all stakeholders.

The Commission proposes that the drivers of a vehicle registered in a Member State shall keep on board the roadworthiness certificate corresponding to the latest roadworthiness test and the report of the last roadside inspection (if applicable).

We do not agree with this proposal which is contrary to the widely held UK principle that private individuals should not be required to carry ID or other official papers as part of their normal daily activities. Our strongly held view is that the current UK system whereby the vehicle papers can be taken to a police station within a reasonable period of a correctly delivered request is adequate.

The Commission proposes that when major or dangerous deficiencies have been found following a more detailed roadside inspection, Member States may require the payment of a fee.

Our view is that this principle needs careful consideration. There is already a problem in the UK with the lack of control over the costs of vehicle recovery from public roads (e.g. motorways) and the lack of transparency in the relationship between vehicle recovery operators and the police. If the Commission proposal is used as an opportunity to introduce better transparency and fairer costs in this area then we will support it. However, as a principle, for any criminal or civil sanction (including a fine) to be applied, there must be a proper hearing with a meaningful right of appeal and the burden of proof must be on the authorities, not on the motorist. Furthermore, any costs levied must be justifiable, consistent, reasonable and proportionate.

The Commission proposes that all vehicle manufacturers will make available to test centres all technical data covered by the Certificate of Conformity. (As per annex I of the draft Periodic Testing Regulation). (Vehicle manufacturers includes makers of any non rail bourne motor vehicle or trailer).

This is a matter for vehicle manufacturers, but we would observe that it raises considerable potential issues of commercial confidentiality and would suggest that the correct approach is the standardisation of interfaces and systems rather than the mandatory provision of commercially sensitive information.

[TFC]

A well presented and professional response - I competely agree.

[Julian]

The Commission proposes to introduce a definition for a roadworthiness test that components of the vehicle must comply with characteristics at the time of first registration. This may prevent most modifications to vehicles without further approval of the vehicle. (this will apply to many components and to all types of vehicle)

This I suspect is the dangerous proposal.

How will we get 'further approval' for (say) fitting a powerful tuned V8 to an old Series vehicle? How will we prove it's safe? There's no way that an MOT tester or SVA (VOSA) chap could make an informed decision and you can guarantee that in the case of an MOT testing station the garage's insurance will forbid such practise with liability laws being as they are. Furthermore, manufacturers certainly won't be interested.

I suspect that modifications of significance will require stress analysis, failure analysis, destructive testing, risk assessment, non destructive testing etc etc. I don't believe that such a process would be within the financial means of the 'common man' in the UK, and I don't believe that the commission would allow for such modifications to be 'rubber stamped.'

Maybe we need to look at the situation in other EU countries were activities like simple engine swaps or seat changes are already prevented? I'm sorry but your views on the matter have not calmed my nerves, in my job I always plan for the worst and anything better is a bonus!

Julian.