zoltan Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Excellent Nick. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to go through this and add a great deal of clarity to the cloudiness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatboy Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Nick, I totally agree with your approach and proposed response. Thanks for putting it together. Donald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickwilliams Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 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. Well, I think your concerns are valid and worthy of further analysis, although I also don't necessarily agree with them. The words you quoted above are from the DfT consultation and not from the EU document. UK already has a history of gold plating some EU regulations so you are right be be concerned, but that's not quite the same issue as the response to the EU document itself, and needs to be addressed separately. The actual wording which appears to be the main point of concern in the EU document is as follows (article 3 item 9 on page 15): ‘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; The key to this is the phrase "in force at the time of ... first registration or entry into service....". My reading of that wording is that so long as the UK retains the Construction and Use Regs (and this proposal from the Commission contains nothing which would require them to be repealed) then we can continue to do what we like, so long as it meets C+U and is in fact safe. But I accept that this interpretation could be incorrect, and the spin put on the Commission's words by the DfT (which I had not read when I posted my initial comments earlier this evening) tend to indicate I may be. That's why I responded as I have in the proposed response above. As I said earlier, this needs debate on the technical points, not on the politics. Nick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfaman Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 .....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.... 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. I have first hand experience of how difficult this “modification of a vehicle after first brought into service” can be in one of the other EU countries we are supposedly are a member of. Spain, has had for a number of years, a strict following of the rules as laid out by the EU commission in regards as to what you can or can not do regarding modifications to ones mode of transport. If you want to make a modification; first of all you have to buy the said item, say spare wheel carrier from 'the authorized supplier' (with the 'authorized' documented proof that it is made to fit for your vehicle); second, you have to take your vehicle to 'the authorized fitment garage' so it can be fitted by them; third, book and take your vehicle to have it MOT'd with all the correctly stamped paperwork, then the 'authorized engineer' can declare it, as allowed or not. If it is allowed then the 'log-book' (V5) is amended to reflect the modification and all of the paperwork regarding the modification has to be kept with the vehicle at all times; job done, congratulations on spending a lot of money, so your rear door stops wearing out it's hinges and stops cracking the welds around the spare wheel holder inside the door. If it's not allowed, then congratulations you've spent money greasing the bureaucratic wheels. Having a competent authority checking over my car or trailer is not a problem personally, if done right, ie someone competent. Being told by the 'competent' authority that having stainless steel over-braided brake pipes similar to the ones fitted to nearly all aircraft in use (FAA/CAA/EASA directive) also motor sport (FIA/MSA directive), can not be fitted as it is not safe and are not the original fitment rubber ones, is ludicrous to me. Fitting a 2in lift kit from say John Craddock spares and then having to go through the various legal hoops to get it accepted as an allowed modification; whilst a pain to do, I understand is necessary. I know some of you, maybe most of you, will probably say – that's what happens in Spain, so what, I don't have to deal with it, I'm in UK. Spain does adopt, very strictly, the EU directives as soon as they come into force; who's to say that UK won't be forced to comply, in the name of maintaining consistency within the EU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickwilliams Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 This page is worth a look: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/12/555& Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfaman Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 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. .... 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. Even though I own a trailer, I see enough trailers and caravans on the road that shouldn't be on the roads, having a test done on them would weed out those users that have had their trailer/caravan parked up for the best part of a year or more; waiting for the one-time-a-year trip on holiday; all they've done is pump the tires back up, loaded up and gone off on holiday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickwilliams Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 I have first hand experience of how difficult this “modification of a vehicle after first brought into service” can be in one of the other EU countries we are supposedly are a member of. <snip horror story> I know some of you, maybe most of you, will probably say – that's what happens in Spain, so what, I don't have to deal with it, I'm in UK. Spain does adopt, very strictly, the EU directives as soon as they come into force; who's to say that UK won't be forced to comply, in the name of maintaining consistency within the EU. An interesting and useful contribution. How long ago was this? I think your message neatly sums up the dilemma - at one extreme you have Spain wanting to go through a ridiculous pantomime just for a spare wheel carrier, at the other extreme you have the UK which permits people to bugger about with their suspension or brakes pretty much willy nilly. In the long run, I think we'll end up with a situation which is much less polarised across the EU, somewhere in the middle. One point I'd make is that the IVA is a recognised type approval mechanism under the Whole Vehicle Type Approval Directive so there will always be a route by which a modified vehicle can be approved. Once it is approved then the MOT test (which is what this proposal is about) will be there to ensure that it remains safe. This proposal makes no change to the basic structure of that regime. However, I readily accept that we want to avoid the situation where simple modifications (and repairs) require any form of expensive independent check or approval. It seems to me that we will probably end up with a list of the modifications/repairs which should be permitted without any form of check, those that require a basic safety check (i.e. the equivalent of a current MOT) and those which require a more detailed check. Something like this: No checks required: - Change lightbulbs - Change any lubricant or fluid (except brake fluid) - Replace damaged cosmetic body parts - Add additional mirrors, lights - etc. Basic safety check: - Change brake components (including fluids) with like-for-like parts - Repair to chassis/bodywork requiring welding - Change seats/seat belts - Replace engine/gearbox with part with same (+/-10%) power/torque - Replace suspension components with like-for-like parts - etc Advanced safety check - Replace chassis - Replace engine with different power/torque - Replace brake/suspension components with non original spec. parts - etc. It might be in our interests to take the initiative and start work on this list. Nick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickwilliams Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 <SNIP> 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 That may well be true for the standard MOT stations which specialise in Euroboxes, but this forum is populated by people who would be able to make a reasonable judgement in such cases, so they do exist. 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. I'm not convinced that insurance is a barrier - on two levels: one is that I make decisions on the safety of machinery for a living, and I don't have any problem getting insurance; the second is that it would be possible to word the legislation so that insurance for is primarily the responsibility of the vehicle owner, not the approval body - i.e. largely the situation we have already. Furthermore, manufacturers certainly won't be interested. Agree with that, although the aftermarket modification business (think of all those electricity/water/gas company wagons) may have similar interests to us. I suspect that modifications of significance will require stress analysis, failure analysis, destructive testing, risk assessment, non destructive testing etc etc. I'm not so sure. IVA (and, for that matter, WVA for trucks) do not necessarily require all this analysis, although I think you are right that we need to be vigilant to avoid these fears becoming a reality. Nick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfaman Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 An interesting and useful contribution. How long ago was this? That particular horror story was a few years ago, whilst my LR was Spanish registered. It's now UK registered because of it, I am a Brit after all and I love the fact one can willy-nilly, sort of, do as we please. That was one of the reasons, the main one, I had to remove ALL modifications that I couldn't get authorized every 6 months. Yes, 6 months, my LR is over 10 years old... those are the rules. Even replacing the original bulbs with LED bulbs is not allowed. Neither can you replace the old style rear light units with the new ones as fitted today. Spain still has the same draconian rules in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfaman Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 .....at one extreme you have Spain wanting to go through a ridiculous pantomime just for a spare wheel carrier.... Because one has changed the overall length of the vehicle, it's now longer than when it was first made. The same rigmarole happens for fitting a winch/winch bumper, side steps, roof rack, etc, even though most of those items used to be/are factory approved/fitted extras. Even if you go to the LR dealership to obtain them, you still have to go to the same procedures. Go figure.!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q-rover Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 An interesting and useful contribution. How long ago was this? I think your message neatly sums up the dilemma - at one extreme you have Spain wanting to go through a ridiculous pantomime just for a spare wheel carrier, at the other extreme you have the UK which permits people to bugger about with their suspension or brakes pretty much willy nilly. In the long run, I think we'll end up with a situation which is much less polarised across the EU, somewhere in the middle. One point I'd make is that the IVA is a recognised type approval mechanism under the Whole Vehicle Type Approval Directive so there will always be a route by which a modified vehicle can be approved. Once it is approved then the MOT test (which is what this proposal is about) will be there to ensure that it remains safe. This proposal makes no change to the basic structure of that regime. However, I readily accept that we want to avoid the situation where simple modifications (and repairs) require any form of expensive independent check or approval. It seems to me that we will probably end up with a list of the modifications/repairs which should be permitted without any form of check, those that require a basic safety check (i.e. the equivalent of a current MOT) and those which require a more detailed check. Something like this: No checks required: - Change lightbulbs - Change any lubricant or fluid (except brake fluid) - Replace damaged cosmetic body parts - Add additional mirrors, lights - etc. Basic safety check: - Change brake components (including fluids) with like-for-like parts - Repair to chassis/bodywork requiring welding - Change seats/seat belts - Replace engine/gearbox with part with same (+/-10%) power/torque - Replace suspension components with like-for-like parts - etc Advanced safety check - Replace chassis - Replace engine with different power/torque - Replace brake/suspension components with non original spec. parts - etc. It might be in our interests to take the initiative and start work on this list. Nick. Alfaman, that sounds very similar to the way it is here in Norway, basically a beauracratic nightmare of paperwork approval, more than actually looking at the modification. However here, the only way to get anything approved with any certainty is that the vehicle manufacturer (ie Land Rover) issue a letter specific to your vehicle (must contain chassis number) that the parts you want to fit can and will fit within the type approval of the vehicle. As i said before, how many think LR are going to issue these letters/ documents for Britpart liftkits. As for larger tyres, anything over +/-5% rolling diameter deviation from your V5= needs approval, change track width by fitting different wheels/ spacers, anything over +20mm(total)= needs approval. The problem is as you say litigation, the VOSA(equivalent) testers don't want the resposibility of issuing approvals due to them personally stamping the approval, so they fall back on legislation and definitions in th ecunstruction and use regs which are interpreted to the strictest sense possible, and simply say no. Unless you have paperwork to back up what you have done. Even TUV documentation can be deemed insufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve b Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 ......out of interest , how does this proposal fit with the vast number of modified vehicles for disabled access and/or use? Would companies that specialise in this be issued with some sort of type approval licence to avoid IVA on each and every conversion? How does this work in the EU states that are already complying? You have my vote Nick to lead and represent our position if the mods/admin agree to it cheers Steveb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Nick, excellent write-up, fully agreed here. Is LR4x4 in contact re:submission? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickwilliams Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Not heard anything from a moderator yet - I was going to let this run until this afternoon before deciding what to do next. Got a day job to do as well! I've been thinking a bit more about the submission following the debate last night, and have come up with some new words for some of the sections. The new bits are shown in purple below. Further comments welcome. 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 unbraked trailers under 750kg and any trailer or caravan rated at less than 3500 kg used for non-commercial purposes. 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. We would also point out that the proposal to a large extent misses the point that it is perfectly possible to repair a vehicle with parts which retain the same characteristics as the original parts, but which nevertheless result in the vehicle being unsafe because the workmanship is poor. Furthermore, it is possible to change the manufacturer's original parts for others which provide a worthwhile enhancement to the safety of the vehicle, and as currently worded this proposal will make this practice impossible. The proposal is currently too blunt an instrument and too ambiguously worded. The Commission needs to re-think its approach in this regard. 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. We would also point out that the Commission proposal is entirely superfluous in the UK now that the MOT registration system is fully computerised. If the UK were to capitulate to this requirement then UK motorists would be fully entitled to question the recent investment in the computerisation systems required to implement SORN and continuous insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 All good additions, will 'report' this thread to the mods/admin, in case it has been missed ( I doubt it, but would be silly not to ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 The problem is as you say litigation, the VOSA(equivalent) testers don't want the resposibility of issuing approvals due to them personally stamping the approval, so they fall back on legislation and definitions in th ecunstruction and use regs which are interpreted to the strictest sense possible, and simply say no. Unless you have paperwork to back up what you have done. Even TUV documentation can be deemed insufficient. This is the crux of the matter in my opinion, as I previously mentioned. It reminds me of the time, many decades ago, when I worked as a licensed airframe/engine engineer in GA. (general aviation) One chap had purchased a business jet in the USA on the American register and brought it back to the UK. Attempts to transfer it onto the UK register had basically stalled because of a change to the mounting hardware for pilot harnesses due to a galley fitment. Months and months passed with the aircraft grounded as attempts to get the modification approved by the CAA failed and litigation ensued that cost many thousands. This is what we're in for, an endless bureaucratic nightmare with no guarantee of a favourable result. You can expect endless insurmountable hurdles from anyone on the gubbinsment payroll (civil servants), all seeking to avoid litigation or harming their gold plated pensions, with the net result being DIY modifications not being a practical reality even though theoretically possible for the common man. Julian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hybrid_From_Hell Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Erm I think it was "Missed" by the A%M team, but the report has popped up in report centre, so give the team some time to all read and comment and we'll be back to you In the meantime, I have a workshop calling Nige Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Agree with that, although the aftermarket modification business (think of all those electricity/water/gas company wagons) may have similar interests to us. reality. Nick. Specialist vehicles like ambulances, search and rescue vehicles and cherry pickers etc are exempt from the proposed legislation. You can guarantee there will be a clause on the V5 that the vehicle must be crushed when the 'authority' no longer wishes to use! Julian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Erm I think it was "Missed" by the A%M team, but the report has popped up in report centre, so give the team some time to all read and comment and we'll be back to you In the meantime, I have a workshop calling Nige Thanks Nige Be a shame for all this to go to waste! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzar Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I've just emailed the MP /MEPs for the area with my own letter raising the issue - only one response so far and, with his permission, I quote: From William, Earl of Dartmouth, Dear Gazzar, Thank you for writing to me 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) UKIP will, of course, oppose this regulation 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 William Dartmouth The man seems to have grasped the nub of the issue. Update - just got a holding letter (from a human!) from the MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UdderlyOffroad Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 It seems to me that we will probably end up with a list of the modifications/repairs which should be permitted without any form of check, those that require a basic safety check (i.e. the equivalent of a current MOT) and those which require a more detailed check. Something like this: No checks required: - Change lightbulbs - Change any lubricant or fluid (except brake fluid) - Replace damaged cosmetic body parts - Add additional mirrors, lights - etc. Basic safety check: - Change brake components (including fluids) with like-for-like parts - Repair to chassis/bodywork requiring welding - Change seats/seat belts - Replace engine/gearbox with part with same (+/-10%) power/torque - Replace suspension components with like-for-like parts - etc Advanced safety check - Replace chassis - Replace engine with different power/torque - Replace brake/suspension components with non original spec. parts - etc. It might be in our interests to take the initiative and start work on this list. Nick. In short: no! (bold, underlined, angry face, etc) In the UK we already have: C&U regulations Roadside safety checks (police vehicle examiners, and VOSA inspectors for commercial vehicles) Yearly MOT submissions (which include brake efficiency checks) The DVLA’s ‘points’ system which covers what is defined as a minor and major modifications, and if you go over 8 points, we have IVA We should be making the point in the DfT’s consultation that the UK already has most of the framework in place. I do not see that requiring me to submit for a ‘safety check’ when I change my brake pads or weld a patch in my chassis will do anything other than cause paperwork. Incidentally, there’s a lot of tosh being talked about emergency service vehicles and the like. They have to be submitted for an IVA too, along with commercial vehicles modified beyond a defined amount. IVA manuals available online if you’re feeling masochistic. I reiterate my point that: the UK is ahead of the current proposals and this needs to be pointed in our response to the consultation. I've a few comments on your responses: 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 unbraked trailers under 750kg and any trailer or caravan rated at less than 3500 kg used for non-commercial purposes. We reject this on the basis that the commission has produced no evidence as to why this should be required? Most EU member states (the UK included) do not have the infrastructure to support introducing a trailer testing regime. 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. Need to add something in here about the DVLA points system, stating that it clearly defines acceptable levels of modification and the threshold for an IVA: http://www.direct.go...hicle/DG_191068 We would also point out that the proposal to a large extent misses the point that it is perfectly possible to repair a vehicle with parts which retain the same characteristics as the original parts, but which nevertheless result in the vehicle being unsafe because the workmanship is poor. Furthermore, it is possible to change the manufacturer's original parts for others which provide a worthwhile enhancement to the safety of the vehicle, and as currently worded this proposal will make this practice impossible. The proposal is currently too blunt an instrument and too ambiguously worded. The Commission needs to re-think its approach in this regard. 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. We would also point out that the Commission proposal is entirely superfluous in the UK now that the MOT registration system is fully computerised. If the UK were to capitulate to this requirement then UK motorists would be fully entitled to question the recent investment in the computerisation systems required to implement SORN and continuous insurance. Need to tidy this section up. Perhaps add the point that UK law enforcement has the ability to call up the details of the current MOT status electronically, at the roadside, either via radio to their control centre, or increasingly via data terminals with uplinks to PNC. “producers” are essentially not needed anymore. 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. As of this year, historic vehicles over a certain age are exempt. http://www.dft.gov.u...ning-20120521a/ Again the UK is ahead on this matter – this needs to be pointed out 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 UK has various testing regimes to cover all these types of vehicles. Even the MOD has regulations defining what can and cannot be used on the public highway (in peacetime!). 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 MOT has thusfar been a purely visual inspection but also includes brake efficiency and emissions, headlight aims….the list goes on, again the UK has all this in place, this needs to be pointed out. As of this year even the (13pin) trailer socket is tested for correct function. VOSA has been careful to introduce test requirements where test kit is easily available (e.g. the trailer socket tester costs <£70) 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. This is already part of the MOT 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). This is already part of the MOT 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. You’re conflating vocational training requirements of mechanics with MOT tester training and certification, which is already tightly regulated. See here: http://www.motester....nMOTTester.aspx Please read up and modify response 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). 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. I think you’re conflating the racket that is police-approved recovery contractors with fines for dangerous defects found at the roadside by police vehicle examiners or VOSA inspectors (e.g. point on your licence+fine for every bald tyre below 1.6mm) There are heavy fines already in place in the UK. 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. There never has been a central database of the CofC details of every car sold in the EU, and MOT testers will not have the time to cross-reference it, without dramatically increasing the length and therefore cost of every MOT, even for unmodified cars. We need to point this out, as I’m convinced this fact will make UK politicians start to pay attention. I realise I might come across as rather grumpy, sorry about that. I think I can speak for the majority of the forum when I say we appreciate the time you’ve devoted to this. Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickwilliams Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Useful comments, Matt, thanks a lot. Nick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickwilliams Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 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. You’re conflating vocational training requirements of mechanics with MOT tester training and certification, which is already tightly regulated. See here: http://www.motester....nMOTTester.aspx Please read up and modify response It's not clear from that page how often MOT testers currently have to do refresher/retraining, which was the point i was trying to get to since if they are currently not required to do annual re-training then requiring them to do so will add cost. Do you know how often refresher training is required under current MOT rules? Nick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickwilliams Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 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. I think you’re conflating the racket that is police-approved recovery contractors with fines for dangerous defects found at the roadside by police vehicle examiners or VOSA inspectors (e.g. point on your licence+fine for every bald tyre below 1.6mm) There are heavy fines already in place in the UK. Matt The word used is 'fees' not 'fines' which implies that they are looking to promote a non-judicial charge to help offset the costs incurred by (in the UK) VOSA, police etc. This is a very dodgy area since the I suspect the whole point of defining these as 'fees' rather than 'fines' is that there is then no need to subject them to the checks and balances of a proper judicial process. In fact the Commission have a pretty good record of supporting the interests of consumers on this kind of thing (e.g. recent changes to the mobile phone roaming rates across Europe) but I hate to think how this will turn out once the grasping fingers of the police and the quasi civil-service agencies such as VOSA get involved. I think I could do with some better ideas for wording here. Any suggestions? Nick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discomikey Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 ill agree to anything that gives us a fighting chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.