Historic definition to be redefined in Europe.

[LouiseM]

One has to ask why? There is no need whatsoever for a standardised definition of 'historic vehicle' across Europe.

Well the reasons why it is considered necessary were explained in the initial post in this thread: " to help regulatory audiences understand why historic vehicles should be treated differently to other vehicles and as legislation with exemptions for historic vehicles increases it will avoid problems and make life simpler for owners, regulators and law enforcers in the future"

Much better would be to argue completely against the introduction of any restrictions that might impinge on the use of older vehicles, rather than accept restrictions and have to seek exemptions which necessitate divisive definitions like this.

But that is what FIVA does!

Through its Legislation Commission, FIVA has been assiduous in protecting the continued use of historic vehicles in the face of any adverse legislation. At present, this is largely concentrated on European countries and the European Union, but with ever increasing pressures on motor transport, the potential threat is ever present.

FIVA`s Legislation Commission is tasked to ensure that the development of national and international legislation does not create adverse impact to owners of historic vehicles to preserve their vehicles and use them on public roads without inappropriate restrictions.

Following intense lobbying by FBHVC and FIVA, the European Directive (reference 98/70/EC) imposing the general ban on the sale of leaded petrol included a derogation allowing the continued sale of small quantity of leaded petrol in controlled circumstances for use in vehicles that could not practically be adapted to run on unleaded. That Directive was transposed into UK law by means of Statutory Instrument 1999/3109, the Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) Regulations 1999, which included clauses allowing the sale of leaded petrol to members of the historic vehicle community by means of a network of fuel outlets that had to be registered with FBHVC for the purpose.

If you want more information about FIVA take a look at their website:

http://www.fiva.org/EN/General_Info.htm

[aceadvice]

But they are so few and car scattered that proposalscould mean you may not have enough spare mileage to drive to them ! LOL

[chrisd87]

" to help regulatory audiences understand why historic vehicles should be treated differently to other vehicles and as legislation with exemptions for historic vehicles increases it will avoid problems and make life simpler for owners, regulators and law enforcers in the future"

That is an argument as to why a definition is needed in response to a particular proposal (especially since these proposals typically involve barring old cars from certain city centres), not why we must have one definition covering 27 different countries! If their research shows that most historic vehicles do less than 1,500km per year then the likelihood of an old car regularly visiting more than one city with such restrictions in place is very slim. So whilst it might be reasonable for the FBHVC to come up with a definition of a classic car for a London 'low emission zone', and it might also be reasonable for the FBHVC's German equivalent to come up with a definition of a classic car for Frankfurt, there is no need for the two to be the same since the vast majority of classic vehicles in London will never see the streets of Frankfurt and vice versa. It seems that some major European countries have more restrictive legislation than we do, and we must ensure that none of it, or the underlying principles, are imported to the UK.

Perhaps the bigger problem is that once this definition is adopted at European level with the consent of the FBHVC it will be very difficult for them to then argue for a different one here in the UK. There's little point of coming up with a common definition unless everyone eventually adopts it! That's why this will end up in UK legislation sooner or later. Therefore this sort of thing needs to be fought tooth and nail.

In any case this is a daft definition which gives the anti-classic lobby practically everything it wants without an argument! Certainly as a starting point we need to argue for something as broad as possible. Simply 'a vehicle over 25/30 years old' sounds far more like it to me.

[LouiseM]

If their research shows that most historic vehicles do less than 1,500km per year then the likelihood of an old car regularly visiting more than one city with such restrictions in place is very slim

.

Well we seem to be going round in circles a bit. The 1,500km figure is not the result of 'research' - it was simply included in the results of a 2006 survey. Aceadvice is directly linking the survey results to the proposed definition of ‘historic vehicle’ despite there being no suggestion that a 1,500kms restriction of any type would be imposed. It is sheer speculation to put two completely different events, 4 years apart, together to reach the conclusion that there would be legislation introduced imposing mileage restrictions on historic vehicles.

Aceadvice has also stated:

FIVA do not allow daily driven cars to be classified Classics . FBHVC cut lose daily driven Classics over 2/3 years back so will not support those who do.

This statement doesn’t correspond with the stated purpose of both organisations:

FHBVC: The FBHVC is a grouping of almost 500 Clubs and Museums together with some 1500 Trade and Individual Supporters. The aim of the Federation is to uphold the freedom to use old vehicles on the roads without any undue restriction and to support its member organisations in whatever way it can.

FIVA: There are thousands and thousands of historic vehicle owners throughout the world, each one of whom wants to use their own vehicle as they see fit. FIVA is there to encourage each and everyone of these people.

Neither organisation has stated that they wish to impose mileage restrictions on the use of historic vehicles.

So whilst it might be reasonable for the FBHVC to come up with a definition of a classic car for a London 'low emission zone', and it might also be reasonable for the FBHVC's German equivalent to come up with a definition of a classic car for Frankfurt, there is no need for the two to be the same since the vast majority of classic vehicles in London will never see the streets of Frankfurt and vice versa.

Exactly, and that is what is happening currently. Low Emission Zone regulations are different depending on which country you are visiting. Within the current UK (including London) Low Emission Zone legislation, all british registered Historic vehicles (built before 1 January 1973) are exempt. The current EU definition of 'historic vehicle' is not imposed on every member state, therefore changing the definition will not result in it being imposed on every member state either. Current legislation allows EU states to set their own Low Emission Zone restrictions - they don't have to follow what other states do. As already stated, changing a definition does not change legislation.

[chickenjohn]

FBHVC( who represent British Historic vehicles ) is part of FIVA.

FIVA want ( and will get ) their rules as to what is a Classic adopted throughout Europe.

FIVA do not allow daily driven cars to be classified Classics . FBHVC cut lose daily driven Classics over 2/3 years back so will not support those who do.

Most of Europe have restrictions of road use for Historic Vehicles .

FBHVC gave both our Government and EC a huge dossier saying Classics only do 1500 KM a year.

I know what I see when I put it all together ...opinions may vary.

EU LEGISLATION
(Extract from FIVA’s regular update provided by its lobbying service, EPPA) Second meeting of the European Parliament Historic Vehicle Group
The second meeting of the European Parliament’s Historic Vehicle Group took place on 19 October in Strasbourg. During the meeting Horst Brüning, FIVA’s president and FBHVC’s Andrew Burt gave a presentation about the definition of a historic vehicle. They explained that a wide range of definitions are currently used in both EU and national laws and that ideally one common definition would be recognised by decision makers and in law. They then detailed the FIVA definition, explained its rationale and the importance of a definition allowing regulatory audiences to understand why historic vehicles should be treated differently to all other vehicles, especially to all other ‘older’ vehicles. Horst Brüning and Andrew Burt explained that the existing variety of definitions has not created any major practical problems to date, but that as legislation with exemptions for historic vehicles increases (which is likely because of the development of Intelligent Transport Systems and LEZs) there will be a heightened need for a common definition to avoid problems and make life simpler for owners, regulators and law enforcers in the future. They therefore urged the MEPs to help FIVA to promote and achieve a common definition for future use in EU legislation. The MEPs expressed their surprise at the current situation and agreed that they would aim to help FIVA in its objective."



taken from

http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/2010/12/13/newsletter-no-6-2010/


Basically this means that FIVA definition is going to become the definition of Historic vehicles across the EU which brings in their definition of 'Period modifications only ' and 'Not daily driven' as shown in tech definition below

http://www.fiva.org/EN/Downloads/Techni ... 012010.pdf

Link to FBHVC article declaring Classisc only do 1500km per year

http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/files/2008/12/fiva-report.pdf


British version

http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/files/2008/12/fi ... ersion.pdf




__________________

This is why th EU is totally evil to the British way of life and freedom and we MUST leave the EU immediately!

I hate dragging politics into a car forum, but the evil politics has been thrust upon us.

[aceadvice]

Lousie , what they put down as a statement of intent and what they actually do seem to be two different things.

Look at these two articles we put up.

"For example, the EU Commission have given indications that while they are happy to consider legislative exemptions for a reasonably small number of vehicles, used for relatively low mileages, they would become concerned if the number of vehicles or the mileage they covered grew too large. It is hoped that by lifting the defined age to 30 and excluding vehicles used for daily transport, this will be avoided."

taken from article below.
http://www.the-ace.org.uk/fiva-define-h ... highlight1

and then again officially via Practical Classics

just on 3 years ago

http://www.the-ace.org.uk/classic-vehic ... highlight1

We ( ACE ) have not said that 1500 km ( 900miles ) IS being considered but that SHOULD a restriction be considered FOLLOWING the placing on Statute that Classic Vehicles are not daily driven it is but a short step to "Well we have a dossier saying that on average you only do 900 miles so you won't have a problem with that being enshrined in law " .Not like there is a contrary article availble to the authorities ...currently.

[LouiseM]

I hate dragging politics into a car forum, but the evil politics has been thrust upon us.

Quite Aceadvice's initial message has been posted on a number of other classic car forums and has clearly caused some concern so posting the actual position will hopefully address some of those concerns and add a bit of balance.

We ( ACE ) have not said that 1500 km ( 900miles ) IS being considered but that SHOULD a restriction be considered FOLLOWING the placing on Statute that Classic Vehicles are not daily driven it is but a short step to "Well we have a dossier saying that on average you only do 900 miles so you won't have a problem with that being enshrined in law "

But the wording of your initial post clearly linked a mileage restriction to the proposed FIVA definition of historic vehicle. And you have stated:

By virtue of the fact that the FIVA definition of Historic would pass into Statute that would become the definition by which VEL , and any laws governing Historic Status ( such as possible restictions on Emmission Zone cities as has already been seen in Germany )was defined.

You are stating as fact that any definition ‘would’ become statute but where is the evidence to support this? The current EU definition of 'historic vehicle' has not passed into statute and FIVA are not pressing for their definition to be passed into statute either. They are suggesting that the definition may be used in future when considering legislation that may effect historic vehicles but that is entirely different from enforcing it as a common statute and insisting that all EU states abide by the definition in all future legislation. They have submitted their proposal for a common definition to the European Parliament Historic Vehicle Group, which is a group of MEP’s with a keen interest in the historic vehicle movement. There is no indication that this group would wish to introduce mileage restrictions for older vehicles any more than FIVA would.

Groups such as FBHVC & FIVA are trying to prevent restrictive legislation against historic vehicles being introduced. Clearly an assertion that historic vehicles do less mileage than other vehicles is a positive point, and has resulted in historic vehicles being treated differently from other vehicles in some countries eg in the UK we have to pay no road tax and are exempt from Low Emission Zone restrictions. There is no logic in promoting the fact that historic vehicles do high mileage as this may have a negative impact and result in them being treated the same as other vehicles. So I can see the logic in FIVA, for lobbying purposes, not wishing to state that historic vehicles are subject to high mileage as the majority of them aren’t. To include a mileage figure in their definition would prove restrictive, so instead they have stated that historic vehicles are not ‘driven daily’ because the EU commission have stated that they are happy to consider exemptions for vehicles used for relatively low mileage. If FIVA had stated within their definition that some historic vehicles have high annual mileage would the EU commission feel inclined to treat historic vehicles differently from other vehicles? Probably not. FIVA would have considered the contents of the definition carefully, and taken advice before submitting it, to ensure that it would not result in unnecessary restrictions for historic vehicles and their owners. Any legislative restrictions based solely on vehicles 'not being driven daily' would be unenforceable in any event as this could not be measured unless a specific mileage restriction was in place, which FIVA are not proposing, and a blanket restriction on historic vehicle mileage is not actually being proposed or supported by any EU member state either.

[aceadvice]

You are stating as fact that any definition ‘would’ become statute but where is the evidence to support this? The current EU definition of 'historic vehicle' has not passed into statute and FIVA are not pressing for their definition to be passed into statute either. They are suggesting that the definition may be used in future when considering legislation that may effect historic vehicles but that is entirely different from enforcing it as a common statute and insisting that all EU states abide by the definition in all future legislation

If that is the case why is there even any point in putting the FIVA proposal forward if it is to provide a common definition that would not effect anything, anywhere, anytime ?

As stated at the beginning, we have our opinion of where this may be heading, you have put forward how you believe it will play out. At least many more people are now aware of what is being done in their name and can use both points of view , and facts shown, to make their own minds up.

[simmitc]

Louise, I have great respect for the moderation that you undertake, and usually for your opinions; but when reading this topic it almost appears as if you are an employee of FIVA arguing how wonderful they are, whereas every other poster is aghast at the implications of the proposal. This is not a personal attack on you, it is a concern that neither you nor FIVA can see the probable (not definite, but highly likely) consequences of agreeing anything like this. One has only to look at the way the EU works on any other matter to see how something started in one country then gets applied in legislation which our own weak Parliament then enshrines in UK Law to a far tougher standard than is ever agreed elsewhere. Even the proposed definition is alien to Britain - it talks about 1500Km when most people here have no idea what that means - I was horrified to discover that it's only 900 miles. That's less than I do in a month.

In the opinion of a great many people, the proposed definition is fraught with danger and should be resisted with all possible vigour. If it is allowed to go forward then it is generally considered that it will lead to restrictions on the use of our cars; and that is not acceptable.

The best solution is to stick with the present system as used in the UK, where vehicles of specified ages are exempt from certain aspects of the MOT test (as noted previously, emissions for example; or pre 1963 not needing seatbelts). By all means extend this to an MOT required only every 6,000 MILES (not km!) or two years, whichever comes first - but how on earth would that be policed?

The only definition required for an Historic Vehicle is that it is over 30 years old. Nothing else is required, so please petition FBHVC / FIVA to avoid anything more restrictive.

[LouiseM]

it almost appears as if you are an employee of FIVA arguing how wonderful they are, whereas every other poster is aghast at the implications of the proposal. This is not a personal attack on you, it is a concern that neither you nor FIVA can see the probable (not definite, but highly likely) consequences of agreeing anything like this.

The point I am making is that opinions need to be informed by knowing the full facts, yet the initial post here did not give the full picture, just an assumed version of what 'may' happen. As aceadvice says, people can make their own minds up but better that they do so based on actual facts and with as much relevant information as possible. I don't know much about ACE, but FIVA certainly have a great deal of experience in EU legislation relating to historic vehicles. Under the circumstances surely they should be in a very good position to see any probable consequences?

Even the proposed definition is alien to Britain - it talks about 1500Km when most people here have no idea what that means - I was horrified to discover that it's only 900 miles.

But the proposed definition makes no mention of 1,500 kms. Why are you stating that it does?

Aceadvice has linked the results of a 2006 FHBVC survey directly to the definition - no-one else appears to have done so prior to reading his message. The survey was issued to 750,000 people across 11 EU countries including historic car club members, traders and car clubs. The results showed that 71% of historic vehicles travelled less than 1,500kms per year whilst 29% travelled more miles. These figures were used to highlight the relatively low impact that historic vehicles have on the environment. The survey has been in existence for over 4 years, and has (according to aceadvice) been seen by various governments, yet has not directly resulted in any mileage restrictions being placed on historic vehicles. Why would the proposed definition, which makes no mention of any mileage restrictions, result in the survey having any more of an impact on legislation than it does at the moment?

In the opinion of a great many people, the proposed definition is fraught with danger and should be resisted with all possible vigour. If it is allowed to go forward then it is generally considered that it will lead to restrictions on the use of our cars; and that is not acceptable.

But who are these "great many people"? And who was "generally considering that it will lead to restrictions" prior to the posting of aceadvice's message across the internet? I have seen no mention of any concern prior to aceadvice's message. Not meaning to seem argumentative but I'm genuinely interested as I visit various classic car forums and read various classic car publications and have seen no concerns raised about the proposed FIVA definition (which has been in existence for some time) prior to aceadvice's posts.

The best solution is to stick with the present system as used in the UK, where vehicles of specified ages are exempt from certain aspects of the MOT test

No member state currently has road testing based on mileage restrictions - any distinctions are based on the age of the vehicle. But if a member state such as the UK suddenly decided to change to a mileage based system (which is extremely unlikely as it would be too costly and difficult to enforce) they would be perfectly able to do so without any recourse to other member states or any ‘historic vehicle’ definition. A case in point is the 2 yearly MOT testing that applies across Europe. The UK is currently considering whether to introduce it here but there is no legal obligation for them to do so just because it’s what other member states do. And the UK has not adopted the same restrictions as other EU states in relation to Low Emission Zones either.

The thing to remember is that the proposed definition does not have an automatic effect on legislation. It may be applied to future legislation, but it may not. Nobody has a crystal ball that will tell us what legislation may occur in the future. And even if the definition was made mandatory across European legislation (which is not very likely bearing in mind the current EU definition is not mandatory) the legislation it applied to would be the issue, not the actual wording of the definition. FIVA have previously resisted any attempt to place restrictions on historic vehicles, and succeeded when a total ban on unleaded fuel was proposed, so they are hardly likely to change their stance and just start agreeing to any legislation which imposes restrictions on historic vehicles, mileage based or otherwise. And as already pointed out, the MMOC is a member of the FHBVC, and sends a representative to meetings, so will no doubt continue to advise members of any matters which may directly impact on Minor owners (as happens at present).

[rsawatson]

Whatever happens, should any proposed future legislation in the UK purport to impose any such restrictions on the use of classic cars, I for one will help to protest against it vehmently: the status quo is fine.

[chickenjohn]

Actually, the status quo isn't fine as the cut off date for free tax was set at 1972. Should be back on a rolling basis, and the evil BIVA test must be removed and the owners of modified classics should be allowed to retain their historic tax status.

[aceadvice]

I wish you all the best in your attempt to repeal a European law that has been in place 12 years now ;) . Of course even that wouldn't be in place if it hadn't been lobbied for ,as the British National Type Approval (that was to come into being in 1977) was amended to allow a test for one off builds. Without those guys efforts back then we wouldn't even have a method of testing modified cars (when they step outside of the DVLA 8 points system for retaining identity).

However in '98 the SVA finally came into being to comply with EU statutes , it has been modified again( to become BIVA) to comply with further EU Statutes EUWVTA ( European Union Whole Vehicle Type Approval ) that comes into full force in 2012.


Some see the writing on the wall ..in time ...some don't.

[irmscher]

easy fix for mileage restrictions 2 speedos or just unplug the cable

[mike.perry]

Is there a precise definition for "Period Accessories / Fittings"?
Is it (in the case of the Series MM), accessories available during the production of the Series MM ie 1948-53, accessories available during the production of the Morris Minor ie 1948-71 or accessories available during the expected life span of the Morris Minor ie >1971 + 10 years?
I also might have a spare speedo which increases its mileage by approx 900 miles per year.
I expect that we will have to wait until the rules are implimented and it is too late to do anything about it (as with the scrappage scheme).

[les]

Sell now, avoid the rush!

[chrisd87]

Louise, I understand that you consider people unduly alarmed by this, but I think if we as a group continue to take such a complacent attitude then we will begin to see restrictions in one form or another imposed on the freedom to use our cars. We need to realise that there are plenty of people out there who would love to see our cars off the road or only allowed out on special occasions. We should not compromise with this position, instead we should take them on and defeat them.

We really must not accept the principle that a car's 'classic-ness' is in any way defined by the mileage it covers, and whether or not it is used as a means of daily transport. That is what this definition will begin to do. I understand the argument that at the moment this means very little, but my worry is for the future - once this definition is adopted, any future legislation pertaining to classic vehicles is likely to use it (otherwise there's no point in coming up with it). I'd much rather not see this principle appear anywhere at all. Although this would be an EU definition, it is hard to see how the FBHVC could argue for a different (more permissive) one to be used in UK legislation if they've been enthusiastically promoting this one in Europe. Likewise I understand that FIVA are not explicitly arguing in favour of a 1,500km restriction, but I wonder about the wisdom of waving this figure under the noses of legislators too much as it's just inviting a mileage restriction of some sort (which would also conveniently enforce a 'not daily transport' clause which would otherwise be all but impossible to enforce).

I am going to e-mail the FBHVC with my concerns, and will see what they say.

[LouiseM]

Louise, I understand that you consider people unduly alarmed by this, but I think if we as a group continue to take such a complacent attitude then we will begin to see restrictions in one form or another imposed on the freedom to use our cars. We need to realise that there are plenty of people out there who would love to see our cars off the road or only allowed out on special occasions. We should not compromise with this position, instead we should take them on and defeat them.

That's exactly why we need organisations such as FHBVC & FIVA. FIVA employs a professional lobbyist to review any output from the EU relating to proposed legislation which could impact on the use of historic vehicles. Any proposed legislation is presented to interested parties via consultation groups, which means that FIVA are made aware of any proposals which may effect historic vehicles at the consultation stage. Aside from the proposed banning of unleaded fuel, FIVA & FHBVC were involved in consultations relating to the following:

Germany Parliament approves exemption for historic vehicles from urban vehicle restrictions:
The German Parliament has adopted a law which allows historic cars unrestricted access to
“low emission zones of urban areas. The decision was introduced as an amendment to the regulation on low-emission vehicle labelling and was acceptable to the Parliamentarians as they recognised that the 210,000 historic vehicles (155,000 with historic “H” license plates and 55 000 with red 07 plates – the transferable license plates for historic cars) are not used enough to have an impact on the overall PM emissions footprint of a city. FIVA will use this positive development to help other administrations/decision makers recognise that historic vehicles should not be disproportionably and negatively impacted by environmental laws designed to improve air quality.

European Commission decides against proposing to require daytime running light use: In 2006, the European Commission announced its intention to draft a proposal for a Directive which would require all vehicles to use daytime running lights (see November 2006 EU issues update). It then consulted stakeholders to ascertain the most appropriate way to do so. However, after much deliberation, the European Commission has now decided that it will not propose such a Directive and will only continue discussions at EU and UN level with the objective to adopt rules requiring all new vehicles to be equipped with have dedicated daytime running lights.

It is only by being made aware of legislation before it is introduced that steps can be taken to make sure that the legislators consider historic vehicles when making such legislation.

We really must not accept the principle that a car's 'classic-ness' is in any way defined by the mileage it covers, and whether or not it is used as a means of daily transport.

Just a minor point, but FHBVC & FIVA represent all historic vehicles, not just cars eg motorbikes, lorries, tractors, traction engines etc.

Although this would be an EU definition, it is hard to see how the FBHVC could argue for a different (more permissive) one to be used in UK legislation if they've been enthusiastically promoting this one in Europe.

But look at the current EU definition: "certain vehicles operated or used in exceptional conditions and vehicles which are never, or hardly ever, used on public highways, including vehicles of historic interest which were manufactured before 1 January 1960 or which are temporarily withdrawn from circulation". At least the FIVA proposal refers to vehicles 'over 30 years' which would mean that all Morris Minors would effectively fall within the definition of historic rather than just those manufactured before 1st Jan 1960. Which definition is the more restrictive?

Likewise I understand that FIVA are not explicitly arguing in favour of a 1,500km restriction, but I wonder about the wisdom of waving this figure under the noses of legislators too much as it's just inviting a mileage restriction of some sort (which would also conveniently enforce a 'not daily transport' clause which would otherwise be all but impossible to enforce).

Road legislation is driven by concerns relating to road safety and the environment. The FHBVC survey highlighted the following:

There are 1,950,000 historic vehicles owned by club members resident in the EU.

More than 255 million vehicles are registered in the EU. Historic vehicles account for just 0.8% of these.

Modern vehicles travelled a total of 2.2 trillion kms. Historic vehicles travelled just 0.07% of the distance travelled by modern vehicles.


Legislation imposing mileage restrictions on vehicles isn't going to be introduced on a 'whim', but if such legislation was introduced, either for road safety or environmental reasons, it would make no sense to limit such restrictions to historic vehicles, it would be applied to all vehicles. What the survey demonstrates, and what FIVA are aiming to show with their proposed definition, is that historic vehicles should be treated differently from other vehicles as their impact on the environment is far less. Whilst we all know that some historic vehicles have a high annual mileage highlighting that point wouldn't assist the case for treating historic vehicles differently to other vehicles. So I understand that people are concentrating on the 1,500km figure as a result of aceadvice’s post but the survey results need to be considered in their entirety, not just the one aspect that has been highlighted by aceadvice.

[aceadvice]

Whilst we all know that some historic vehicles have a high annual mileage highlighting that point wouldn't assist the case for treating historic vehicles differently to other vehicles.

That is why FBHVC made a statement back in 2007 that they could not support vehicles used more regularly . The classification they are supporting by FIVA certainly proves that point and those with regularly driven vehicles were abandoned with no voice to represent them.

ACE had concerns over the FIVA definition over 3 years ago when we put an article on our website to that effect so our viewpoint is nothing new.

http://www.the-ace.org.uk/classic-vehicles.html

It was only when FIVA started to press for it to become the 'standard' across the EU that we looked again at the situation. FIVA consulted with its member organisations across 11 countries. However their are 27 countries in the EU and ,like many drivers in the UK, there are alternative points of view which are NOT represented by FIVA.

Even the Green Party consider that the extended use of existing vehicles is more beneficial to the environment than continually building new.

Surely the concept of a democracy is that those alternative views are allowed to be aired and considered in any legislation?

[aceadvice]

Re legislation being introduced on a whim, it won't happen in the EU but it CAN happen we reported on this back in 2008 .

http://www.the-ace.org.uk/dubai-bans-ol ... highlight2

Again this shows our concern is NOT anything new, just a result of constant monitoring.