Please read this it's very important !!!

[63V8]

http://www.the-ace.org.uk/armageddon/

This would effect 1000's of car / bike people / companies in the UK if the Euro bafoons get this done

Andy

[badobsession]

have posted this every place i can
please do the same ..

[Daddybear1984]

I personally can't see this going ahead as the manufacturers themselves modify car I.E. aftermarket parking sensors, sun roofs, uprated performance chips and the as this would also fall into the proposal i think it is doomed to start with, nearly all the cars on the road are modified in someway, are they going to make nearly all cars illegal....i doubt it, though i have posted it where i can to be on the safe side

[LouiseM]

For a more balanced view, here's a link to the actual EU proposal:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/doc/roadw ... 12)380.pdf


The purpose of the proposal is to improve the safety of vehicles by way of introducing a roadworthiness test.

The actual definition of the roadworthiness test contained within the proposal is:

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.

So there is no suggestion that vehicles can't be modified, or that modified cars will become ‘illegal’, just that any parts / components of the vehicle tested should not make the vehicle less safe or environmentally friendly than it was at the time of first registration. The test is designed to keep dangerous vehicles off the roads.

[63V8]

Do you really think that ACE don't understand the seriousness of this

Other car / bike groups are also against these Euro rules

http://www.classiccarsforsale.co.uk/new ... proposals/


Time to get your head out of the sand before it's too late !!!

.

[plastic_orange]

For a more balanced view, here's a link to the actual EU proposal:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/doc/roadw ... 12)380.pdf


The purpose of the proposal is to improve the safety of vehicles by way of introducing a roadworthiness test.

The actual definition of the roadworthiness test contained within the proposal is:

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.

So there is no suggestion that vehicles can't be modified, or that modified cars will become ‘illegal’, just that any parts / components of the vehicle tested should not make the vehicle less safe or environmentally friendly than it was at the time of first registration. The test is designed to keep dangerous vehicles off the roads.

Please take time to digest what's planned - it will affect most if not all owners of Morris Minors.
The club really needs to wake up and take notice.

Pete

[trog34]

Louise

the problem that people are trying to point out is that as part of this overhaul of the roadworthiness testing the EU are planning restrictions to "our" hobby.

from document http://ec.europa.eu/transport/doc/roadw ... %29380.pdf

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 13.7.2012
COM(2012) 380 final
2012/0184 (COD)
Roadworthiness Package
Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing
Directive 2009/40/EC
(Text with EEA relevance)
{SWD(2012) 206 final}_{SWD(2012) 207 final}

(7) ‘vehicle of historic interest’ means any vehicle which fulfils all the following
conditions :
– It was manufactured at least 30 years ago,
– It is maintained by use of replacement parts which reproduce the historic
components of the vehicle;
– It has not sustained any change in the technical characteristics of its main
components such as engine, brakes, steering or suspension and
– It has not been changed in its appearance;

how many Minors on the road today would meet the eu's definition of " Vehicle of historic interest" ? and how long will it be before we lose our no tax status or the use of our cars? do we really want a world where the only Minors allowed on the road are the concours condition

[moggiethouable]

Point 9 page 10.
The phrases "sovereign activity" and " member states" say it all.
This is a rehash of existing European MOT or equivalent tests to bring in to line member states who let their public ride around in dangerous wrecks.
"Sovereign activity" means you (the british govt) interpret it and deal with it (safety) as you see fit, we already do in the UK we have an mot.
Dont panic.

[LouiseM]

The club really needs to wake up and take notice.

The MMOC is a member of the FBHVC which has it's own in-house lawyers who carefully study EU legislation and advise on the potential impact to British drivers. The club is represented by Sandy Hamilton (who owns standard & modified Minors) and any legislation which impacts on Minor owners will be communicated to members via the club magazine. So it’s not as if the Club will be ignoring the issue.

More info about the background behind the proposals, designed to improve the safety of vehicles, are here: http://www.eubusiness.com/topics/transp ... d-testing/

[linearaudio]

The club really needs to wake up and take notice.

The MMOC is a member of the FBHVC which has it's own in-house lawyers who carefully study EU legislation and advise on the potential impact to British drivers. The club is represented by Sandy Hamilton (who owns standard & modified Minors) and any legislation which impacts on Minor owners will be communicated to members via the club magazine. So it’s not as if the Club will be ignoring the issue.

More info about the background behind the proposals, designed to improve the safety of vehicles, are here: http://www.eubusiness.com/topics/transp ... d-testing/

So I guess this topic has been fully covered, but only privy to members of the club, and no whisper of it has leaked to the outside world. Presumably the situation has been fully thrashed out in the club magazine, and the might of European legislation has been suitably trounced Shame on us for mis-interperating the "consultation" documents! I will continue to sleep easy

[C6Dave]

So I guess this topic has been fully covered, but only privy to members of the club, and no whisper of it has leaked to the outside world.

It's been done to death all over the web and some have been following this for weeks, if not months now.

This particular sites forums are open to anyone, not just MMOC members and anyone searching on Google will find this and many other discussions on the subject, so is not in fact 'only privy to members'

[IaininTenbury]

Been covered inlast weeks Classic Car Weekly newspaper, and I guess other will or have too. So its not just internet only.
Here's hoping the FBHVC will nip anything nasty in the bud, but they didn't do a lot for the pre 60 MOT exemption...

[randomafterthought]

Apologies for a mega-post... As ever, this is my opinion and interpretation... Don't shoot me .

Point 9 page 10.
The phrases "sovereign activity" and " member states" say it all.
This is a rehash of existing European MOT or equivalent tests to bring in to line member states who let their public ride around in dangerous wrecks.
"Sovereign activity" means you (the british govt) interpret it and deal with it (safety) as you see fit, we already do in the UK we have an mot.
Dont panic.

Item 9 (Page 10) is saying Sovereign states are responsible for regulating the testing - not interpreting the rules, though they are permitted to extend the testing period for Historic Vehicles.

Item 27 (Page 12) confers powers of implementation to the Commission. The Sovereign states would not be interpreting the rules, they would be implementing them into their own legal framework and regulating the test.

Item 29 (Page 12) instructs that the commission will set the minimum standards that a Sovereign state must adhere to.

These allow the Commission to take control of matters, despite what Sovereign members may choose to read of the regulations - this is to ensure "harmonization" across the community. However, the more concerning factor is:

(7) ‘vehicle of historic interest’ means any vehicle which fulfils all the following
conditions :
– It was manufactured at least 30 years ago,
– It is maintained by use of replacement parts which reproduce the historic
components of the vehicle;
– It has not sustained any change in the technical characteristics of its main
components such as engine, brakes, steering or suspension and
– It has not been changed in its appearance;

in Article 3 (Definitions) (p.14). The third point of this element would effectively take a lot of historic vehicles off the road. How many people have had their front brakes changed out for disc brakes, swapped the original rear suspension for more modern telescopic units, or retrofitted a different gearbox. If the legislation was merely ensuring that those vehicles are not subject to testing exemptions (the currently proposed pre-1960 rule) then fair enough. I personally feel that all vehicles should be subject to a regular road-worthiness test. However, vehicles not conforming to their original type approval would not meet the minimum standards as defined by the Commission.

As is often the case, the poor standards held in some member states cause a knee-jerk piece of legislation. Of course, playing devils advocate, it could be argued that those classed as Historic Vehicles under the commissions definition were not subject to EU Type Approval - the EU did not exist until 1991 (the Maastricht Treaty) - and the UK was not part of the predecessor (the European Community) until 1975. Since the last moggie was built in 1971... . If only it were that simple.

Point 5 gets on my goat - it mentions data from studies without referencing them, then makes an extrapolation based on the studies. Point 7 is the same. Despite the failure to provide evidence, those points make strong recommendations. Point 9 is in a league of its own. "Vehicles of historic interest are supposed to conserve heritage of the époque they
have been built and considered to be hardly used on public roads". Legislation being based on supposition. Brilliant .

David.

[JOWETTJAVELIN]

The answer is to leave the damned EU and stop paying them the millions if not billions of taxpayers' money each year to think up meddlesome laws like this.

Is it any wonder there is a resurgence in hardline nationalist parties?

[C6Dave]

OK lets put this into context. They are saying that cars must basically adhere to 'Type Approval' so lets quote from the DFT:

Within Europe, two systems of type approval have been in existence for over 20 years. One is based around EC Directives and provides for the approval of whole vehicles, vehicle systems, and separate components. The other is based around ECE (United Nations) Regulations and provides for approval of vehicle systems and separate components, but not whole vehicles.

Type approval is the confirmation that production samples of a design will meet specified performance standards. The specification of the product is recorded and only that specification is approved.

Automotive EC Directives and ECE Regulations require third party approval - testing, certification and production conformity assessment by an independent body. Each Member State is required to appoint an Approval Authority to issue the approvals and a Technical Service to carry out the testing to the Directives and Regulations. An approval issued by one Authority will be accepted in all the Member States.

VCA is the designated UK Approval Authority and a Technical Service for all type approvals to automotive EC Directives and ECE Regulations.

As Morris Minors ceased to be produced over 30 years ago, how are they going to define 'Type Approval' for one??

ECE Type Approval only applies to individual parts as well, not whole cars.

More information here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/vehicletype/t ... for-ca.asp

[JOWETTJAVELIN]

I think all the criteria for testing will be computerised based on info supplied by the manufacturer. I doubt the beauraucrats will be digging up 40 year old factory records (if they even exist) and computerise them as criteria to check against, and do this for every car in existence.

[63V8]

Great to see the FHBVC announce they are against this proposal as it could take half the members cars off the road.
MEP's contacted have also replied they are against it.

The backdoor way they are trying to sneak this proposal though must be stopped

.

[Beardyjon]

my two pennies worth!
i agree that no unroadworthy car should be on the road (as most would), and would allways happily be subject to a test to show it... didnt we have one of those i think it was an mot or something.... in addition quite regularly insurers can want engineers reports and dvla inspect for identity/sva (or what ever it is now) yes they loose age related status in some cases but a rebodied car that is much younger is a different ball game to an engine swap and new brakes etc etc. yes its a fine line but i feel that we can be too lax in some cases and strict in others at the moment. do i actually want change? NO but thats life!

jon

[LouiseM]

The Dept of Transport is currently seeking input from a number of stakeholders, including the FBHVC, and the proposal has to be approved by every single EU member state before being adopted. Here's the link to the FBHVC message, posted yesterday: http://fbhvc.co.uk/2012/08/23/eu-roadwo ... s-testing/

[plastic_orange]

It's good that folk are now becoming aware of the situation - the more the merrier.

Pete