|
|
|
Fundamentally there will a database of conformity of every car built with regards to the standards it was built under; if your car doesn't fit these conformities it will be flagged up as non-conformist and further actions will be taken (shell out loads of £££ to get it to conform or the crusher). You missed the word new ... Fundamentally there will a database of conformity of every new car built with regards to the standards it was built under. I can't see a world where they will require the CoC for a Humber Hawk. They will apply this to new vehicles "Before a vehicle is allowed to be put on the market"... if you modify it outside of the CoC then it will be evaluated as roadworthy by a different set of criteria. Therefore if I bought a new Audi and installed air ride it would have a CoC to be evaluated against and it would have to be evaluated for its roadworthiness against the other criteria, I suspect it would require type approved parts to do the air ride,.. like in Germany. They seem to be aware of the difference in older cars : "This registration is the official authorisation for the use on public roads and enforces the different introduction dates of different vehicles' requirements" ... so if a vehicle required seatbelts in 1972 it should still have seat belts, but it won't be required to have an airbag, as that was a later requirement. The second part of your statement is also not proven anywhere. I will fight tooth and nail to keep our car modifying hobby going and as free (but safe) as possible. However I want to be VERY clear what we are fighting here, going off half cocked will not do us any favours at all. Which exact wording in the legislation do we disagree with? Which exact sections mean that my Datsun will not be able to have an engine swap and run on the roads? Once we know these things we have something concrete to campaign to change and hopefully have a water tight case. Until such a time we are hand wringing and it isn't helpful. Facts, exact sections, wording and a solid plan of response are the way forwards. Without these our fury is impotent. So I'd like an answer to the following : Which exact wording in the legislation do we disagree with? Which exact sections mean that my Datsun will not be able to have an engine swap and run on the roads? This is potentially a complicated document and we need to on top of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We all have a common goal here - I stickied this thread as the situation is a real and imminent threat to all our lifestyles / livelihoods - please lets not argue amongst ourselves - present a united front: DO NOT WANT. Edit: Also, what HW said
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 22, 2012 9:08:48 GMT by HARDCORE
|
|
|
|
|
Don't want to get involved in conjecture but...
You have essentially two types of cars those under 30 years old which will be MOTd and need to meet original approval.
You will have Historic vehicles which will be exempt IF they meet the new EU definition ( which we have been warning about for several years) .
How will they prove if the Historic is correct ? Via the same methdod used now the V765 club list. They say no, game over.
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 22, 2012 9:10:14 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah but involving a disorganised shower of racist w@nkers isn’t going to move the job forwards is it. i agree that's what they are, but the EU probably think we are of a similar mind, anyhow who says bending the truth is limited to just governments and the EU, they have all the cards, the only card we have is please don't do it, or campaign to throw away the pack!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scary stuff. I have many thoughts and still some questions. Firstly, the idea to me of having a database of all manufactured cars and their original spec seems like Mission Impossible itself. How will the Gov't get build specs off manufacturers that went under 30 years ago? Or, is the implication that in the absence of this info, then a car would have to go through a test? I'm confused..... "Before a vehicle is allowed to be put on the market," seems to imply it will be for new cars. The wording seems that it is primarily concerned with the increasing complexity of electronic systems for managing airbags, brakes etc. I wonder if it is partly preempting electronically driven cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hotwire, there is already another regulation going through preventing modifications of brakes on new cars due to electronic systems ie ABS and ESC.
The 'proposal relates to all vehicles up to 30 years old .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have essentially two types of cars those under 30 years old which will be MOTd and need to meet original approval. Where does it say they need to meet original approval... this is the wording that would need changing. Modification using type approved parts is one thing, it is what the Germans do already and it is a pain in the backside, but if you must meet original approval, then that is not right at all and must be changed.
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 22, 2012 9:12:50 GMT by HoTWire
|
|
|
|
|
Does it apply here, as we're not proper eu members? We need out of that beurocratic rubbish - UKIP it's the way forward! Oh aye, a few right wing militant farmers are really going to help with this
|
|
Corsa Apology Champion 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
Hotwire, there is already another regulation going through preventing modifications of brakes on new cars due to electronic systems ie ABS and ESC. The 'proposal relates to all vehicles up to 30 years old . In which case who are they going to contact at Datsun to get a CoC for my Sunny B310?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have essentially two types of cars those under 30 years old which will be MOTd and need to meet original approval. Where does it say they need to meet original approval... this is the wording that would need changing. Modification using type approved parts is one thing, it is what the Germans do already and it is a pain in the backside, but if you must meet original approval, then that is not right at all and must be changed. Already quoted sections in this thread in earlier posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hotwire, there is already another regulation going through preventing modifications of brakes on new cars due to electronic systems ie ABS and ESC. The 'proposal relates to all vehicles up to 30 years old . In which case who are they going to contact at Datsun to get a CoC for my Sunny B310? Sorry, don't know the age of the Sunny. If Historic it must meet the new Eu definition , shown in ACE article, of stock as a rock. Guessing V765 list or FIVA passport scheme to be used to prove.
|
|
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,713
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
|
david has hit the nail on the head. nowhere does it say you cant modify your car. only that if you do, you will loose your type approval CoC, meaning you will have to BIVA it. although, I'm fairly certain this is to make the rest of europe in line with germany, which will mean you can still modify as long as parts are TUV approved. radical modifications which step outside TUV will mean BIVA.
the wording also suggests that any changes will be retrospective- same as all other new laws brought in whilst we were a part of the EU.
again, you need to put this in perspective. the majority of the non-car modifying public THINK THAT THESE LAWS ALREADY EXIST. my missus parents where genuinely astounded when i first met them and explained what my job is, that it is perfectly legal for me (or anyone else) to radically modify safety-critical components of any car and them not need any kind of third-party inspection to then be used on the road. there response was 'don't you need to get it MOTed again?' showing how little they know about our world or how pathetically short the remit of an MOT is- they see it as the be-all and end-all of a safety test.
it would take any self respecting politician no more than a minute to convince any 'normal' member of the public that all modified cars should go through some sort of testing proceedure before use on public road, all theyve got to say is 'safety' and 'enviroment', and thats the majority sold.
to be quite honest, weve had it far too good for far too long. the idea of being able to modify a car and use it on public roads without any form of checks as to the suitability of the modifications in this day and age is a bit laughable- when you cant even fit a plug socket in youre private abode without a third party electrician coming in to sign it off to say its safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TBH a lot of this is completely over my head, from what I do understand this isn't going to make any of our lives easier or more enjoyable. Getting help from right wing organisations/parties such as the BNP or UKIP is NOT the answer.
I've contacted ACE and will await a reply as to what I/we can do.
|
|
Sierra - here we go again! He has an illness, it's not his fault.
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agree with that Dez :tup:
We will still have BIVA (hopefully but that's a whole other thread ) .However re using type approved parts , they tried this in Germany with body kits and only the main OEM could afford it.
Retrospective application is the BIG worry especially as there are currently no records of what is already out there . However we have purposely not made that part of the article. We are trying to focus only on what the 'proposal' hopes to achieve .
|
|
|
|
stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,840
Club RR Member Number: 174
|
|
|
The problem with that is that there isn't the infrastructure inplace to support such a sudden rise in BIVA tests. The waiting time is already ridiculously long for a system which is so underused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TBH a lot of this is completely over my head, from what I do understand this isn't going to make any of our lives easier or more enjoyable. Getting help from right wing organisations/parties such as the BNP or UKIP is NOT the answer. I've contacted ACE and will await a reply as to what I/we can do. I'm in exactly the same boat. Was going to spend the morning writing to MEP's etc but right now far too much has gone over my head to write a sensible and educated letter. Also signed up to ACE and await instructions. All I know is that I don't want this to end, far too big a piece of my life just to be ripped away from me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2012 10:11:16 GMT
|
I'm all for BIVA testing where applicable. The problem I can see here is that ANY alteration would require one. So if I want to fit a set of non approved wheels (i.e. vintage ones) to an otherwise stock car, the only way to make it legal is a BIVA... at not only great expense but the test in itself brings many other issues (sharp edges, E marks etc) into question AND would also mean a Q plate.
|
|
1962 Datsun Bluebird Estate - 1971 Datsun 510 SSS - 1976 Datsun 710 SSS - 1981 Dodge van - 1985 Nissan Cherry Europe GTi - 1988 Nissan Prairie - 1990 Hyundai Pony Pickup - 1992 Mazda MX5
|
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2012 10:11:47 GMT
|
Getting help from right wing organisations/parties such as the BNP or UKIP is NOT the answer. Huh??? The BNP are not right wing - if you actually look at the rest of their policies (not just the ones that everyone rightly jumps up and down about), it is very clear that they are (hard left) old Labour with racism. Contrary to what some high profile publications & organisations may try to make out, racism is far from confined to just the right wing of politics. UKIP on the other hand, are potentially part of the solution, as a resurgence for them would be entirely at the expense of the main party currently in power, whose position is looking somewhat precarious, and is unlikely to improve before the next election. Threatening the Tories with voting BNP won't work since the relevant demographics of political support don't add up & thus they won't be able to unseat any Tory MPs, whereas UKIP support have previously cost them seats in past elections. Also, the involvement of the EUSSR in this makes it highly relevant to UKIP, as it is precisely the sort of dictatorial meddling from Brussels that they object to. However whether attempting to get them involved is a good idea or not is entirely another matter....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2012 10:20:37 GMT
|
Where does it say they need to meet original approval... this is the wording that would need changing. Proposal linked on The ACE page: Page 9, Paragraph (4): Directive 2007/46/EC: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2007L0046:20120226:EN:PDFPage 4, paragraph 11: My interpretation is that the new legislation will require MOT testers to ensure that all components on a vehicle are fully type-approved - as is the case with TUV approval in Germany. Anything not meeting those apporvals will need a bIVA. There is a clause in the proposal which states that manufacturers will have to provide more information to the testing authorities than they do at present to ensure that non-approved parts and inoperative electronic systems can be identified. Oh, and anything less than 30 years old will already have Type Approval information on file somewhere - remember than Type Approvals been around for about 40 years now - although CoCs were only introduced in the 90s. Dez - I tend to agree we've had it too good for too long, but that doesn't mean we can't attempt to stave this off - or pehaps have an exemption for currently-modified vehicles introduced.
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 22, 2012 10:35:54 GMT by jrevillug
|
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2012 10:33:42 GMT
|
Dez - I tend to agree we've had it too good for too long, but that doesn't mean we can't attempt to stave this off - or pehaps have an exemption for currently-modified vehicles introduced. +1 Whilst I don't agree with this proposed legislation in any way, setting a future date from which all NEW vehicles cannot be modified outside type approval is fair enough. It is the retrospective aspect that I find most insidious & objectionable. Also the earlier comment(s) about the conflict between the proposal and the DVLA's 8 point scheme raises an interesting point.
|
|
|
|
|