Eu proposals to outlaw modified cars

[tractorman]

Take it to its logical extent - if you buy a new "Mostin Vecdeo" and the brakes have a problem resulting in a recall and a modified master cylinder fitted, surely the car would be scrap - unless you ignored the recall? Similarly, many new cars have tyres made especially for them - even if it seems to be a normal branded 205-50-16, the "identical brand and type" ones you get from the tyre factors may be slightly different. That's why the first set seems better than the next ones! However, what happens if the tyre manufacturer changes the tyre to "version 2" - surely that would be non-original too? What a great way to boost new car sales in Europe!

Would "pattern parts" be outlawed? Although many made in the same factory as OEM, these are not OEM (so the manufacturers would have us believe). Obviously, we can't guarantee that we have fitted the part in exactly the same manner as the manufacturer, thus the car would have to go to a main dealer so he could use the official "Mostin" spanners and alignment tools.

I seem to remember that, some years ago, there were plans to introduce something like this and that Germany had laws that you couldn't even change a steering wheel without having the car tested. There again, it seems that the EU threaten to create a stupid law every other month; how many actually get onto the statute books?

[suffolkpete]

Stop panicking chaps, the FBHVC is on the case. http://fbhvc.co.uk/2012/08/23/eu-roadwo ... s-testing/

[OneCarefulOwner]

So's the AA, which is refreshing.

[Martin Evans]

Why don't we start a campaign to have all these faceless wonders in Brussels shot after two years in office Come to think of it why stop at Brussels; there's a mottley crew in Cardiff

[arceye]

I'm all for that Martin, the revolution has been too long coming Can we then go on to sort the aristocracy, bankers, new money celebs and uber rich tax dodgers then redistribute their wealth a little more fairly.

[Martin Evans]

Who will Range Rover sell their new handbags to if we do that Would TV survive without Simon Cowell (Shall we split his fortune amongst ourselves)

[JPB]

Handbags in RRs surely aren't a new thing. I'm certain that my mates 1993 Belgian LWB CSK edition (with Stables Diesel conversion and filthy aircon pipework that caused frost to appear at the vents which the daft bugger thought was a good thing ) had a rather neat accessory one that attached to the inside of one of its loooooong rear doors. Fiat Pandas had the built-in handbag too, before RR had even thought about it.

How that mate hasn't yet died from Legionnaires' Disease is beyond me....

[Mitsuru]

Just posted on the PPC forum

Press reports on EC proposals on MOT tests are incorrect
September 10, 2012

Reports in the press that the European Commission has proposed to make modifications to cars illegal, or to ban classic cars unless they are unchanged since manufacture are entirely wrong.

The Commission’s proposals would not, if agreed by the Member States and the European Parliament, make any difference to the current situation regarding MOT testing in the UK except to make most classic cars more than 30 years old exempt from testing if they are not used day-to-day on the roads.

All other cars would remain subject to roadworthiness testing, just as they are now. Whether or not they have been modified is not of itself relevant: what counts is whether they are safe and that is what is assessed by MOT tests in the UK and by the equivalent tests elsewhere.

What the proposals will do is require all Member States to bring their road worthiness tests up to a certain level of rigour, already applied in the UK : for example, motorbikes will need to be tested regularly everywhere, as they are already in the UK. This will make driving safer for UK drivers at home and abroad.

The Commission is writing separately to all the newspapers concerned, none of which checked the facts with us before publication.

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/pre ... incorrect/

They are technically correct as the anti-EU media (of course) latched onto the 'direct ban' perception of the proposed Regulation (& others just copied) However, the EU doesn't mention writing to the UK DfT who said:

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)

No change to the UK? The proposal says in black and white 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

That's not our current system & why has that "and not used day to day on the roads" (my bold in opening statement) suddenly appeared?

Plus:

Notwithstanding the date of its last roadworthiness test, the competent authority may require that a vehicle be subject to a roadworthiness test or additional testing before the date referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, in the following cases:
– after an accident with serious damage to the main safety related components of the vehicle such as wheels, suspension, deformation zones, steering or brakes,

– when the safety and environmental systems and components of the vehicle have been altered or modified

– in case of a change of the holder of the registration certificate of a vehicle

and, while these were introduced in recent MoT changes, they should be removed IMHO; that was UK acting on an EU Directive (when it didn't have to) & some National clarification was allowed - under this Regulation, the EU interpretation would be final.

Anti-lock braking system (ABS) ... Reasons for Failure (e): Other components missing or damaged
...
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) if required/fitted ... Reasons for Failure (c): Other components missing or damaged
...
Exhaust emissions control equipment ... Reasons for Failure (a): Emission control equipment fitted by the manufacturer absent, modified or obviously defective

I could go on

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/pre ... incorrect/

PS I voted this statement down in it's rating by giving it '1 star' (zero not an option unfortunately)

Others might want to do the same to show what we think?

Not sure if it's even meant to be used in that way but made me feel slightly better anyway!

[suffolkpete]

At last, someone who is much nearer the truth! In reality though the proposals do not even say that, what they are saying is that member states can define their own testing regime for historic vehicles and they go on to define what is a historic vehicle. Whether this results in exemption from testing is yet to be decided.

[mr rusty]

The only thing I find worrying about all this is the proposed exemption from testing. I personally think every car, whatever it's age, should be annually tested. Most of us on here are enthusiastic diyers who dare I say it know what wer'e doing, what's safe and what's not, but there are a sizeable proportion of classic owners who know very little about the actual nuts'n'bolts. There's nothing wrong with that, some folks like to get dirty and some just like to polish and drive, but the worry is that they could be sriving around in something with a quite serious defect in the structure or running gear, and be completely unaware of it.

There was a thread on the Car Mechanics forum a while back which although it related to a modern, it could equally relate to a classic. A customer had taken a recently bought Polo I think it was in for mot, and it had had a shunt prior to sale, the subframe and hence the whole front end was misaligned, and rather than fix that someone had actually cut, shortened, and rewelded the lower wishbone, to bring the wheel back into line! Shocking, and only an mot could've picked this up given tyhat the owner in all innocence probably knew next to nothing about oily bits.

Where MOT testing is especially important as far as we're concerned is braking, I have a single line brake system, and hence my handbrake is required to meet 25% efficiency, rather than the current 15% I think it is for dual line systems: I would hate to think there will be people driving around in cars with a single line system which if testing is abandoned may never have their braking systems looked at for years.......the way I see it, say this comes in, I could sell my car to someone who just wants a shiney(ish ) ready to drive classic with all the hard stuff done, they could then just drive away and in theory never have the thing looked at again..scarey.