From the Daily Mail (!) but it seems the EU is thinking of further meddling with motoring laws.
tinyurl.com/8mzdk26
|
In the sense that the EU Commission has proposed something then it's real. But until it is enacted and incorporated into UK legislation then it's just an idea.
Likley to be much modified and watered down even if it gets that far.
|
|
I would be a shame if introduced, the ironing board wings and waste paper bin exhausts act as a hint to spot the idiot drivers with a taste bypass. :-)
|
Germany is already half way to this system, albeit modifications are more difficult rather than outright illegal.
Every single modification made to a car has to be officially registered and documented against the car, and this can only be achieved after a TuV inspector has satisfied themselves that the parts fitted were TuV approved, and that the modification does not pose a safety risk.
Driving a car with a mod not covered by a TuV certificate is illegal, and has serious insurance implications.
An MX-5 owning German friend told me about this system, and why his MX-5 is, barring a few simple TuV approved mods, still completely standard.
We really do have it easy here at the moment.
|
|
No - we don't "have it easy". We have it reasonably sensible. It's the sanguinary EU who need defenestrating!
|
How could such a calm, balanced report possibly be a scare story?
meddling...bureaucrats...banned...ridiculous...cripple...thousands.
..jobs...froth...rant...dribble...
Gawd bless the Daily Mail!
|
There are several either inconsistent or simply stupid consequences of this proposal, if true as reported, and implemented.
1) Retrospective legal requirements would presumably have to be rescinded - eg double tail lamps on pre-war cars, windscreen washers, single dipping tilting reflectors.
2) Obvious safety and handling improvements would also be outlawed - radial tyres, seat belts, decent headlights, flashing indicators.
Certain repair standards would also have to be downgraded. Continuous welded repairs replaced by spot-welds or pop-rivits?
It would be necessary for every MOT tester to hold detailed specifications of every car ever made, eg to spot whether a particular kind of brake design was actually original in 1935, or perhaps had been retro-fitted from a 1936 model.
How does this proposal fit in with MOT exemption just granted to old vehicles?
|
in the Mail, the picture
"Banned: Driver Tommy Wareham with a SuperVettura modified Rolls Royce, which is the type of modified car which may fail to get an MOT if EU plans are approved to shake up the road licensing system
At least its not all bad news.
|
ANY measure that removes Morris Minors from the road - usually driven by mimsers - has to be welcomed.
:-)
|
>>Germany is already half way to this system, albeit modifications are more difficult rather than outright illegal.
>>
IIRC a post in the past said that Spain does not allow modifications.
The Harley boys may be a bit quiet in the future?
|
What no-one has picked up on, and it's not in the Mail story, is the same draft proposal also has all trailers needing an MOT.
So they would need registering as well. Potentially very costly and a real pest for the owners at a very marginal benefit.
Whole proposal is very badly worded, and assumes the MOT tester has a comprehensive list of attributes of all cars. He doesn't of course, and the type approval regs were only introduced in the 1970s. Before then, simply not recorded.
Many manufacturers in the early days of motoring sold chassis only cars, and the body was made and fitted by another firm. So a car could have had umpteen body styles and looks.
I think even the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs was caught on the hop by this one although a more balanced report from them is here:
fbhvc.co.uk/2012/08/23/eu-roadworthiness-testing/
|
|
Surely this will be just as a big issue for newer cars as well as the older ones? new cars seem to have facelifts every 6 months or so, so would your car have to comply with the spec for that year/month? I guess a data base could handle the specs but I don't know how that would affect the MOT length. The German system as mentioned sounds like a good compromise.
|
>> What no-one has picked up on, and it's not in the Mail story, is the
>> same draft proposal also has all trailers needing an MOT.
>>
>> So they would need registering as well. Potentially very costly and a real pest for
>> the owners at a very marginal benefit.
That one may get by. Other countries including France and Holland already register caravans and larger trailers. TBH some sort of test of structure, tyres and brakes on caravans, horse-box type trailers etc can only be a good thing.
|
It does surprise me that a spotty yoof can modify a cars suspension that the manufacturer has spent time and money to develop and has been designed by qualified engineers. Maybe that's why so many modified cars end up wrapped around trees or in ditches.
I hope the proposed trailer regs apply to caravans, might thin them out a bit. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 7 Sep 12 at 13:27
|
I have no problem with some form of regulation that can catch out *badly* modified cars, with dubious sized tyres, poorly set-up suspension, anti-social stereos etc, but this is silly.
Surely it isn't really aimed at people fitting towbars, retro-fitting interior features from higher models or adding winches to a 4x4. That would be daft and nearly unenforceable.
I worry about the effect on the motoring DIY market. Touching your car in any way shape or form will be seen as a no-no or just too hard to wade through the red tape. Then the availability of parts and tools for the DIYer might dry up because of lack of demand.
Of course, the EU also want to ban home servicing and repair of cars, not sure if that is in this legislation or not, but they have discussed it before.
|
I can't help wondering how many accidents or deaths are caused on EU roads by car modifications of any sort. My suspicion is none, or close to. I recall from my speed awareness course that "vehicle defects" account for less than 3% of fatalities on UK roads, and included in that sub-3% are the big / obvious ones like defective tyres or brakes.
I wonder what proportion of this sub 3% of fatalities can be attributed to modifications in any way, shape or form?
This smacks of a solution looking for a problem.
Last edited by: DP on Fri 7 Sep 12 at 14:01
|
>> I can't help wondering how many accidents or deaths are caused on EU roads by
>> car modifications of any sort.
>>
The UK plan to harmonise with EU on MOT every 2 years was killed off by the motor industry scaremongering about dangerous cars being allowed to run riot on our roads untested for 2 years.
|
>> I can't help wondering how many accidents or deaths are caused on EU roads by
>> car modifications of any sort.
I recall a 4WD that was badly modified by its owner in the brakes/wheels/suspension area ending up in a waterway, drowning some of its young occupants.
Some people need protecting from themselves!
|
>> Some people need protecting from themselves!
>>
True. But they also tend to be the ones that ignore these rules. Not for the first time, the lawful majority are inconvenienced by over-zealous laws for the stupid minority.
|
...Irecall a 4WD that was badly modified by its owner in the brakes/wheels/suspension area ending up in a waterway, drowning some of its young occupants...
I was thinking about that one, although my recollection is the bodging, bad though it was, didn't cause the accident.
I've been to many inquests and court cases stemming from death on the roads.
I can't think of one where modifications, or even mechanical defects, played much of a part.
|
I'd not lay the blame on the suspension modification area, more the fact it was extremely badly maintained. The Landrover 110 had different brake calliper designs on the left and right and I think the kiddy seats although safe as restraints, had non standard belt arrangements that may have contributed to the death toll. Rescuers failed to get them undone.
Whole situation was very sad really, but I don't think further regulations would have improved matters as there would have been a good chance they'd have been ignored.
|
>> I recall a 4WD that was badly modified by its owner in the brakes/wheels/suspension area
>> ending up in a waterway, drowning some of its young occupants.
I seem to recall that when examined after the event it would have failed an MOT in several areas.
|
>> Of course, the EU also want to ban home servicing and repair of cars, not
>> sure if that is in this legislation or not, but they have discussed it before.
>>
All in the name of Elf & Safety, and/or climate change.
|
So, out with the toolkit soon then ?
That's my sealed beams, screenwashers, battery cut off switch, indicators, bigger interior mirror and brake cylinder seals in the bin then !
At least my tax disc holder and driver's window wind deflector are original......can I keep those please ?
Fortunately she becomes MOT exempt in November so the EU can stuff themselves !
Ted
|
Ted - your car pre-dates type approval by quite a lot. So an MOT inspector, VOSA bod or the police have no records on which to base any idea as to what a standard car is.
Screen washers - now that's a giggle as quite a few older cars had to be modified to have them when they became compulsory with windscreen wipers.
Not the only bit of legislation that is potentially at risk. There are parts of lighting regulations that make a standard vintage or earlier car non legal and most were modified in this respect in the 50s.
|
SP, I presume the Mog has Aero screens so you don't need washers. I've had a couple of mid-thirties Jowett 8hp saloons. They were exempt from washers because the screens opened.
The mad thing was, they only opened about 4 inches at the bottom, by the scuttle.
You still had to look through the glass !
Ted
|
Yup, the Mog has aeros although that is (shudders) a modification.
As far as I knew, the exemption from wipers is based on 'adaquate' forward visibility being maintained. In other words, if you can see where to drive without looking through a screen you need not wipe it.
|
>> if you can see where to drive without looking through a screen you need not wipe it.
... although your goggles and the dragonflies between your teeth may need some attention sooner or later... (he sniped enviously)
|
This means had aftermarket reversing sensors will have to go..:-(
As will exhaust trims and turbo blow off valves and big bore exhausts and LEDs round the side lights and headlamp eyebrows etc.
I've changed my mind.. I hope the EC pass it.. :-)
|
It is a can of worms.
e.g. Tyres
I would hate to have to fit Pirelli tyres to my X-Type due to the noise they make.
( Pirellis were the orginal and only spec in the UK for the X Type.)
|
>> It is a can of worms.
>> e.g. Tyres
I really like my Carlos Fandango super wide wheels and tyres.
;-)
|
>> It is a can of worms.
>> e.g. Tyres
>> I would hate to have to fit Pirelli tyres to my X-Type due to the
>> noise they make.
>> ( Pirellis were the orginal and only spec in the UK for the X Type.)
>>
>>
I think that would be OK. I suspect the type approval only specifies what size of tyre and type, not what brand.
However, it does make me think of things like: the tyre size can depend on optional factory upgrades, how could the MOT tester know if they are the factory originals or swapped from a higher spec model?
|
>> Pirellis were the original and only spec in the UK for the X Type
>> I suspect the type approval only specifies what size of tyre and type, not what brand
Not sure about that - some manufacturers specify original fitment brand tyres must be used in order not to compromise the ABS / ESP performance.
|
Mostly its somewhere between a scare story and a bunch of reactionery crap from the british media.....
ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/events-archive/2012_07_13_press_release_en.htm
And if you read it, it cleary has flaws, but that's why its a proposal, however, there seems to be quite a bit of reasonable stuff in there.
Not really very good front page news, I'm afraid. Perhaps we better get back to the straightness of bananas instead.
|
If you're only able to drive a modified motor due to disability then you're well effed.
My uncle had a modified Ford Consul due to a polio shortened leg. I remember driving the thing......it was interesting.
Ted
|
|
You'll find that the whole "modified" bit has been misrepresented.
|
>
>> ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/events-archive/2012_07_13_press_release_en.htm
>>
I can't be bothered ploughing through all that lot, but the first few lines seem to say it all:
"Technical defects contribute heavily to accidents. They are responsible for 6% of all car accidents".
It reads to me like a solution looking to solve a foregone conclusion.
If technical defects only cause 6% of accidents that says to me that technical defects are not a factor in 94% of all accidents, so the emphasis should be placed on the main causes of accidents, probably driver attitude and error.
|
The problem is that those numbers are Europe wide, and are not applicable to all countries. I suspect that 6% figure is way lower in Germany and the UK.
How do they propose to make the testing by mileage thing work? Simply not enforceable or workable. The general more frequent testing thing applies here anyway, as does more control and better standards of testing.
|
>>If technical defects only cause 6% of accidents that says to me that technical defects are not a factor in 94% of all accidents
Indeed, and this also supports the idea that the MOT doesn't actually save many lives. Even in countries where there was no MOT, the proportion of accidents caused by mechanical faults is about 6%.
So, although on an individual level, it's very sensible to have someone independantly look over your car every so often to find safety critical defects, it doesn't make much sense statistically.
It's why I think the MOT has become too bloated and complicated - it would offer much better value for money and time if it reverted to the form it took in the 1980's - an inspection of tyres, lights, wipers, suspension and brakes, with perhaps a run on the brake rollers to check brake balance and efficiency. Half an hour maximum, and about £20 fee - perhaps every 2 years.
|
Spot on, NC..... Cracked number plate...safety issue ?
Of course not, but it's a potential revenue earning, or rather losing, issue 'cos it might confuse the cameras.
Ted
|
Is this just a scare story? - Bromptonaut
