Industry driven I expect, keep all of joe publics money going to the big car makers. If you want a faster or better handling car you have to buy a new one.

Only plus will be no more random unmarked police cars, will take too long to approve although Im guessing like many things the Government will excempt themselves from the legislation as they are deemed to be responsibe although we all doubt tghat with the cataloguue of **** ups they manage every year.

UK is rapidly turning into a non democratic democracy

Emergency services aren't included, at least at this stage but probably at any stage

Emergency services aren't included, at least at this stage but probably at any stage

Oh what a suprise

Surely if it's a higher spec that has been properly fitted, then that's fine..? Which is the whole point of the MOT...

No it's not, we don't check the specification of things on the MOT, only that they function and aren't about to fall off. As far as the MOT is concerned you can have tyres with a speed rating of 20mph and a load rating of 10Kg, provided that they aren't damaged, are of the same size, fitted in accordance with their sidewall instructions and have sufficient tread they'll be OK for the MOT.

As for this new tougher 2012 MOT, that hasn't come in yet. VOSA can't even provide correct information on how to check the suspension on some cars, so I can't see them providing any information about which aftermarket parts are 'MOT worthy'.

So Europe what our cars to go through tougher tests? Has anyone seen the sheds from Poland on our roads!

I'm all for better checks in the name of safety yet a lot of true modifying people rake a great care in their car. More so than most general drivers.

We had several members selling their cars in other European countries (Swiss) when tight controls were brought in - meant you simply couldn't drive a car with an engine conversion.

Killing off pattern parts seems to fly in the face of the usual EU line that competitive business is good. This definitely can't happen, the MFR's cannot be allowed to have a monopoly on parts.

Killing off pattern parts seems to fly in the face of the usual EU line that competitive business is good. This definitely can't happen, the MFR's cannot be allowed to have a monopoly on parts.

Agree. I have a LR derender 90 which is used for offroading but is kept road legal. I never buy original LR parts as they cost an absolute fortune. I can buy cheap "pattern"parts which can be quite guff sometimes but also far stronger and toughened components are avaialble if required which are still generally cheaper then original parts. There is no way on earth i could maintain my LR using only original parts, it would simply have to go.

They probably wouldnt apply the legislation to older vehicles as some have said but over time these new vehicles become the older vehicles so it eventually will become a problem. I may have to learn to drive it more carefully and stop hitting tree stumps and rocks but there is no fun in that.

Think of all the cabbie's that have had a SMF conversion done, so many trades would be affected by this i's say the original article is bs.

Edited 25 August, 201213 yr by RAPTURE

well, here's what I think about the proposals 'em

A slightly more balanced view:

http://adf.creativemessage.com/Newsletter.aspx?s=2f367fd1-db21-4227-8822-c3c69d9a6068&l=2&n=1&i=465&c=0&a=6211&o=0

A few people need to realise that this will not be retrospective legislation, so something already done/fitted to a car will not have to changed. It will only apply to modifications after that date.

This is the actual legislation proposed:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/doc/roadworthiness-package/com%282012%29380.pdf

It doesn't actually look any different to that which is current in Germany or Belgium, and you still see highly modified vehicles in both those countries. It just means that anything you do fit has to come up to a known standard and have been tested, such as the German TUV system. If that means some of the dangerous and stupid modifications done by some people will be stopped then all well and good.

I don't think I'd mind it if parts had to be tested before they were allowed to be fitted on cars just as long as it's not car specific. If it stops dangerous mods then fine. But it's a bit of a minefield. What about welding or other things?

http://pistonheads.c... safe, for now.

It has gone rather further than the article posted above suggests.

http://register.cons...t05841.en10.pdf

The EU might be slow, but once an idea is underway, it might get halted for a while & when nobody is looking, they just get it rolling on again.

ie. starts November.

http://www.ntda.co.u...reLabelling.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18663023

george

In NZ there is a list of modifications for which you require an independent certification.

Roll cages, brake upgrades, any kind of adjustable suspension, anything that involves modifying a chassis component to fit (Forge FMIC for example), anything that increases power by over 15%, the list goes on.

You take the car to a certifier who checks over everything and certifies the car as road legal. Or recommends actions to make it so.

Once certified, a stamped cert plate is riveted to the car and without this plate the car will not pass its six-monthly warrant of fitness (MOT).

It costs $460 (230 quid) and has to be re-done if you make any further qualifying modifications.

I think it makes sense. It stops people from driving around with unsafe mods (for more than 6 months anyway) and you get an independent safety check of your car by someone much more qualified and experienced than the WOF people.

Banning mods outright would be daft IMHO. It's a huge industry and would cost many jobs!

Having read the various EU documents posted, nowhere can I see a clear reference to the need for 'type approval' for parts or an reference to not being allowed to modify vehicles. The only references are to the need to maintain vehicle characteristics, in terms of safety and emissions, in line with manufacturers original tolerances etc. and the ongoing checks to ensure this is the case.

I therefore think all of the worry is unfounded and it is merely aiming to bring other, newer, EU states more into line.

The sooner we get a referendum on EU membership the better!

Bump for @stever750

On 06/09/2012 at 01:10, 07 vRS Taxi said:

The sooner we get a referendum on EU membership the better!

How's that working out then     

Edited 10 January, 20224 yr by @Lee

It is working out very well for UK Civil Servants and Government Employees and Government Ministers.

They can just look at proposals from EU Commissioners in the past which they never introduced and give them a few tweaks and make it look like they are working and they can spend the time having Cheese & Wine and Pizzas delivered.

Even get paid for overtime out of it.  They can even travel around the world doing fact finding visits along with elected members. 

Future of transport regulatory review_ modernising vehicle standards - GOV.UK.mhtml

 

 

Edited 10 January, 20224 yr by roottoot

The UK is no longer in the EU.  Nice for modifiers.  

 

What  a great sleeper.