Eu proposals to outlaw modified cars

[JPB]

If it outlaws this sort of contraption then I'm all for it

That last [ i m g ] needs a slash.
Here's what we see once it's had one fitted:

Is it wrong to like that? I'd love to turn up in my work car park in the thing.

[Mitsuru]

If it outlaws this sort of contraption then I'm all for it

DVLA thinks it's still got the original engine.

you missed a / in the last bit of your picture posting, so i fixed it in the quote of your post.

[JPB]

Is it me, or........

[arceye]

It aint wrong to like that John, actually I think I could fall in love with it shabby and rather cool me thinks but then I'm not a purist by a long stretch.

Anybody know what chassis it is running, there looks to be coil springs up front but that doesn't give much away. For me if the main chassis goes with that body it is still a historic even if a lot of the running gear has been changed.

Think of it like evolution. I have to have a windscreen washer on the Riley even though they were apparently not standard, that is a modification and covered I believe under construction and use as retro legislation, a small item but if being picky we could say the car isn't standard and so not historic. Unlikely I know but where do you draw the line. Non original paint job done by some rough fella in his dusty shed, No 1275 conversions in Mini's or Minors, no disc conversions for those who like to stop, no electronic ignition, no quirky diesel conversions?, lets just have them completely standard for the show boys to keep in their heated garages and bring out on drive it day.......boy I bet the Nanny state would love that, wrap us all up in a bundle of cotton wool for our own good.

Each to their own I say, I actually like the freedom to think for myself, be an individual and have some say over what I do, something the Eurocrats and nanny state seem all to keen to stop. If we hadn't had people who could think for themselves, and a world in which people could try out their ideas we'd still be living in bloody caves....... No Mr Benz, you can't possibly use that contraption outside your own private land, it isn't type approved you see

Sorry for the Rant

[Mitsuru]

OK, shoot me down if you must but I've made some assumptions, summarised & am responding to DfT on behalf of (UK) Land Rover Addict / PPC forum members:

Q: The Commission proposes to bring all trailers capable of more than 40kph into scope of periodic testing. This includes all currently exempt trailers below 3,500 kgs (including caravans).

A: There is some support for testing of trailers in order to improve roadworthiness standards. However, small & medium business representatives / farmers are concerned about the costs involved

Cost: One would assume a trailer 'MOT' would be less expensive than one for a car. For individuals &, in particular, businesses with multiple 'trailers' for various uses the total could still be significant; example of 7 different trailers for a farmer quoted. It is also assumed a 'first registration fee' would also be charged which is likely to be equivalent to that for cars. These costs would be unwelcome at a time when the Govt has committed to not increasing costs on motorists.

Q: The Commission proposes to bring motorcycles into scope of periodic testing. This is already done in GB but will become a requirement EU wide. It will add analysis of exhaust fumes.

A: Analysis of exhaust emissions is understandable but failure on the grounds of modification from 'original characteristics' is unwelcome. Roadworthiness should be judged on the ability to meet relevant emissions standards; to do otherwise is needless meddling & would even dissuade individuals & aftermarket parts producers from developing means of reducing emissions! This should also be reversed in the changes to car MOTs already being implemented.

Cost: Not Known

Q: The Commission proposes to introduce a definition for a roadworthiness test that components of the vehicle must comply with characteristics at the time of first registration. 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)

A: There is a lack of clarity as to the scope of the proposal; at what point does a repair become a modification from 'original characteristics'? What about additions to a vehicle; these could be considered modifications but at what point do they effect the Type Approval? How are the 'characteristics' of out of production marques & models to be confirmed? The UK already has Road Vehicle (Construction & Use) Regulations. So long as these are complied with, to ensure changes are properly engineered, this proposal is unnecessary yet risks imposing significant costs on individuals & businesses. Furthermore it is entirely unfair to render un-roadworthy overnight the property of a large number of motorists who have modified their vehicles, entirely legitimately & in good faith. The existing Individual / Single Vehicle Approval schemes currently provides the means of 'further approval'. However, this is already time-consuming & laborious for all parties on the basis of more limited criteria (primarily modifications to key structural components & those effecting vehicle identity).

Costs: The cost of IVA is currently £200 – £471 +VAT for passenger car categories. It is assumed there would be little opportunity to reduce this unless very localised (individual part rather than whole car) testing were allowed. While the IVA price is grudgingly accepted for those pursuing amateur builds, eg kit cars, etc the impact would be huge if implemented in line with this proposal. As the alternative would be to replace modifications or even the whole vehicle, owners would be financially penalised at a time when the Govt has committed to not increasing costs on motorists. Also at risk is the revenue from a multi-million pound industry surrounding car modification. Because of differing 'cultures', this is potentially more significant in the UK than other parts of Europe.

Q: The Commission proposes to change the definition of an Historic Vehicle that may be exempt from periodic testing. This may allow vehicles older than 30 years to be exempt from testing providing the vehicle has been maintained in its original condition, including its appearance.

A: There is support for a 'rolling' age-based eligibility for Historic status, instead of the current fixed date of manufacture, as the basis for zero cost Vehicle Tax. Views on exemption from testing (as for the UK's imminent pre-1960 threshold) are mixed. However, proposing that only completely standard vehicles may be classed as Historic is unwelcome. This has been described by historic motoring organisations as 'unworkable' for good reason. Establishing 'original characteristics' for models, or even whole marques, long out of production will be extremely difficult so how is compliance expected to be tested? Furthermore, many historic vehicles only survive in use, & this is widely preferred to 'museum exhibits' because of modifications to replace non-existent spares.

Costs: Cost to individuals would be difficult to calculate but the price of commissioning low volume reproduction of spares to original specifications would be considerable in comparison to modifying available but non-original items. Any increased costs would be unwelcome at a time when the Govt has committed to not increasing costs on motorists. Also at risk is our motoring heritage of 'specials' which generates a multi-million pound industry.

Q: The Commission proposes that all vehicles must be subject to periodic testing except historic vehicles, forces and emergency vehicles, agricultural vehicles limited to less than 40kph and specialist funfair/circus vehicles limited to 40kph.

A: No views expressed by members

Costs: N/A

Q: The Commission proposes that new tests and testing equipment are introduced. The equipment details are contained in Annex V of the proposed Periodic Testing Regulation. New elements include testing of brake fluid, light intensity, shock absorber testers, changes to brake testing equipment and a number of others.

A: While the proposal is laudable, in the UK this will require huge investment by individual testing centres. This may prove uneconomic for some, reducing choice / competition & therefore increasing costs for motorists.

Costs: Not Known

Q: The Commission proposes that all Member States make it compulsory for odometer distances to be shown on test certificates and that tampering with an odometer becomes an offence subject to a penalty.

A: No views expressed by members – already UK policy

Costs: N/A

Q: The Commission proposes to introduce definitions of severity into test. Minor defects would result in a test failure but would not prevent a certificate being issued. (The vehicle owner is expected to correct the failure without needing to have it re-confirmed by the tester).

A: No views expressed by members

Costs: Likely to reduce cost (re-test fees) to motorists

Q: The Commission proposes that in the case where a vehicle has dangerous defects discovered at test, that the vehicle shall not be used on public roads and the registration of the vehicle must be withdrawn until the defects are rectified.

A: No views expressed by members – already UK policy? (providing 'registration withdrawn' equates to 'may not be used on public road' & not requirement to re-register vehicle)

Costs: N/A

Q: The Commission proposes new rules regarding the training of vehicle testers. This includes new areas of knowledge and compulsory annual retraining for all testers. (details are contained in Annex VI of the draft Periodic Testing Regulation).

A: No views expressed by members

Costs: Not Known

Q: The Commission proposes that the drivers of a vehicle registered in a Member State shall keep on board the roadworthiness certificate corresponding to the latest roadworthiness test and the report of the last roadside inspection (if applicable).

A: No views expressed by members – However, runs contrary to Govt initiative to reduce paperwork eg removal of requirement to hold paper certificate of insurance

Costs: N/A

Q: The Commission proposes that when major or dangerous deficiencies have been found following a more detailed roadside inspection, Member States may require the payment of a fee.

A: No views expressed by members

Costs: Not Known

Q: The Commission proposes that all vehicle manufacturers will make available to test centres all technical data covered by the Certificate of Conformity. (As per annex I of the draft Periodic Testing Regulation). (Vehicle manufacturers includes makers of any non rail bourne motor vehicle or trailer).

A: As above – how will this be implemented for marques & models long out of production (whether or not yet classed as Historic)?

Costs: Not Known

Additional Comments:

Due to the lack of time to gather responses, this is a consolidated response based on the views expressed by members of two internet-based discussion forums up until 12.45Hrs on 5 Sept 12. Members of both forums frequently modify their vehicles for a variety of purposes / consider such activities a responsible & legitimate hobby or business requirement.

Although the views on any potential benefit of these proposals do vary, there is a general perception that any advantage is at the cost of considerably increased bureaucracy & financial burden for motorists & businesses at a time when the opposite should be sought.

Regards,

Rob

BSc(Hons), CEng, MIET

[suffolkpete]

[quote="JPB]That last [ i m g ] needs a slash.
[/quote]
For some strange reason it wasn't put in when I clicked on the img box but it appears to work now.

[Norton Popular]

Its finally made the National News...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rules.html

[Norton Popular]

If it outlaws this sort of contraption then I'm all for it

Rat Rods are not to everyones taste but to be fair you cant tell the quality of the engineering beneath the skin from looking at the exterior.
Some are good, some not so good.

[JPB]

Hmm, if the new legislation takes Roland & Kev off the roads then it'll be a good thing:

[Martin Evans]

If any car is modified, to a great extent, insurance companies usually ask for an engineer's report. It's often a job sifting fact from fiction but I can't see what this law is meant to achieve. The only thing I could see, is that it would be aimed at forcing old cars off the road, as if you can't alter it from original spec and (After a period of time) the manufacturers don't supply parts, it's no longer "Standard" (In the eyes of anyone who wishes to see it that way). Suffice to say, the British seem to be well capable of being shafted and not sticking together to stop these things but if any law is ever passed, that prevents me using my cars, I will become a law breaker and those responisble will become a target