Have you got a modified classic car remember the EU threat?

[A225HVY]

Looks like the EU have backed down on this issue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... -cars.html

Stephen Hammond, the roads minister, secured the deal in Brussels after hearing representations from car enthusiasts.

The Commission had drawn up plans for a “roadworthiness test” directive which would have required all components on a car to conform with those on the vehicle when it was first registered.

According to the EU document the move was justified because “Vehicles of historic interest are supposed to conserve heritage of the époque they have been built”

But it was feared this would create havoc, especially given the number of carmakers who have disappeared over the last 50 years.

This would have hit owners of classic marques, such as Triumph, Wolseley and Sunbeam, which have long since disappeared – making spare parts almost impossible to find as a result.

The agreement means that UK testers will be given greater discretion to assess the roadworthiness of classic cars built after 1960. Historic vehicles built before that date are exempt from the MoT.

Mr Hammond has also persuaded the Commission to drop the requirement for more than one million caravans and trailers to undergo an MoT.

Had the EU pressed ahead with the original proposals it was feared this would cost Britain over £1 billion over five years. The modified version is likely to cost only £18 million.

[suffolkpete]

That was never a threat, the story was just journalists whipping up sensationalism. What was being proposed was the exemption of historic vehicles from a proposed new pan-European roadworthiness regulation. Modified vehicles would not be banned, simply subjected to the same test regime as modern vehicles. It was dropped because there is no definitive database of "Original Technical Characteristics", making the proposal completely unworkable.

[CologneV6]

Good news, just read it in CCW
Could not understand how they ever thought it workable anyway.

[JPB]

It's a shame that they're not pushing for the trailer testing. I can't be the only person who believes that such a thing would be a good idea?
A couple of the student's parents are involved in a storage business that takes caravans among other things and they sometimes send the owners to us with their trailers for servicing, probably they only come because while we take donations, we can't charge officially.
The number of canoe trailers, caravans and car transporter trailers whose brakes would actually work properly in the event of a sudden stop is far too low, this in spite of many being below ten years of age. Worst one last term was the 18 foot canoe trailer (four wheeled), seven of whose eight wheel cylinders - twin leading shoes all round see - were totally unserviceable through leaks and/or seizures. At least a sub-440Kg ten foot touring van would be more likely to have purely mechanical brakes which tend to be safer if so neglected, not that there's an excuse.
It's great that there's confirmation of the classic car related "proposals" having been little more than journalistic borst, but it's dodgy trailers that we need to see being dealt with.

[TerryG]

It's a shame that they're not pushing for the trailer testing. I can't be the only person who believes that such a thing would be a good idea?

I would agree the trailers should be subject to an annual inspection. The ones on the farms HGVs are so I don't see any reason car trailers should be exempt.
Mind you I also think Tractors should be tested and specialist vehicles as the state some of them are allowed to get in to is ridiculous.

[Motorvating]

This had nothing to do with journalists whipping up a storm, they were rather late on to the subject. This was spotted and raised by the Motorbike fraternity and latter ACE (http://www.the-ace.org.uk/) and would have been a real threat to modified classic cars if they hadn't of raised awareness to the multitudes as the powers that be in the EU would have blindly implemented legislation that would have caused chaos across the classic car fraternity and testing stations.

[1960Zody]

That was never a threat, the story was just journalists whipping up sensationalism. What was being proposed was the exemption of historic vehicles from a proposed new pan-European roadworthiness regulation. Modified vehicles would not be banned, simply subjected to the same test regime as modern vehicles. It was dropped because there is no definitive database of "Original Technical Characteristics", making the proposal completely unworkable.

So, it was never a threat in the first place...
What part of it did I miss then?

A) The Commission had not drawn up plans for a “roadworthiness test” directive which would have required all [testable]components on a car to conform with those on the vehicle when it was first registered. [Type approval]

B) The EU did not justify the move because “Vehicles of historic interest are supposed to conserve heritage of the époque they have been built”

or

C) Stephen Hammond, the roads minister, did not secure the deal in Brussels after hearing representations from car enthusiasts, he was actually so PERSONALLY affronted that he decided to ride in on a white charger to save the future of classics in the UK off his own bat.

This is the trouble with the way we do things in the UK, some would rather attack those who keep their eyes and ears open for stuff like bthis and then, regardless of whether they choose to 'Dramatise' it, get it talked about and get politicians to take a stand than actively support the campaign.

What would your comment have been if the 'Noise' had not been generated and Hammond had not 'Secured' the deal and the Roadworthiness testiung had gone through unopposed?

[suffolkpete]

You missed the fact that what was proposed was a new roadworthiness regulation. Being a regulation, unlike the previous directive, it would be mandatory across the EU. However, member states would be allowed to define their own testing regime for historic vehicles. The proposal then went on to define a historic vehicle. Nowhere did it state that vehicles that did not comply with the definition of a historic vehicle would be banned from the road or, as was reported in some quarters, that vehicles over 30 years old would not be subject to testing. Of course enthusiasts were quite right to challenge this as the proposals were completely unworkable. This whole business is simply about eligibility for a different testing regime, although historic vehicles may in the future be subject to other restrictions or privileges so we need to get this right.

[1960Zody]

And I don't recall that the original press release actually stated that would be the case.
If you look on the ACE website, you'll see that nowhere does it state that a 'Ban' was imminent.

The 'Mainstream' press were the ones who started using the word Ban and, to be honest, that had a positive effect, because it firced politicians to spend time denying that was what the proposal was about and created a mass campaign of letter writinbg that made them start asking questions which, frankly, theye would not have done, if the headlines had not been made.

Whether you believe that the regulation would have eventually lead to it becoming far more difficult to legally use a modified 'Classic' vehicle on the road, (which it still could as the FIVA definition of originality is still included in the directive), or not, you cannot deny that Stephen Hammond would not have been seeking a 'Watered Down' version of the directive without the publicity that was fired by that original ACE page.

[Martin Evans]

The old chestnut, of threats against classic cars, crops up from time to time. Perhaps there is no truth in it or perhaps some of the do gooders (Who, being divorced from reality, seem to believe that life is a theoretical model), who believe we should all drive Priuae and take holidays at Centreparks, are testing the water. I also feel that picking on a minority is an easy way of showing that you “Care”, without risking a big backlash. As an example, when that arch enemy, of the classic car, Gordon Brown, took away rolling entitlement to free road tax, his original reason was that its continuance would lose the Exchequer too much money. He then proceeded to give free (Or almost free) tax to many modern cars, that were adding to the ranks of free tax vehicles, at a far greater annual rate, than had rolling exemption (Indeed free tax for new cars is now under review). However there were more potential votes to be gained from this policy.

I have seen various bits and pieces, on this latest issue, on FIVA’s website or in the FBHVC newsletter. I think such sources of information are more reliable than a national newspaper, who suggest that parts availability for Triumph cars is poor (I can’t comment on a Mayflower but TR and most of the post 1960 or Herald onwards stuff seems pretty well covered).

From what I gather, FIVA want to arrive at a definition, based on age, of what constitutes an “Historic” vehicle (So as to guard against so called anti banger legislation) and include caveats as to it being original and no longer in production (Does that mean that no Morgan 4/4 can ever be “Historic”?). I raised certain questions with them and FBHVC but so far, only FBHVC have replied. FBHVC’s view seems to be that the definition can only be based on age. I would question whether, for example, a Morris Minor, fitted with a modern engine is really historic, though I feel that provided any modifications are “In period”, there is no problem. For example, a number of pre war MGs (J & P Types) have been fitted with Ford sidevalve engines, because their original OHC engines had failed and at the time of the swap, the cars weren’t worth much money. There are some cars (Pre war Frazer Nash springs to mind) where you might say there never was an established spec.

As to trailers, I am sure there is plenty of junk out there (I remember some of the specimens from my hillclimbing days and some of the local farmers have pretty low standards…..my own uncle wasn’t too particular…..one of the wheels of his boat trailer overtook his car but luckily the trailer was a four wheeler) but I think it could be hard to regulate. Trailers and caravans only carry the number plates of the towing vehicle (Unless it’s a local farmer or fly tipper ) and are not registered in their own right. Unless they are somehow registered, how can they ever be monitored? It’s a bit like bicycles; they are not registered, so enforcing regulations on cyclists (And I hate applying that term to some of the specimens who ride bikes), who choose to break the law, is sometimes hard.