EU proposal to change periodic roadworthiness testing (MOT)

[dodge6x6]

Hi All

this may have been talked about allready,
received this information from DFT via my works head office thought it might be of interest to people, main things are
testing all trailers and caravans capable of over 40kph,
exemtion of 30year + vehicles from MOT,
prevention of most modifications to vehicles without further approval of the the vehicle
have copied info below



The Department for Transport (DfT) urgently requests your feedback regarding the new Roadworthiness Package proposed by the EU Commission on 13 July 2012. The proposal contains two new Regulations and a supporting amending Directive relating to roadworthiness testing and roadside checks.

DfT appreciate the complexity and scale of the package, so have produced a spreadsheet summarising the key items that may concern you and to which you can add your comments for feedback.

This is a DfT consultation, not a VOSA initiative. Do not reply to this email.

120809 RWP feedback form V1a.xls
120809 RWP request for information V2.doc

Form v1. Please return to [email protected]
Please fill in as many areas of this form as possible. Wherever possible provide cost information relating to impacts as you know or understand them. Feel free to use the additional comments area to make any observations or comments.
Stakeholder Name: Contact Details:

Date: Email:
Summary Topic / Proposal Stakeholder Comments Costs/Benefits if known
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).

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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).

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.

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).

Additional Comments: Please add below

 

[KevH]

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)

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. [/i]

This would have huge implications for the bus scene, in particular the stock/custom debate. Could it potentially lead to all customisation being illegal? :shock:

 

[Supertramp]

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)

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. [/i]

This would have huge implications for the bus scene, in particular the stock/custom debate. Could it potentially lead to all customisation being illegal? :shock:

No, it'd just mean that modified buses would require periodic testing.

 

[sparkywig]

No, it'd just mean that modified buses would require periodic testing.

Do we not have a periodic test anyway?

 

[KevH]

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)

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. [/i]

This would have huge implications for the bus scene, in particular the stock/custom debate. Could it potentially lead to all customisation being illegal? :shock:

No, it'd just mean that modified buses would require periodic testing.

I hope you are right mate, and I applaud your confidence. But I read this differently. If a bus has not "been maintained in its original condition, including its appearance" then it would be subject to testing, as now of course (the MoT).

However, for that test "components of the vehicle must comply with characteristics at the time of first registration" which could be interpreted as knocking out slammed buses, for example. This applies to "all vehicles", no exemptions for historics.

I run stock, so I am not personally affected (I hope). But if I ran a slammed bus, I'd be just a tad interested in this.

 

[67panel]

back door legislation to stop peeps modding /hot rods ect,it will soon be illegal to have a car over 10years old if the COCKS in europe had there way .some euro countrys you have to get permision to take your vintage/historic vehicle on the road.
rant over :msn4:

 

[Trikky2]

The motor manufacturers are primarily interested in making money.

They also have a fairly powerful lobby which needs to be kept in check. They are well connected.

A lot of their desired/proposed policy changes "in the interests of safety and security" address areas where there is no statistical evidence to show there is an issue that needs attention. Their primary goal is to make more money.

For instance, how many accidents are caused by a chip in the windscreen? Yet they continue to make vehicles that are more difficult to see out of due to reflected light off the dash tops and even police vehicles have extras mounted on suction cups blocking part of the screen .

Ideally they would like to ban any and all work on any vehicles other than through their own franchised garages and would dearly like to force all motorists to replace their vehicle with a new one as often as possible.

An example of their attitude and considerable leverage is seen in the scrappage scheme, another in the ever tighter regulation of scrapyards selling secondhand parts - they want you to buy new.

So I agree that any and all proposed new legislation needs very careful scrutiny to see why it is being proposed or if its needed at all - especially if it comes via any pan european organisation / Brussels whose largely un elected bureaucrats are well known for this kind of problem making.

 

[krusty]

Balls to the EU!

Im English and im gonna drive my slammed truck all over England!

 

[Clem]

Note that this is just (another) EU 'proposal'

Don't panic!

 

[hogseye]

factor in the time to do an MOT to the new standard i.e testing brakefluid etc and making the testers go on new courses plus new equipment they may have to buy and a new test would prob cost about £100 and take a damn sight longer to do!!! caravans and trailers to, another way to fleece us out of our hard earned cash...fair enough if that trailer is used for a work purpose or is not a factory made thing but these bureaucrats are SO out of touch, its alright for them driving around in their company cars etc whilst the rest of us have to drive about in our 'normal' older cars (bangers ) more euro tosspot shite

 

[Pete B]

The motor manufacturers are primarily interested in making money.
Ideally they would like to ban any and all work on any vehicles other than through their own franchised garages and would dearly like to force all motorists to replace their vehicle with a new one as often as possible.
All proposed new legislation needs very careful scrutiny to see why it is being proposed or if its needed at all - especially if it comes via any pan european organisation / Brussels whose largely un elected bureaucrats are well known for this kind of problem making.

Spot on sir, I leant this way back when working at Lotus. I was one of many muppets building and testing a (then) new global GM 4 pot engine for Astra, Vectra etc. It was made very clear that if one US cent per unit could be saved it would be and that things such as using Torx hardware and as many 'special tools' as possible would be employed just to make it more difficult for the home mechanic. Don't even mention ECU software.... they want main dealer only maintainance, full stop.
Regarding legislation, whatever Brussels comes up with I want to tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine. It would be wonderful if this government would grow some balls, listen to the people it claims to work for and tell these unelected gravy train passengers where to get off so we can govern our own country.
As the window sticker in my car says, 'Love Europe, hate the EU'

 

[john the horse]

Balls to the EU!

Im English and im gonna drive my slammed truck all over England!

yes sir same here, they aint stopping me rollin low. anyway with the amount of slammed buses out there the stupid peeps that make the rules will think thats how they came outta the factory , slammed

Dicks the end.

If they make me buy a prius then ill throw the motor away bang in a v8 and throw it on bags after cleaning it with brake fluid. oh and stinger but that goes without saying. stupid really as we all drive far safer and look after our buses far more than the rest of the general public.


Rant over too

 

[Trikky2]

Some good posts on here. The "I love Europe, I hate the EU" is in my opinion the whole crux of the matter.

I know this is swerving the thread somewhat but I think its relevant.

If the government ever do have a referendum I wonder if they will have the courage to give people a real choice?

There are many of those in power who are fond of saying "we already had a referendum back in the 1970's"

This is a lie and I am frankly astonished they dont get slammed for it.

In that referendum the population voted yes to a "common market".

They never voted for a conglomeration of unelected bureaucrats and failed MP's based in Brussels, nor did they vote that such a body could legislate across borders. They also never voted for a common currency or for a heck of a lot of other stuff that was never mentioned in the referendum.

So, in short, the population voted yes to a common market, not an EU state.

The EU has been imposed on them and currently in no way represents a democracy.

I dont think this is a rant.