Here's a different take on it.
http://www.righttoride.eu/?p=9012
Sod off with your EU bulls**t type approval
Moderators: Aladinsaneuk, MartDude, D-Rider, Moderators
A long post, but it gives an easy way to nag your MEPs about this important issue:
The proposed EU Regulation on type approval and market surveillance that we've come to know and love over the past 16 months, did pass its 'first reading' on 5th December when the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) voted on it and the near 300 amendments that been put forward.
You'll also be aware (unless you are new to these mailings) that not only did they accept the bulk of the original proposal, but added a few extra bits that aren't exactly in the best interests of the consumers they are meant to be protecting. One of my emails last week outlined horrified responses from both the European motorcycle retailers (ETRA) and the manufacturers association (ACEM) so it's good to know that apart from the UK Government, much of the rest of the bike industry is now aware of the power and possible outcome of this legislation. ABS for everything from 50cc up and the new article 18a which now covers modifications 'by the users or those acting on their behalf', which has got the retailers and bike shops upset. The new article 3 paragraph 68 now also specifies 'engine management systems or any other control module' which of course covers the power commanders etc that we highlighted a year ago and were told was nonsense. It also reiterates 'the transmission and its control, either a drive shaft or belt drive or chain drive, the differentials, the final drive and the driven wheel tyre (radius)' which is all a bit belt and braces.
But aside from the content, there is much that is concerning about the legislative process, as was highlighted last weekend when MAG organised another Riders Are Voters event in Crawley at P&H Motorcycles.
Peter Skinner, Labour MEP for the South East has received more correspondence on this Regulation than any other (he first became an MEP in 1994) so he agreed to meet riders in one go so that he could hear all the concerns.
The bulk of the questions he was asked were about procedure:
How could the Committee have voted before the impact assessment results were in?
Why does the EU Parliament have to vote on a regulation when the specific technical elements of what is affected, will be decided after the vote?
How can they make an informed decision when the 'Delegated Acts' (the technical bits) that are central to this, will be written later?
If we are now seeing drafts of the Delegated Acts and they include mention of cycle parts, surely that is outside the scope of the Regulation?
If the Commission didn't do the research before they introduced the proposal (saying as they did, that they had no baseline data but hoped they'd get some later) is it even legal?
Mr Skinner was really taken aback by the breadth of knowledge the assembled 100 or so riders had, and their articulate nature, but he was more taken aback by the legislation itself, having had to read it all before the event (which is of course, the very nature of what MAG does- getting representatives to actually read what they are going to vote on.)
He did say that we must never stop writing to MEPs about this, but what surprised me was that he said pro-forma letters are still OK, if you add the following; Please reply to the Central Office of the Motorcycle Action Group who are compiling responses.
His advice was that a standard and irrelevant response cannot be churned out by reply. The MEP will have to direct their attention to every part of the letter as numbers grow, in the knowledge that their response will be made very public, that they will be publicly held to account and that their later vote in the EU Parliament will be monitored. On the plus side, they only have to write one letter! Everyone's a winner.
So, given all of the above here is a suggested letter. If you don't wish to use it, please do try to use some of the points within it.
Please click here www.ridersarevoters.org and press the button that says 'Find Your MEP'. Remember, you probably have 6 or 7 MEPs so please write to each one of them.
Dear
As a constituent, I would like to raise my concerns regarding the content and progress of a piece of European Legislation, currently timetabled for Plenary vote on 14th March.
The proposed EU Regulation on Type Approval and Market Surveillance of two and three-wheeled vehicles passed its first reading, Committee stage, on 5th December even though an impact assessment on many elements of the proposal was ongoing.
Some new text adopted by the (IMCO) Committee, especially the extension of mandatory ABS to all scooters and motorcycles, the introduction of a new Article 18a (see below) and the Delegated Acts (drafts of which are now available), appear to have moved well outside the scope of the Commission's original proposal. Article 18a also relies on Member States to establish National policing.
ABS is being adopted by some riders, but the technology is not as advanced as for cars and there are many riding conditions where it is not suitable, or where combined braking systems (in which the industry has invested heavily) are more suitable, especially with smaller scooters. The Commission’s mandating of ABS is therefore inappropriate for both the market and manufacturing.
Articles 17 and 52 also directly impact on motorcyclists as consumers, controlling the sale and availability of after-market parts within the EU and the modification of certain aspects of the machine to suit riding conditions.
The Plenary session vote has now been timetabled for 14th March, which is too soon to enable sufficient discussion beforehand and which permits no time within the chamber for debate.
This debate is necessary, as there are many parts of this Regulation which I, as a rider and consumer, welcome, so this cannot be a yes/no vote on the acceptance or rejection of the proposal as a whole.
It is welcome for example, that Article 22 will lead to CO2 emissions being published at point of sale for every model. Similarly, paragraph 9 (page 11) which aims to over-turn the earlier decision to introduce power limits for motorcycles (1995), on the basis that no evidence can be found of a correlation between safety and power. This assertion rather undermines one of the central tenets of the whole proposal, that speed or 'tuning' has a detrimental effect on safety, again forcing the assumption that the Commission’s proposals appear not to be evidence led.
I urge you to read the Regulation COM (2010) 542 and the consolidated text post the IMCO Committee vote, which is not in the public domain and use your influence to delay the Parliamentary vote.
Could I respectfully ask that you send your reply to Central Office of the Motorcycle Action Group who are compiling replies in order to monitor voting behaviour. This can be either electronically to
campaigns-coordinator@mag-uk.org
or by post to
MAG (UK)
PO Box 750
Warwick
CV34 9FU
Yours Sincerely
The proposed EU Regulation on type approval and market surveillance that we've come to know and love over the past 16 months, did pass its 'first reading' on 5th December when the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) voted on it and the near 300 amendments that been put forward.
You'll also be aware (unless you are new to these mailings) that not only did they accept the bulk of the original proposal, but added a few extra bits that aren't exactly in the best interests of the consumers they are meant to be protecting. One of my emails last week outlined horrified responses from both the European motorcycle retailers (ETRA) and the manufacturers association (ACEM) so it's good to know that apart from the UK Government, much of the rest of the bike industry is now aware of the power and possible outcome of this legislation. ABS for everything from 50cc up and the new article 18a which now covers modifications 'by the users or those acting on their behalf', which has got the retailers and bike shops upset. The new article 3 paragraph 68 now also specifies 'engine management systems or any other control module' which of course covers the power commanders etc that we highlighted a year ago and were told was nonsense. It also reiterates 'the transmission and its control, either a drive shaft or belt drive or chain drive, the differentials, the final drive and the driven wheel tyre (radius)' which is all a bit belt and braces.
But aside from the content, there is much that is concerning about the legislative process, as was highlighted last weekend when MAG organised another Riders Are Voters event in Crawley at P&H Motorcycles.
Peter Skinner, Labour MEP for the South East has received more correspondence on this Regulation than any other (he first became an MEP in 1994) so he agreed to meet riders in one go so that he could hear all the concerns.
The bulk of the questions he was asked were about procedure:
How could the Committee have voted before the impact assessment results were in?
Why does the EU Parliament have to vote on a regulation when the specific technical elements of what is affected, will be decided after the vote?
How can they make an informed decision when the 'Delegated Acts' (the technical bits) that are central to this, will be written later?
If we are now seeing drafts of the Delegated Acts and they include mention of cycle parts, surely that is outside the scope of the Regulation?
If the Commission didn't do the research before they introduced the proposal (saying as they did, that they had no baseline data but hoped they'd get some later) is it even legal?
Mr Skinner was really taken aback by the breadth of knowledge the assembled 100 or so riders had, and their articulate nature, but he was more taken aback by the legislation itself, having had to read it all before the event (which is of course, the very nature of what MAG does- getting representatives to actually read what they are going to vote on.)
He did say that we must never stop writing to MEPs about this, but what surprised me was that he said pro-forma letters are still OK, if you add the following; Please reply to the Central Office of the Motorcycle Action Group who are compiling responses.
His advice was that a standard and irrelevant response cannot be churned out by reply. The MEP will have to direct their attention to every part of the letter as numbers grow, in the knowledge that their response will be made very public, that they will be publicly held to account and that their later vote in the EU Parliament will be monitored. On the plus side, they only have to write one letter! Everyone's a winner.
So, given all of the above here is a suggested letter. If you don't wish to use it, please do try to use some of the points within it.
Please click here www.ridersarevoters.org and press the button that says 'Find Your MEP'. Remember, you probably have 6 or 7 MEPs so please write to each one of them.
Dear
As a constituent, I would like to raise my concerns regarding the content and progress of a piece of European Legislation, currently timetabled for Plenary vote on 14th March.
The proposed EU Regulation on Type Approval and Market Surveillance of two and three-wheeled vehicles passed its first reading, Committee stage, on 5th December even though an impact assessment on many elements of the proposal was ongoing.
Some new text adopted by the (IMCO) Committee, especially the extension of mandatory ABS to all scooters and motorcycles, the introduction of a new Article 18a (see below) and the Delegated Acts (drafts of which are now available), appear to have moved well outside the scope of the Commission's original proposal. Article 18a also relies on Member States to establish National policing.
ABS is being adopted by some riders, but the technology is not as advanced as for cars and there are many riding conditions where it is not suitable, or where combined braking systems (in which the industry has invested heavily) are more suitable, especially with smaller scooters. The Commission’s mandating of ABS is therefore inappropriate for both the market and manufacturing.
Articles 17 and 52 also directly impact on motorcyclists as consumers, controlling the sale and availability of after-market parts within the EU and the modification of certain aspects of the machine to suit riding conditions.
The Plenary session vote has now been timetabled for 14th March, which is too soon to enable sufficient discussion beforehand and which permits no time within the chamber for debate.
This debate is necessary, as there are many parts of this Regulation which I, as a rider and consumer, welcome, so this cannot be a yes/no vote on the acceptance or rejection of the proposal as a whole.
It is welcome for example, that Article 22 will lead to CO2 emissions being published at point of sale for every model. Similarly, paragraph 9 (page 11) which aims to over-turn the earlier decision to introduce power limits for motorcycles (1995), on the basis that no evidence can be found of a correlation between safety and power. This assertion rather undermines one of the central tenets of the whole proposal, that speed or 'tuning' has a detrimental effect on safety, again forcing the assumption that the Commission’s proposals appear not to be evidence led.
I urge you to read the Regulation COM (2010) 542 and the consolidated text post the IMCO Committee vote, which is not in the public domain and use your influence to delay the Parliamentary vote.
Could I respectfully ask that you send your reply to Central Office of the Motorcycle Action Group who are compiling replies in order to monitor voting behaviour. This can be either electronically to
campaigns-coordinator@mag-uk.org
or by post to
MAG (UK)
PO Box 750
Warwick
CV34 9FU
Yours Sincerely
Your message is near-identical to others sent previously
Please read our stance on this issue to understand why sending identikit "copied and pasted" messages is detrimental to your campaign.
Sorry to be so harsh, but representatives have made it clear that the receipt of such fax "spam" could mean they bin all messages sent via WriteToThem.com.
Which would be A Bad Thing.
You might like to let the person who asked you to do this know that they've potentially sabotaged their own campaign too. Point them to our Guidelines for campaigning.
If you wish to rewrite your message, use the "back" button in your browser and write it in your own, original, words. It's better to send a short message in your own words, than a long, mainly copy-and-pasted message with a few amendments.
All the usuals
-The WriteToThem.com Team
Never ride faster than your guardian angel can fly
So with the EU committee pushing this through being chaired by a British Tory, we now have the remarkable headline that our PM has given his Transport Under Secretary the go ahead to fight it:D-Rider wrote:Interestingly, although this proposed legislation is coming through Europe, the responsible committee appears to be chaired by a British Tory ... so it seems that the blame can't be laid entirely at the door of Johnny and Francoise the famous Foreigner twins.
.... and just to give you even more confidence that "our man in charge" has his finger on the pulse and our best interests at heart, he was recently interviewed:
.... says it all really .....The Chair of European Parliament’s lead committee on anti-tampering proposals did not know who they applied to when questioned by MCN.
Malcolm Harbour, Chairman of European Parliament’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, did not know whether the proposals were to prevent performance modifications to all motorcycles or only those used by riders with power restrictions on their licences.
The West Midlands Tory MEP, who has been guiding other members of the Conservative group on how to vote on the plans, said: "I will have to get back to you because I have been following it but I have lots of other dossiers to follow."
Asked how he had been in a position to vote and guide votes of others without knowing the answer, he said: "Because as Chairman of the committee, I was also dealing with tractors, I, you know, the amount of work that we have to do is substantial. We’ve had a whole big proposal on tractors going through at the same time."
He said: "I agree that we should give you an exact comment on that and I’m sorry it’s not very clear. My only excuse is that I’m not the only person working on it and there is a large amount of other stuff in here as well that we’ve been focussing on.”
Harbour eventually clarified that manufacturers would introduce anti-tampering measures to all new bikes under the proposals.
Riders who do manage to 'substantially' modify a bike will have to submit it for inspection. If the machine was originally type approved as meeting a licence power restriction, it will not be allowed to exceed that limit. "I now have the details in front of me," said Harbour.
Harbour added: "These are still draft proposals. We’re not near at the moment to a final set of agreements. The parliamentary process is quite a long one."
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-new ... 19887.html
One can only think that rather than issuing attention grabbing headline, it might be a bit more effective if the PM had a word with his own man in Brussels!
Could this become an interesting spectator sport?
Ministers to 'push back' against EU legislations
Under-Secretary of State for Transport says PM has given him permission to strongly oppose anti-bike legislations
Posted: 19 January 2012
by Visordown News
Mike Penning MP, Under-Secretary of State for Transport
MIKE PENNING MP, Under-Secretary of State for Transport, has said that Ministers will fight against the EUs move to impose anti-biking legislations.
The EU want to introduce new technical regulations to motorcycles that could see ABS become standard on all bikes from 2016 and measures that would prevent owners from tuning their bikes.
In an interview with BMF magazine, Motorcycle Rider, Penning gave his view on some of the legislation suggestions raised by the European Parliament: "I don’t think they are hugely beneficial to any of us and I have permission from the Prime Minister to push back as strongly as possible on them.
"The European Parliament has no power to legislate and, if for some reason, legislation did come through to Ministers, we will vote against it if necessary."
Mike Penning, who is a motorcyclist himself having first started riding as an Army despatch rider and currently owns a Ducati Monster and a Royal Enfield, added: "At this time this just is a suggestion from the Commissioner. The way it works in Europe is that the bureaucrats decide the policy and then the politicians vote on it, which is exactly the opposite of what happens here. But I can assure you we will push back on it."
“Scientists investigate that which already is. Engineers create that which has never been.”
-- Albert Einstein
-- Albert Einstein
