PLEASE READ.

A global place for general discussion (Volvo, V3M or non-Volvo related topics).
Please introduce yourself here, your Volvo 300 hobby...
NO technical support, parts requests or car advertisements here
User avatar
jtbo
Posts: 5805
Joined: 23 Jul 2004 03:50 am
Location: Finland, middle of nowhere
Contact:

Re: PLEASE READ.

Post by jtbo » 29 Aug 2012 09:08 am

volvosneverdie wrote: 80% of me cant, or wont think for myself. But the other 20% is a renegade badass.

The ledgendary PS is NOT unisex. More accurate to say asexual vegetable sucking buttfiddler.
I don't understand but it sounds something horrible, so I just go along with it :lol:

There are of course some things good in this country I live in, they are cutting costs so hard that at such rural area where I live it is bigger chance to win in lottery than meet police at afternoon/early evening at working days. At any given moment chance is quite minimal, but they do pickup some small crooks at mornings sometimes or just travel trough the area. I know many that are not allowed to drive because of medical conditions, but still drive short trips around here, nobody has been ever caught.

So even there would be silly laws, as long as your car does look quite road worthy, is not attention magnet and that you keep driving local, getting caught is not likely. If one keeps car in good condition and does everything else so that it will pass MOT anytime, except mods, it is also not so awful expensive when you get caught. There are lot of those 'illegal' vehicles without MOT at countryside too, many are in quite bad condition too, but because in future yearly payments increase really a lot, there will be even more of them. That is why they plan on bringing average speed cameras on every road of course, so that they can check if plates are allowed to travel and I doubt that they will keep databases of all photos so they can check where anyone has gone etc. This will probably be sold as safety and easier crime solving for masses when time is right.

Of course they are trying to empty rural areas by introducing new regulations that will cause very expensive costs for house owners, aim is to get rich foreigners to have cabins and spend their money here and get rid of us who like simpler life. In last 10 years they have introduced requirements that mean tens of thousands more cost to everyone, but in future there are plans to introduce more of them, same is probably future with cars, in names of saftety and enviroment they sell people new requirements that eventually cause old cars to become illegal to use on roads, this of course helps in attempts to empty rural areas as people can't afford really all that.

In cities people are easier to control too, there are cctv's everywhere and generally thinking for themselves is lot less as people are more oriented to work more think less.

One big goal is to have all people in cities, not travelling and working more to support that silly constant growth.

German automakers are rubbing their hands together with big grin of course as things progress, they have all means to make cars that consume half of petrol than they do now, but of course they will make models with small improvements so they can sell more and EU is putting more laws to slowly tighten requirements for cars that are used on road, again to support constant growth, to not kill it by making finished product right away.

I think that collapsing euro and resulting financial chaos would bring some sense to this part of world again, of course it would cause lot of suffering, but growing out from old usually does have some growth pains. Eventually there would perhaps be bit more free, bit more healthy society.
Volvo 360GL -88 -under restoration-
Volvo 343DL vario -81 -running- Image
Volvo 240 Diesel -83 -undecided-
Citroen ZX Dturbo -97 -daily- ImageImage

User avatar
Hell Driver
Posts: 1415
Joined: 18 Aug 2009 09:58 pm
Location: Doncaster UK

Re: PLEASE READ. Massive thread diversion ahead

Post by Hell Driver » 29 Aug 2012 05:58 pm

Speedy88 wrote:
As for the generations, I have to disagree. I usually see a higher percentage of younger people who don't agree with the powers that be. It's age that seems to turn people into willing, compliant drones once they loose their energy and enthusiasm. I mean - look at the 60s in the USA - where are all those young rebellious hippies now? Sure a few are still around but a lot of them just became what they at first hated. Basically 80% of the population can't think for themselves and will just go along with what they are told.
Nice example of younger generation making a stand for you:

http://rt.com/news/montreal-protests-st ... ition-805/

Need this across all population to make changes though.

It's not age that seems to turn people into willing, compliant drones once they loose their energy and enthusiasm, it's the smell of money and for some power. (and of course most of all, those things that time brings..family, full time jobs, responsibility etc.).

It's only when you see the outside world having severe negative impacts on peoples lives that the ordinary people become restless. And in the western world we have a good quality of life anyway so it takes a lot to stir people from their backsides. This brings it's own dangers of course, the creeping control which states gain over a 'satisified' country as well as sweepimg powers gained at times of stress (recession) and lately 'the war on terror'.

Or maybe there's not been enough state control in some area? How come the criminal bankers got away with all this when we are held to account for using a mobile phone while driving. Just how many people have commited suicide as a result of loss of jobs/homes/marriages. More than those killed by phones using motorists I'd like to bet.

As I've got 10 minutes I though I'd check that bet:

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2012/04/1 ... -revealed/
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/08august/Pa ... cides.aspx

9 deaths in Scotland in 3 years due to driving/phones...............................................Drivers punishment-up to life in prision
1000 deaths in England in 2 years suspected due to recession................................Bankers punishment-Big fat wallets and a bailout by you and me.

I'm sure an expert can shoot holes in my comparison but the law is an ass.

I don't condone using a phone whilst driving by the way.........it still kills people.
360 GLE Saloon (D 86)
360 GLS (A 84)
343 DL (W 80) :-)
340 GL 1.7 (G 89)
360 GLS (Y 83)
440 Turbo (J 92)
Transit Tipper 125 T350 (02)Alive Again!
Transit Tipper Smiley face Q reg
Mitsubishi Colt 1.1 (54)
R.I.P. 77 343 DL vario :-(

magnumpi
Posts: 1289
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 11:39 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: PLEASE READ.

Post by magnumpi » 29 Aug 2012 06:15 pm

Over 3 pages of this topic, i may have just missed it, but i've not seen a link to the actual PROPOSAL that is getting everyones knickers in a twist, so here it is, sadly i don't speak political jargon so don't understand half of it:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/doc/roadw ... %29380.pdf


However this has appeared on Pistonheads, so for now we seem to be safe as it was as stated, just a PROPOSAL and not set in stone:

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default ... ryId=26260
89 3dr 340DL in Battleship grey with Ultralights and Williams power
Whats the matter with the car i'm driving can't you tell that it's out of style?

User avatar
Speedy88
Posts: 4057
Joined: 04 May 2009 11:52 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: PLEASE READ.

Post by Speedy88 » 29 Aug 2012 07:16 pm

Yes I saw that too, I've also seen discussions by friends of mine over on RR where nobody can actually find hard text of legislation that will actually come into force. It's a shame really as The Ace are generally really good on reporting and not speculating - but it appears that they expect people to react before anything is actually being pushed through. Perhaps because the effect of such a proposal affects the people in The Ace directly and they're panicking themselves...
'88 340 Williams (Sold)
'85 360 GLS - Drift project (Sold)
'77 Colt Sigma
'96 940 Drift project

macplaxton
Posts: 3283
Joined: 09 Feb 2008 02:29 am

Re: PLEASE READ.

Post by macplaxton » 29 Aug 2012 09:08 pm

In fairness with proposals and consultations papers, you do need to get off your arse and speak when the opportunity arises so all the opinions can be taken into account before things are set in stone.

I did see a lot of moaning (after the consultation had finished) about MOT exemption of pre-1960 cars and motorcycles. Really, instead of bellyaching on forums, the individuals concerned should have bellyached to the DfT when the consultation period was open...

If you feel strongly that the proposals will adversely affect you, or have unintended consequences, then you better pipe up now to the relevant organisation.
72 DAF 44 Estate 78 Volvo 343DL Black BeautyImageImage
82 Volvo 343DL CVTImageImage 88 Volvo 340DL Diesel

User avatar
Hell Driver
Posts: 1415
Joined: 18 Aug 2009 09:58 pm
Location: Doncaster UK

Re: PLEASE READ. latest

Post by Hell Driver » 29 Aug 2012 10:39 pm

Latest developments on this:

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default ... ryId=26260
http://www.the-ace.org.uk/chat_with_ace ... f=8&t=1086

Still not really sure what is going on. No real rock solid answers or promises.

I think that we should always be on guard about this, or we'll end up like the German situation. The truth is, compared to the rest of the vehicles out there, our older, modified vehicles may not be the direct target of legislation, but will they care if we get killed in the crossfire?

I'd better get cracking with my project..I might get 2 or 3 years of enjoyment before Carmageddon





How do you know when a politician is lying?




Answer...When his lips are moving.
360 GLE Saloon (D 86)
360 GLS (A 84)
343 DL (W 80) :-)
340 GL 1.7 (G 89)
360 GLS (Y 83)
440 Turbo (J 92)
Transit Tipper 125 T350 (02)Alive Again!
Transit Tipper Smiley face Q reg
Mitsubishi Colt 1.1 (54)
R.I.P. 77 343 DL vario :-(

classicswede
*** V3M DONOR ***
Posts: 5461
Joined: 25 Apr 2005 06:52 pm
Location: Anglesey North Wales
Contact:

Re: PLEASE READ.

Post by classicswede » 02 Sep 2012 12:37 am

Dai

Please email me directly on dai@classicswede.co.uk

http://www.classicswede.com

phone/text 07824887160

Web shop http://www.classicswede.co.uk/

Image

brickie501
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Mar 2010 06:16 pm

Re: PLEASE READ.

Post by brickie501 » 06 Sep 2012 07:02 am

Not really sure I have any authority to do so but there was some support & I (like some here) am of the opinion that, even if Regulation from this EU proposal is some way off, now is the time to speak up!

A summary of what the proposals mean to the UK, from it's Department for Transpost's perspective appeared via the Land Rover Monthly forums. It included a request for interested parties (not individuals) to respond on the specific points by yesterday. I only really had time to assess feeling from 2 of the forums I frequent & am responding to DfT on behalf of (UK) Land Rover Addict / PPC forum members.

For your info, I have reproduced the summary / questions & the answers I gave below:


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

macplaxton
Posts: 3283
Joined: 09 Feb 2008 02:29 am

Re: PLEASE READ.

Post by macplaxton » 11 Sep 2012 10:52 pm

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/pre ... incorrect/
Press reports on EC proposals on MOT tests are incorrect

September 10, 2012

Reports in the press that the European Commission has proposed to make modifications to cars illegal, or to ban classic cars unless they are unchanged since manufacture are entirely wrong.

The Commission’s proposals would not, if agreed by the Member States and the European Parliament, make any difference to the current situation regarding MOT testing in the UK except to make most classic cars more than 30 years old exempt from testing if they are not used day-to-day on the roads.

All other cars would remain subject to roadworthiness testing, just as they are now. Whether or not they have been modified is not of itself relevant: what counts is whether they are safe and that is what is assessed by MOT tests in the UK and by the equivalent tests elsewhere.

What the proposals will do is require all Member States to bring their road worthiness tests up to a certain level of rigour, already applied in the UK : for example, motorbikes will need to be tested regularly everywhere, as they are already in the UK. This will make driving safer for UK drivers at home and abroad.

The Commission is writing separately to all the newspapers concerned, none of which checked the facts with us before publication.
72 DAF 44 Estate 78 Volvo 343DL Black BeautyImageImage
82 Volvo 343DL CVTImageImage 88 Volvo 340DL Diesel

User avatar
Hell Driver
Posts: 1415
Joined: 18 Aug 2009 09:58 pm
Location: Doncaster UK

Re: PLEASE READ.

Post by Hell Driver » 11 Sep 2012 11:38 pm

Thanks for posting that info.

Then why do the details in their own proposals contradict this?

I'm sure I read somewhere that the characteristics of the componants must be the same as manufacturs original. (not the exact words but words to that effect). My worry being a B230 does not share the same characteristics as a B14 engine. Thus effectively outlawing modification.

Also, to benefit from the 30 year rule, they clearly state that cars must not be altered, even in appearance. Note the use of the term in that press release "Most classic cars", whatever could they mean??? I bet heavily modified classics will NOT be exempt. (not that I'm bothered about that, as long as they are not effectively banned).

Also they do not say that there will be no new tests on caravans and trailors as has been reported.

This is a climbdown, a fudge or an outright lie, or a mix of these, only time will tell.

So basically, we are paying the salaries of idiots in Europe to scare the cr*p out of us and then tell us that out own M.O.T. rules are fine and that nothing will need to change...thanks a bunch EU, money well spent.
360 GLE Saloon (D 86)
360 GLS (A 84)
343 DL (W 80) :-)
340 GL 1.7 (G 89)
360 GLS (Y 83)
440 Turbo (J 92)
Transit Tipper 125 T350 (02)Alive Again!
Transit Tipper Smiley face Q reg
Mitsubishi Colt 1.1 (54)
R.I.P. 77 343 DL vario :-(

macplaxton
Posts: 3283
Joined: 09 Feb 2008 02:29 am

Re: PLEASE READ.

Post by macplaxton » 12 Sep 2012 12:46 am

What happens is a fudge, a long way down the line.

A bit of wording gets changed here and there to something member states agree on. Directives get transposed into national laws and get gold-plated or interpreted in their own way.

Take the UK MOT and the 3-1-1 testing pattern, that is 3 years, then annually thereafter. Some places, like Ireland, do a 4-2-2, but the cert run starts from the registration date of the vehicle, so if I bring it in late, I don't get a full 2 year ticket. Ireland's last fiddle with the rules was to drop a rolling 30 year exemption and fix the date before 1st Jan 1980 for exemption, at the same time, they changed the 2 year to a 1 year if it's over 10 years old. So now it's a 4-2-2-1-1. For first test at 4, you do it 6 months early, at 3y 6m, and get a 2y 6m ticket. After that, you can bring it in 3m early and get a 2y 3m or 1y 3m ticket. I've missed the April date on my wife's car, so if I test it now, I've got a 7m ticket (2000 reg). Now the plan for me is to do a test as soon as it's fixed, then test it and then test it again in Jan (unless I just wait until Jan). They still don't test motorcycles here. Looking at the proposal, the 4-2-2-1-1 will be 4-2-1-1-1

The 30 year rule will probably be boxed off into two groups, those over 30 that are more or less as manufactured, for the sake of argument, we'll label them as "historic" and anything else would be treated as non-historic and be subject to testing - no different to now. Replacement parts would/may need to be E-marked (not necessarily OEM) and not shonky Chinese stuff.

"Most classic cars" means just that. All those ones that only come out for summer and do FA miles. Classic cars in the UK make up about 1.5% of the vehicle parc, which is higher than in a lot of other countries. Daily drivers in that 1.5% would be tiny proportion. Modify won't be effectively banned, it might be a bit harder, it might have a bit more hassle, but anything of a decent standard shouldn't have a problem and any crap jobs shouldn't be on the road anyway.

It does open the question as to where the line may end up with "historic vehicles" and not. Electronic ignition? Radial tyres? I think that it'll be open to interpretation a bit.

I had a quick gander at the trailers (sub 3500kg) bit. One bit mentioned 01 and 02 trailers, the test bit only mentioned O2 trailer, that is, those of 750kg.

Then I got bored... sm73 sm73 sm73
72 DAF 44 Estate 78 Volvo 343DL Black BeautyImageImage
82 Volvo 343DL CVTImageImage 88 Volvo 340DL Diesel

User avatar
nvdw
Posts: 199
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 10:01 pm
Location: Glass City, NL

Re: PLEASE READ.

Post by nvdw » 12 Sep 2012 08:30 am

macplaxton wrote:It does open the question as to where the line may end up with "historic vehicles" and not. Electronic ignition? Radial tyres? I think that it'll be open to interpretation a bit.
Safety. In Germany, installing seat belts where there were previously none at all is perfectly fine. LPG conversions and catalyzers can be had without losing your historic registration. The official regulations have some room for upgrades. An electronic ignition system such as 123 for example is a) a non-permanent installation (it can always be replaced with the original distributor without damage) and b) looks like a classic distributor.

User avatar
Hell Driver
Posts: 1415
Joined: 18 Aug 2009 09:58 pm
Location: Doncaster UK

Re: PLEASE READ.

Post by Hell Driver » 12 Sep 2012 04:59 pm

Some more usefull hints at what might happen above, thanks. The UK is a nation of Dad's and Grandad's shed owners. Unless the EU want a war on thier hands then the above interpretation is thier best tack on this. Lets face it, they don't have the best reputation already in these 'ere parts.
360 GLE Saloon (D 86)
360 GLS (A 84)
343 DL (W 80) :-)
340 GL 1.7 (G 89)
360 GLS (Y 83)
440 Turbo (J 92)
Transit Tipper 125 T350 (02)Alive Again!
Transit Tipper Smiley face Q reg
Mitsubishi Colt 1.1 (54)
R.I.P. 77 343 DL vario :-(

Post Reply