Everyone needs to read this.

[KS]

As they say, this is not a drill...

http://www.the-ace.org.uk/armageddon/

[Jonny Hart]

Back to crossplies then all you 356'ers. That'll make the roads much safer.

Looks like fairground vehicles are exempt so I'm working on a Smarts Brothers livery.

[smallspeed]

This is so retarded.. How big do you think the aftermarket is for car parts? Also does this not contraveen the anti monopoly measures that went in a while ago allowing people to use aftermarket or. Non oem parts on cars for service and things? Those parts won't be type approved/homologated so won't be usable either..

Another wll thought through proposal from the eu!

[Mick Cliff]

....Another wll thought through proposal from the eu!

You mean you think that 'they' THINK about these things?
I always thought that 'they' just randomly selected from their "What shall we f*ck up next" list!
These guys represent 'our' needs... we elected them (didn't we?)
It really is time to abandon the EU and just let them f*ck themselves up!!
Rant over...

[Jonny Hart]

How will they police this anyhow? Is every MOT tester to become a concours judge?

[KS]

I know – but I guess the reality will be if you have an accident or make an insurance claim, then the sh•t will hit the fan. Trying to police it will be impossible, but it will just give the insurance companies another way to get out of paying up – and then you'll get prosecuted for driving an uninsured, illegally-modified car...

Several years ago I asked some friends in France how they got away with driving their highly-modified VWs. Their answer was: 'We just make sure we don't have an accident...".

ACE has been doing a lot of good work over the years, monitoring what's happening on both sides of the Channel.

[Bootsy]

I know – but I guess the reality will be if you have an accident or make an insurance claim, then the sh•t will hit the fan. Trying to police it will be impossible, but it will just give the insurance companies another way to get out of paying up – and then you'll get prosecuted for driving an uninsured, illegally-modified car...

Several years ago I asked some friends in France how they got away with driving their highly-modified VWs. Their answer was: 'We just make sure we don't have an accident...".

ACE has been doing a lot of good work over the years, monitoring what's happening on both sides of the Channel.

It is a real concern reading that - I'm surprised it's not been higher profile.

[KS]

Bootsy, get onto ACE and register DDK with them – that way you'll be kept up to date with any news.

[KS]

This is the interesting bit – the feedback form being circulated to official bodies... It's an Excel document

http://tinyurl.com/cpw5lnj

[Ian 2.2S]

This is the interesting bit – the feedback form being circulated to official bodies... It's an Excel document

http://tinyurl.com/cpw5lnj

So why doesn't everybody fill out the relevant comments and send to the numpty . Definition of a stakeholder is anyone affected by an organisations actions.

[KS]

PLEASE TAKE TIME TO READ THIS DOCUMENT:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/doc/roadw ... %29380.pdf

It includes much interesting, scary information. Here's a tiny hint...

Notwithstanding the date of its last roadworthiness test, the competent authority may
require that a vehicle be subject to a roadworthiness test or additional testing before
the date referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, in the following cases:
– after an accident with serious damage to the main safety related components of
the vehicle such as wheels, suspension, deformation zones, steering or brakes,
– when the safety and environmental systems and components of the vehicle
have been altered or modified,
– in case of a change of the holder of the registration certificate of a vehicle.

OK, Historic vehicles may be exempt from this requirement – the problem is the definition of a Historic vehicle:

‘vehicle of historic interest’ means any vehicle which fulfils all the following
conditions :
– It was manufactured at least 30 years ago,
– It is maintained by use of replacement parts which reproduce the historic
components of the vehicle;
– It has not sustained any change in the technical characteristics of its main
components such as engine, brakes, steering or suspension and
– It has not been changed in its appearance;

[Nige]

So it puts the onus onto the MOT tester then? If he passes it then insurers, etc will be happy OK. So in reality it's an attempt to wipe out badly modified cars? I don't see it as a big issue, though I imagine the skinny retro wheel scene might start having troubles as well as the stretched euro look tyre scene. I don't see how a 356 will fail a test because it's running radial tyres rather than crossply.

[KS]

But a 356 that's been lowered, or has a 1720 conversion, or... will.

I know it's easy to think that this won't affect me, it can never happen etc. But we in the UK are the odd ones out in the EU when it comes to the freedom to modify (and even use) our historic vehicles.

I want to think it won't happen, but it would be foolish to ignore what's going on and then cry when it's too late. Now, who's my Euro MP?

Right, I'm off to drive John Surtees' 356 Carrera 2 (before it's legislated off the road...).

[Jonny Hart]

I don't see how a 356 will fail a test because it's running radial tyres rather than crossply.

Well, the crossply comment was a bit flippant but perhaps a better example would be a disc brake upgrade or a high level brake light on a historic vehicle. Are we really to believe that this would make a car illegal on the grounds that it is not per original spec?

They seem to have forgotten that the original type approval was aligned with the driving conditions of way back when. If older cars are to be used safely on today's roads, they need updates IMO.

[Nige]

Now I've had bit of skim read of the doc Uncle Keith posted above and it's all bit vague as there is no specific criteria set for what is allowed or isn't (e.g you cannot fit a 3.6 to a car that was a 1.6) and I've got a short attention span so got bored after a few minutes.

The way I understand is that if you have 100% genuine historic vehicle is doesn't have to have an annual MOT (test of roadworthiness) If it fails out of this exception because it's a 356 with a fat carb'd 2.0l in it then it needs an MOT test, then it's up to the tester to decide if it safe or not? But if you have serious crash in either vehicle then it's potentially going to be checked over to see if you've installed your mod's correctly, this happens anyway doesn't it!

So for most of us there is no change, unless you own a 100% genuine car then it's happy days as it doesn't need an MOT anymore.

"‘roadworthiness test’ means a verification that the parts and components of a vehicle
comply with its safety and environmental characteristics in force at the time of
approval, first registration or entry into service, as well as at the time of retrofitting;"

So you can still modify a part so long it exceeds the "safety and environmental characteristics in force at the time of approval" surely that's a good thing and why we modify stuff any because it's better than the original part fitted at the time of manufacture e.g. a Radial tyre fitted instead of a crossply.

Or am I totally missing something?