Now in the public domain is information about the political moves of the European Commission’s proposal for mandatory Road Worthiness Testing (RWT) which was launched in September at a meeting of the Transport and Tourism (TRAN) of the European Parliament.
The TRAN Committee will be the responsible committee of MEPS to look at, submit proposals for changes to the RWT proposal itself and eventually submit a final draft document to the European Parliament for agreement.
That is the simplified version and if you have been following the Regulation proposal on type approval etc you will know that there is a ”complicated” line of decision making and compromises in committees and council before any agreement can have a final vote in the EU Parliament.
At Right To Ride we have just begun to make initial forays to contact “players” involved for discussions, we wait for the announcement of the Rapporteur and Shadow Rapporteurs, MEPs in charge of the proposal file to make contact with them.
Some riders and their organisations have already held demos mainly in Brussels and FEMA (the Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations) handed a petition to the European Commission when there was a consultation, before the proposal was announced, to voice their opposition to the impending proposal.
As we already have RWT(MoT) here in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK (albeit a slightly different system), our main concern is that there does not appear to be what is already being hailed as a “Super MOT” arriving on our shores.
A first glance at the proposals suggests that this does not seem to be the case.
Even if emissions testing is introduced for motorcycles, this is a long way down the road and would not necessarily put the cost of an MoT up to an unsustainable price (which is being suggested) and would be welcome so that we can “prove” that our bikes are as green as we say they are and sustain that “greenability” during their use and life time.
TRAN Committee
So what was discussed at the TRAN Committee?
From the public minutes we know that there was an exchange of views with Commissioner Kallas on the Road Worthiness package and that MEPs that spoke were: Mathieu Grosch, Saïd El Khadraoui, Philippe De Backer, Michael Cramer, Jacqueline Foster, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Jim Higgins, Ismail Ertug, Hubert Pirker, Inés Ayala Sender, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Isabelle Durant, Brian Simpson.
These include UK MEPs , Brian Simpson (Labour) and Chair of the TRAN Committee, Jacqueline Foster (Conservative) and Jim Higgins from Ireland. The EPP Group will provide the Rapporteur, which, if this is a UK MEP they will be from the Conservative party.
From the TRAN Committee comes the latest newsletter in which there are more details on the discussions:
As we have already heard from the European Commissioner Siim Kallas, he reiterated that, “More than five lives could be saved on Europe’s roads every day with the implementation of this new legislative package.”
According to the Commission,” there are too many vehicles with technical defects on the road. Moreover, many technical defects with serious implications for safety (such as ABS and Electronic Stability Control) are not even checked under current rules.
The role of Periodic Technical Inspections (PTI) is to ensure that vehicles in operation are properly maintained and tested, so that their performance remains in accordance with the type-approval throughout their lifetime. Vehicle checks are therefore fundamental to road safety.”
Commissioner Kallas also explained, “the main points of this legislative package:
- compulsory testing for scooters and motorbikes;
- increasing the frequency of periodic tests;
- improving the quality of checks by setting common minimum standards for deficiencies, equipment and inspectors;
- mandatory testing of electronic safety components and measures clamping down on mileage fraud.
- setting up a risk-rating system aimed at focusing inspections on vehicles operated by undertaking with poor safety records, thus rewarding vehicles operated by undertakings that are focused on safety and the environment (sic).
The newsletter reports that, “Members showed their support to any legislative measure aimed at improving road safety, stressing that quality of tests was as important as their frequency.”
However, “Some expressed concern regarding the current differences among Member States in relation to technical inspections and the lack of the mutual recognition of tests.”
Importantly for the riders’ lobby and rider organisations, “Not all groups welcomed the inclusion of motorbikes and tractors in the proposal, fearing that this could lead to an increased administrative burden.”
Finishing on the issue of historic vehicles the Commissioner was reported in relation to these vehicles as saying, “That the proposal is not a threat to these kinds of vehicles as long as they use reproductions of their historic components.”
Rider Reaction
These last two comments have already created reactions as mentioned above whereby rider organisations in some EU member states have raised their objections to the proposal either with the view that RWT is unnecessary or that the increased frequency proposed will not improve safety.
Equally historic vehicles owners and groups that heavily modify older vehicles have concerns about the implications of the proposal in terms of what will be allowed or considered as an “historic” vehicle by the Commission.
Onward Discussion
As with other proposals from the Commission, this will be discussed by the parliamentary group (TRAN) which will undoubtedly put forward a counter-proposal with a raft of amendments. Then the various stakeholders will be given an opportunity to have their say and the document will be discussed, modified, parts will be added or deleted, other MEP Committees will give their opinion, until all three bodies – the Commission, Council and Parliament have come to an agreement.
Generally this takes about three years.
So at Right To Ride our view is that we need to look at the proposal, get talking to those involved and report the facts as they develop so that riders can make up their minds in order to debate the issues, based on the information provided.
Links
Tran Committee – Click Here
September 2012 Newsletters – Click Here
EU Transport Council
Delivered by: Stephen Hammond MP
DfT/UK Government continues its reporting from EU meetings regarding its ongoing opposition to the EU proposed regulation on roadworthiness testing.
“The Council held a debate on a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness testing for motor vehicles and their trailers.
I intervened to express the UK’s serious concerns about the proposal.
I argued that it would impose substantial costs in the UK, with negligible road safety benefits.
I highlighted that the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee have issued an opinion that the proposal was against the principles of subsidiarity.
I also argued that the Commission’s Impact Assessment failed to provide convincing evidence of road safety benefits overall. The UK’s concerns were echoed by a number of other Member States.”
Click Here
A Directive Rather Than Regulations
Following up on our previous snippets on news around Road Worthiness Testing – DfT not supporting plans for EU MOT legislation. Northern Ireland Assembly – Draconian European Vehicle Testing must not come to Northern Ireland, Committee urges.
The latest document is a rather lengthy press release from the Council of the EU of 29th Oct. It looks like the comments from NI Assembly (Environment Committee) are not isolated especially with regards to a preference for a Directive rather than Regulations.
Page 14
“Many member states, however, had misgivings about the legal form of the proposed legislation and would prefer a directive rather than a regulation; they considered that a directive, which leaves more room for manoeuvre to take into account the specificities of the member states, would be more appropriate to achieve an improved degree of harmonisation and adequate implementation. One delegation did not see the need for an initiative such as proposed by the Commission at the current stage, pointing to the high costs involved and questioning the benefits in terms of road safety.
A majority of member states voiced concerns about the lists of vehicles to be tested, with a large number of delegations questioning the extension of the checks to two- or three-wheeled vehicles, tractors or light trailers. Moreover, many delegations were not convinced by the proposal to increase the frequency of tests”.
We now have just one duck to place so that they are all lined up in a row – so a full report to follow.
For Press release – Click Here
More on UK and RWT
Secretary of State for Transport will not be supporting plans for EU MOT legislation at the first Transport Council of the Cypriot Presidency (the Presidency) in Luxembourg on Monday 29 October.
In a written statement by Patrick McLoughlin he says, ” The UK strongly supports the ongoing roadworthiness testing of vehicles as a worthwhile contribution to road safety.
However, the UK is very concerned by the potential cost burden of the European Commission’s proposal as it is currently framed. The UK alone has identified costs of over €1 billion without any discernable benefit in road safety. We have also identified significant administrative burdens embedded in the proposal that similarly would produce no road safety benefit. In the current economic climate the UK does not wish to see any additional cost to European citizens, businesses or governments unless clearly justified by road safety benefits.”
One could could say it has nothing to do with motorcycles specifically but at Right To Ride we will roll along with this reasoning. A full statement and report on these developements and conversations we have had recently with all the players in this to follow tomorrow!
For Written Statement – Click Here
Road Worthiness Testing Proposal
From the UK Government regarding the Road Worthiness Testing proposal:
“An orientation debate will be held on a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness testing for motor vehicles and their trailers (First Reading). The UK strongly supports the ongoing roadworthiness testing of vehicles as a worthwhile contribution to road safety.
However, the UK is very concerned by the potential cost burden of the European Commission’s proposal as it is currently framed. The UK alone has identified costs of over €1 billion without any discernable benefit in road safety. We have also identified significant administrative burdens embedded in the proposal that similarly would produce no road safety benefit. In the current economic climate the UK does not wish to see any additional cost to European citizens, businesses or governments unless clearly justified by road safety benefits”.
Click Here pdf document
The House of Commons has also published its views (Reasoned Opinion) on the proposal:
Click Here pdf document
This includes comments from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Northern Ireland Assembly rejects the proposal because of the cost implications and counter proposes a Directive rather than regulations.
The reason is that “This would allow for flexibility for Member States and their devolved regions to tailor their road safety actions according to need rather than incurring costs for neglibible returns”. What that means is the the UK could opt out because it already has a workable system in place.
Draconian European Vehicle Testing must not come to Northern Ireland, Committee urges – Click Here
In the meantime we’ve written to our man in the DOE to find out more regarding implications for motorcycles – to find out if there are issues beyond the proposed extention of the test to include emissions.
What comes around goes around.
During the progress through the IMCO Committee, Council and Commission meetings of the so called “Type Approval” proposal we were in contact with the various players and were able to advise on a number of technical aspects for example adaptions for disabled riders – in discussion with Rick Hulse of the National Association of Bikers with a Disability; Sidecar issues relating to small series manufacturers and definitions – in discussion with Rod Young of Motopodd; Custom bike issues relating to steerability and turnability in discussion with Andy Hornsby of American-V magazine. All of this in order to provide riders expertise to these committees and organisations and we know that our input had a positive effect in redefining specific details within the proposal.
We also provided information to MEPs who were ill-informed and as a result have built up a sound relationship based on mutual respect in order to ensure that we have their ear. We will voice our opinions and ensure that riders from Northern Ireland and the UK are listened to. We will not go to meetings and sit in silence.
Noting the Rapporteurs and Shadow Rapporteurs in the TRAN committee regarding the RWT proposal, we aim to contact them to open up a dialogue in which we can discuss the concerns of riders and provide once again our expert opinion.
However that engagement in the process and discussion or attendance to meetings should not be seen as being as some pro-european status that sells riders down the river in someway, it is simply working with the process that is in place!
At this point in time, we see the potential benefits of extending the MoT to include emissions testing, considering that the industry will be obliged to declare emissions because this would suggest that road tax would be based on emissions – as it is for cars and the majority of new motorcycles would benefit from lower road tax as a direct consequence.
Like all proposals, the devil is in the detail and as this proposal progresses, we will keep our supporters and readers informed.