Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:09

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 20:46 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7361
Location: Highlands
MCN Riders gather for MCN EU protest [url=""]here[/url]
MCN - Steve Farrell wrote:
Riders gather for MCN EU protest
By Steve Farrell - 22 November 2011 09:15

Riders have started gathering at ports en route to Brussels take part in MCN’s protest over stifling EU measures for bikes.
Protesters are due to meet near the European Commission headquarters before riding to European Parliament, where MEPs had been invited to come out and hear concerns over anti-tampering proposals.
Yesterday, UKIP MEP Marta Andreasen, who proposed the action, sent a memo to other MEPs saying: ‘I have been campaigning with bikers across the UK and MCN to ensure that this needless legislation is thrown on the scrapheap.
‘I would like you to invite you to come and hear their concerns on Tuesday 22nd November at 3pm, and would ask you to vote down the report when it comes to plenary.’
Motorcyclists set to join the ride today include Tory MP Mike Weatherley, Red Dwarf actor Danny John-Jules, MAG president Ian Mutch and the BMF’s Chris Hodder.

A Facebook group backing the protest had gained over 1300 members, including riders from Germany, Holland and Belgium. Tuning could become impossible and even home-maintenance severely hampered under EU proposals.
So-called on-board diagnostic systems on new bikes could detect non-standard parts and trigger a warning light until the 'fault' is rectified by a dealer. Routine faults could be reported in code decipherable only be a dealer, preventing home-servicing.
One aim of the EU plans is to prevent any modifications to the 'powertrain' which rider groups fear could include anything from the throttle to rear tyre.

New bikes are also to get ABS under the proposals, due to be introduced gradually from 2014. MCN is calling for the anti-tampering measures to be thrown out of the plans.

ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists Group) group here
ECR Group wrote:
Bikers' concerns over motorcycle type approval will be heard in European Parliament
Bikers' concerns over motorcycle type approval will be heard in European Parliament
Brussels, 22nd November 2011

As a number of bikers descend on Brussels to warn against draconian legislation affecting new motorbikes, the chairman of the parliament's lead committee on the matter has said that their concerns are being heard, and will be reflected in the final law.

The EU is currently reviewing the so-called 'Type Approval' for two and three wheel vehicles, which sets out performance and design standards for new models. Among bikers' concerns are the possible introduction of anti-tampering equipment, mandatory ABS on high-powered bikes, and on-board diagnostics.

Malcolm Harbour MEP, Conservative chairman of the internal market committee, said that he has listened to the concerns that have been raised by motorcycle users and he is seeking to ensure that the proposals will reflect their views.

He said: "It is important that we listen to the views of bikers who also want safer and more environmentally-friendly bikes. We must ensure that the regulation takes into account their concerns.
"We have already carried out a great deal of work to ensure that bikers can continue to make improvements to their bikes using a wide range of parts. I am confident that their viewpoint on ABS and on-board diagnostics will also be taken into account when we agree the final text.
"There are some aspects of MEPs' amendments that I believe have nothing to do with motorbike type approval, such as mandatory fluorescent jackets. However, I am confident that such proposals will never make it into the final regulation.
"Motorbikes are a passion for many people and EU legislation cannot, and will not, ruin that passion."

Notes: Malcolm Harbour's recent interview with FEMA on the subject is below: ... eturnid=57

Interview with Malcolm Harbour MEP on the Type Approval Regulation
The Regulation on the type approval and market surveillance of two- or three wheelers is approaching the Committee vote in the European Parliament. The legislation will have significant influence on the way motorcycles for the European market will have to be built for the next 20 years. FEMA discusses the latest developments with Malcolm Harbour, Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), which is in leading on this work in the Eurpean Parliament. The British MEP also acts as shadow Rapporteur for his group, the European Conservatives and Reformists.

FEMA: Mr. Harbour, for many riders, especially in the UK, there are fears that the type approval Regulation will bring drastic restrictions of rider's freedom. One British MEP has even launched a petition against the Regulation. What are your views on the sustained criticism geared at this draft Regulation for motorcycles, including a major drive slow demonstration in the UK and a planned demonstration here in Brussels on the day you plan to vote on the Committee Report?

Harbour: There is significant hysteria surrounding the review of this Regulation and clearly I don't support the petition. This is the result of political opportunism playing up rider concerns with the EU lawmaking process. The EU already regulates the type approval of motorbikes and a periodical review of the rules such as this is hardly a surprise.

The exercise underway is principally about updating the type approval process for powered two wheelers to reflect the introduction of new technologies. The modified legislation will also ensure that motorbikes are safer for the public, cleaner and quieter while supporting EU industry competitiveness. The modernised Regulation aims to achieve this.

Specifically, a number of criticisms on the Regulation are simply not relevant to our work, for example high visibility jackets for riders, the banning of older motorcycles from urban areas, or the legitimacy of EU funded research on throttle and speed control. These are all issues which are entirely outside the subject matter of this particular legislative proposal.

FEMA: But some MEPs have tabled Amendments on these subjects, have they not?

Harbour: Indeed, unfortunately, a small number of amendments tabled relate to rider training, side visibility reflectors, roadside random spot-checks, technical examinations of motorbikes and liabilities in accident situations, as well the harmonisation of driver licence schemes. These have added to the general confusion. Some of these issues are totally irrelevant and relate to national proposals in some EU Member States, while others refer to broader European Commission thinking relating to their White Paper on Transport.

Of the problematic Amendments tabled to the Committee report, a number have already been withdrawn, and for those which have not, they do not have majority support and I am trying to persuade colleagues to withdraw them in the run up to the vote. If they happen to survive the vote, which I very much doubt, the Council of Ministers will certainly reject them anyway.

FEMA: Moving on to our key concerns with the Commission's proposal, from the very beginning FEMA expressed disagreement on the Commission's proposal to introduce so called anti-tampering measures [Article 18]1 - not only for light motorcycles, but also for motorcycles above 125cc. Some MEPs have already indicated their support to attenuate or even delete the provision. What are your views on this subject and how do you calculate the position in Parliament?

Harbour: Clearly, my Committee does not support putting an end to aftermarket sales of spare parts for repairs and improvements. Anti-tampering measures are intended to stop alterations to the vehicle's power for safety purposes or to meet environmental performance requirements. These are currently limited to mopeds and motorcycles under 125cc producing less than 11kW.

The Commission has now proposed to extend cover to all vehicles within the scope of the Regulation and we are well aware that there is concern over how this might restrict the ability of after-market parts manufacturers to sell their products because of potential difficulties they may have in securing type approval, particularly for parts produced in small volumes. This uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the concrete measures to prevent modifications of the powertrain are still unknown because the Commission suggests developing them via delegated acts. In any case, the European Parliament retains a right of scrutiny over any such future measures, so it is absolutely not the case that the Commission would be able to design these technical specifications behind closed doors,

So let's be quite clear about this: drive train improvements or part replacements using aftermarket parts will continue to be allowed. In fact, I can tell you that amongst the MEPs most closely involved on the file, we are already agreed on deleting the bulk of Article 18 on anti-tampering.

Finally, relating to this, there are amendments calling for any modifications to the motorcycle to be checked by a competent authority, setting up national agencies to inspect emissions, but I really think these ideas will not meet with majority support, neither in the European Parliament, and definitely not in the Council of Ministers.

FEMA: Our information suggests that ABS will become mandatory for higher powered motorcycles. FEMA opposes mandatory measures in general, including in the case of ABS. Lately it has even been proposed to introduce ABS even on light motorcycles between 51cc and 125cc. Can you tell us more about these developments?

Harbour: Negotiations are still ongoing on this point but I am making headway. The overall cost benefit of ABS is stacked in favour of mandatory ABS for higher powered motorcycles. However, riders have been arguing against this for certain driving conditions such as on loose gravel. This concern is almost exclusively relevant for dual-use bikes (off and on-road) and Enduro and Trial types will have a separate category (L3e) under the revised rules without mandatory ABS, so in truth, it's not such a big issue. I have asked Mr Van de Camp to consider proposing an off-switch for ABS for those PTW categories where ABS will become mandatory. We'll see how this proposal goes.

Indeed, there is political pressure in IMCO to introduce ABS on lesser powered PTWs, but so far, I think I have made a good case with my colleagues against introducing ABS for mopeds, while supporting CBS on light motorcycles between 51cc and 125cc as there is a lack of consistent evidence that ABS would improve safety for these types of motorcycles.

FEMA: The Commission suggests the introduction of on-board diagnostics (OBD). OBD is supposed to indicate malfunctions of the vehicle and could therefore help riders and/or repairers to quickly detect what has to be fixed. You are supporting the introduction of a basic version (OBD Stage I) but you are opposed to the introduction of a further step (OBD Stage II) at a later point in time.

Harbour: Yes, that's right. OBD should not to affect the motorcycle's behaviour, but provide riders with information on malfunctions in the form of a warning light. I am supporting OBD Stage (I) requirements but proposing to delete OBD Stage (II) from the draft Regulation because I am convinced that these would entail significantly higher costs for manufacturers which would be reflected on retail prices, without demonstrating a good return on investment in terms of added benefits.

FEMA: Motorcycles are lagging behind cars when it comes to emission abatement. FEMA therefore supports the introduction of stricter emission limits, but only under the condition that manufacturers guarantee the durability of the vehicle's emissions. FEMA supports a durability requirement for a mileage of 50.000 kilometers. What are your views on the topic? Why are you criticizing the Commission's proposal for durability testing and what is your alternative?

Harbour: This is a real technology dilemma for motorbikes. There are currently no European durability requirements for motorbikes, so we are starting with basically nothing here, although tests are required for some other markets (such as the US EPA test). The Commission does not specify any particular test in its proposal which doesn't help the situation. Referring you to the UK impact assessment (the only EU Member State to have actually done one by the way), I disagree that a durability requirement for a mileage of 50.000 kilometers is a good thing which ever way you look at it. If this is introduced, the test time, estimated at one year, will be a significant problem.

From my experience as an automotive engineer, I can confirm to you that durability testing is potentially extremely time consuming and burdensome. This is the very reason why, for cars, use of standard, more conservative deterioration factors is permitted as an alternative to testing. This is also why US motorcycle emissions legislation allows for extrapolation on durability testing. The introduction of durability requirements in EU motorcycle emissions legislation should include similar flexibility to avoid disproportionate burdens on manufacturers.

I think the Commission should have considered including additional equivalent emission durability test options by means of accelerated ageing of vehicles and components in the delegated and implementing acts.

FEMA: In some countries in Europe motorcycles have to be presented to a periodical technical inspection. Some of the inspection schemes also include emission checks. The emission requirements today are not very high and the methods applied for emission testing are rather rough therefore motorcycles hardly fail these tests. But stricter emission limits will require more accurate testing procedures. FEMA simply wants to prevent riders in these countries from failing emission checks caused by degradation and particularly from having to pay the bill for it.

Harbour: Yes, I understand and agree with your objective but I'm really not sure the technology is there yet. This also partly explains why I proposed to delete the EURO 5(6) emissions stage. EURO5(6) requirements come far too early for manufacturers. The proposal is roughly equivalent to lowering effective emissions in one single stage to all previous EURO stages put together. Given the particular strains on this sector, we at least need a much longer lead in time, or we run the risk of placing serious difficulties on our manufacturers, and an EU market which is too difficult to access for manufacturers outside the EU. I think these proposals would ultimately hamper consumer choice, and of equal importance, efforts to position PTWs as playing a key role in reducing both congestion in urban areas and overall road transport emissions.

FEMA: Mr. Harbour, thank you very much for this interview.

Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 1.529s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]