Do you own a car or motorbike?

[Arianwen]

If so, has it been modified in any way, shape or form - even something as simple as non-factory wheels? Have you added indicators to a historic motorbike so make it safer? Have you added smoked tailights? Has a previous owner changed anything?

If you have and you live in the EU, in six weeks your car will be illegal to drive. And no, this isn't scaremongering.

A law is being passed denouncing any sort of modifications as un-roadworthy, making millions of cars no better than scrap and putting hundreds of thousands of car tuners/fitters/mechanics out of work.

Quoting from the Department for Transport document:-

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)

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.

The characteristics they're talking about? They want everything to be as factory-standard as if it's just come off the showroom floor. No more generic car parts from Halfords. MOT prices will go up; repair prices will go up. Hundreds of tuners/modifiers/mechanics will be put out of work as what they do will no longer be legal, and millions of cars will no longer be 'drivable'. It will be very difficult to make any car over 30 years old safe to drive on the roads, due to a requirement for 'original' parts. There is this horrific myth out there that modified cars are dangerous and that seems to be what they're trying to crack down on. While I'm as sick of chav-tastic Corsas that can't go over speed bumps without bottoming out as the next person, this will also affect all the modified cars that aren't silly.

You can read more about the proposal here and there is a forum with ideas about things you can do to protest this nonsense here.

N.B. This is NOT a Eurozone-bashing thread and if it ends up being P'n'R'd I won't be pleased. I'm trying to raise awareness of a very important change in the law which will affect millions; not start a UKIP debate. If you want a UKIP debate, go get yourself guilded up and have it in the Politics and Religion section.

[Jo Bennett]

Without wanting to be rude, do you have anything from a slightly more... mainstream source? Usually these things are misinterpreted and blown out of all proportion. The blog post reads like someone has stumbled across a proposal and, being no more a lawyer than I am, is putting the worst possible interpretation on it. Not only that, but the poster seems confused about the difference between the European Commission and European Parliament in a way that doesn't bode well for their credibility.

[dral]

Seems a bit misrepresented, even at a quick look at the posted link bikes aren't covered nor are OEM pattern parts so I don't a big impact on regular motorists and halfords and the like will be fine, but as someone who enjoys tuning cars this is still very disturbing.

I don't really understand the need either,in the UK we've got a pretty tight MOT system, there are abuses, but in the overall scale of things I'd suggest we have very few problems with unroadworthy cars. I guess that's not consistent across the EU though.

[Arianwen]

Jo: There is a link to the official EEC proposal on the ACE page, but here is a direct link.

To me, the problematic section is:
"European type-approval on the basis of the 'Certificate of Conformity' issued by the vehicle manufacturer" and then “….The goal of roadworthiness testing is to check the functionality of safety components, the environmental performance and the compliance of a vehicle with its approval.”

Complying with the original Certificate of Conformity = using branded, factory standard parts, as using other parts will not conform to the factory type-approval.

dral: to me a motorbike falls under "The scope of vehicles to be tested will be extended to the powered two or three wheelers, light trailers up to 3.5 tons and tractors with a design speed exceeding 40 km/h", being as they are a powered two wheeler with a design speed exceeding 40 km/h - or am I wrong? (I will admit to not being a car/bike person).

While I can agree with cars being tested for roadworthiness more often (the number of brand new cars I see with badly adjusted headlights, engine problems etc. that will not see an MOT for three years is ridiculous), the number of car modifiers I now know (my partner is a skilled mechanic/automotive engineer) who take more care of their vehicle than Joe Bloggs in his Audi is silly. Also, according to the numbers in the EEC proposal, only 2,000 accidents out of 35,000 in the EU in 2009 were due to defective vehicles. So what about the 33,000 other accidents?

[yabbadabba]

So what about the 33,000 other accidents?

Defective humans.

I have sympathy with both sides of the argument here, so its going to need some deeper investigation I'm afraid. Thanks for bringing it up though.

[Jo Bennett]

Jo: There is a link to the official EEC proposal on the ACE page, but here is a direct link.

To me, the problematic section is:
"European type-approval on the basis of the 'Certificate of Conformity' issued by the vehicle manufacturer" and then “….The goal of roadworthiness testing is to check the functionality of safety components, the environmental performance and the compliance of a vehicle with its approval.”

Complying with the original Certificate of Conformity = using branded, factory standard parts, as using other parts will not conform to the factory type-approval.

I saw the link to the proposal, but it is written in legalese - it's how it is being interpreted I'd like to see more on. Until someone actually has some direct answers as to what it will mean in practice (rather than straight bananas supposition and guesswork), I don't think it's worth getting worked up about. For example, my reading of type approval is that it can apply to components, as well as whole vehicles, and hence so long as the parts have type approval, even if not part of the original car, it won't matter. So, for example, adding indicators to an old bike will be fine so long as the indicators themselves have type approval.

Like I say, I'm not a lawyer, so I haven't the first clue about what is actually going on, but alarm bells ring for me when the blogosphere gets worked up about something and there is zip about it in the media. Apart from anything else, if they could substantiate this, the Telegraph would be having a field day.

[Burnthem]

I'd be very surprised is this is as bad as you're fearing Arianwen, just looking at one aspect that you mention - Halfords - Thier profits would nosedive, they might in all likelyhood go under thanks to this, if what you fear is true. I'm having trouble believing that this is the case.

[Hrw-Amen]

Yes I am reasonably sure if these things were to be coming about in the manner stated it would be all over the media by now and the likes of Halfords (To mention just one.) would be kicking up no end of stink getting the message across. Then again I guess I could be wrong.

[Arianwen]

I'm Arianwen's other half (I protest! Theft!), and here is a long and detailed post.

Jo - Here is the DfT page on the European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval. Where type approval is mentioned it can either be construed to mean a specific component approval like the E marking on window glass; or the ECWVTA itself. In most cases where type approval is mentioned in transport related documents it is in referance to the ECWVTA, and specific legislation such as the E marking is referred to a "relevant standards" or "specific legislation" as these standards can vary from country to country.

To gain ECWVTA a vehicle that is typical of the type is submitted for testing. This needs to be done for nearly every variation of the manufacturers options list. i.e. a 1.4 Corsa, a 1.2 Corsa, a diesel 1.7 Corsa, etc. and every version of the optional wheels and interior changed ad infinitum. Once these tests are passed the specific model that has passed is considered to have had its "type" approved, meaning all parts on that vehicle are OK for use in that application. This information is stored along with a "certificate of conformity" and may/will form the basis of the new MOT test regime (not the case currently, at the moment its is about safety not conformity).

While an additional or modified component on a car may conform to the relevant standard required, it will not have been fitted to the vehicle at the time it was submitted for its ECWVTA, and thus this is deemed a change of specification and essentially invalidates the WHOLE VEHICLE type approval. This is the case for things as silly as fitting a set of 17" Vauxhall Astra wheels to a Vauxhall Corsa that came with 15" wheels. Now in this case both cars would have been type approved and thus the wheels would have been approved, however they were never approved in the application they are being fitted in. If these regulations are taken at face value then the only way this would be possible would be to submit a Corsa for type approval fitted with 17" Astra wheels (despite this currently not being a problem and being a completely safe and legal situation).

The DfT consultation document does seem to indicate that this may be the case (I will get Arianwen to find this and post it later).

Speaking on the behalf of ACE (and admittedly without full authority here) the original post was made very quickly before the full details were available, since that post has been made several people have been looking at the regulations more closely and better information will be available shortly. Admittedly there has been some confusion as to if this is a "directive" or a "regulation" which have different implications in law. There have also been some crossed wires that hopefully can be cleared up asap.

My personal interpretation at the moment is that this may not spell total illegality of modifications, however it is an extremely vague document that needs serious revision and further clarification in the form of a redraft before we have any chance of being able to see how this will pan out.
At worst, well we can all see it as the end.
At its least then the current MOT will handle a lot of it, and it will put up serious legislative barriers to regulate vehicles that fall outside of their ECWVTA or outside of the historic definition set down in the charter of Turin - which dictates STANDARD. The upshot of this would be further testing each time something is changed (which I am all for provided it is affordable and under current BIVA legislation it is not) or an allowance would be made provided the part was deemed not to contravene safety or emissions.

Currently the most likely situation is a combination of the best case leading to the worst case, precedent is set with the TUV (very expensive to get things certified thus killing small engineering), the French system (where modification is banned altogether), and the Spanish system (where people have been failing annual inspection due to factory fitted sunroofs that were not listed on the original certificate of conformity, resulting in the vehicle being taken off the road until BMW can provide a proof of factory fitting - currently costing upwards of £250).

Hrw-Amen: Alas not, as the consultation was done via a well-hidden page within the EU site and few people have been aware of this until now, the first indications of it was when the DfT sent out a consultation document. Most of the MOT testers spoken to don't know about it or that the testing regime is currently under review, and they're the people who are supposed to be enforcing it. It has been referenced in the media, as that's what the motorbike go-slow protests have been about - but the media have been treating it as a motorbike-only issue and pretty much ignoring it. The ACE are not just the only people concerned about this, several bodies have statements up but as said it is early days and new info is coming out everyday, expect to see a lot more of this in the weeks to come.

Here and here are some links to the Roadworthiness testing in the media/online.

I'm going to have to give the laptop back to the Wench now, but I will follow up with more soon.

[Burnthem]

Ok, so bottom line, how much will the inevitable new tests cost and who is pulling the strings here and looking to reap the profit? Stealth tax anyone? Much like the CSCS card scheme in the construction industry, it sounds just like a nice way to raise revenue without actually achieving anything worthwhile.

[dral]

dral: to me a motorbike falls under "The scope of vehicles to be tested will be extended to the powered two or three wheelers, light trailers up to 3.5 tons and tractors with a design speed exceeding 40 km/h", being as they are a powered two wheeler with a design speed exceeding 40 km/h - or am I wrong? (I will admit to not being a car/bike person).

Sorry, you're quite right, that'll teach me to think i can contribute something useful that early in the morning.

I'm guessing as a directive it'll then be down to UK implimentation (which historically we've done and inforced very clsoe to the directive). I know the TUV system in germany which seems very similiar causes all sorts of problems, the worst (in my view) being the upfront development costs for small engineering companies.

I'll try to set aside some time to read some more (before making quick posts...)

[Hrw-Amen]

So what about modifications to vehicles for people with certain medical needs? I have not yet had my car modified but have been considering it so that i can easier get my walking frame in and out as well as myself. I have even contemplated getting my old motorcycle going again but converted to a trike with a similar purpose in mind. Obviously all of that would need to be done properly, but would those modifications be allowed as there are a lot of them around already and I am not sure they fall under what people would normally consider it anything out of the ordinary. As opposed to of course customisations for purely cosmetic or engine (Speed etc.) performance purposes.

[TheBigBadWolf]

Like I say, I'm not a lawyer, so I haven't the first clue about what is actually going on, but alarm bells ring for me when the blogosphere gets worked up about something and there is zip about it in the media. Apart from anything else, if they could substantiate this, the Telegraph would be having a field day.

Pretty much this, there has been zero mention in any of the tabloids, any organistation that run a fleet, rental car companies, zip, my car is a company car with non standard parts, a 61 plate Audi A3 and have heard nout from work, if it does come through I look forward to a new car so soon though