Are you anti EU's project to eliminate modification of motorcycles (Type Approval)?

[Capo]

http://ducatiforum.co.uk/f16/you-anti-eus-project-eliminate-modification-motorcycles-type-approval-5873/

[jerry]

Off course i am Anti EU everything ,

[Pomp1]

I bet you're not anti-not paying import tax on Ducati parts as part of the EU Jerry ;)

[slob]

An opportunity has arisen, at the eleventh hour, to thwart the European Commission's project to eliminate modification of motorcycles (known as Type Approval).

Basically Jon Strong (a rather clever Yamaha 600 rider) examined the Commission's justification for Type Approval and found it to be based on spurious evidence, and that the Commission was in breach of EU Treaties in drafting the legislation. He complained to the EU Ombudsman who said the Commission had a case to answer, but meanwhile the Parliament is going ahead and voting (in two weeks) to make Type Approval law anyway.
Unless we stop them!
Feel free to follow the instructions below, circulated by Paddy at MAG. It takes two minutes. You enter your name, address and email, and paste the stuff below. Job done. It might not sound much but it will throw a spanner in the works.

And pass it on!

With the EU Parliament vote on Type Approval approaching (20th Nov), here's an action that MAG would be grateful you got involved in.

It's the signing of a petition for the EU Parliament, however it will take a few minutes because perhaps unsurprisingly, it isn't as straight forward as writing your name... Please do spend the time.

You will be actually creating your own petition, but so that it links with the one that MAG member Jon Strong has already submitted, it is vital that you use the same title.

If you follow the link (https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/ petition.html.) you first put in your personal details and ignore the box that asks if you are representing an organisation, (unless you are perhaps representing your bike club)
Then enter stage 2, which asks if you are happy for your petition to be public etc, below which you can enter the title of your petition.

Please enter the title as-

Petition requesting postponement of IMCO and EU Parliament Plenary votes on Regulation for Powered Two Wheeler Type Approval and Market Surveillance until EU Ombudsman has published decision on complaint covering the proposed regulation - For urgent consideration.


Then, in the big body text box, please enter the following, or some version of it:

Dear Signora Mazzoni and members of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament.

I am requesting my name be added to the petition submitted by Mr Jonathan Strong

Title of Petition: Petition requesting postponement of IMCO and EU Parliament Plenary votes on Regulation for Powered Two Wheeler Type Approval and Market Surveillance until EU Ombudsman has published decision on complaint covering the proposed regulation - For urgent consideration.
Dated: 09/10/2012I believe Mr Strong has raised a fundamental question concerning how we are governed under treaty law and how the European Commission as lawmakers should honour and follow the laws that grant them the powers to propose laws that affect us all. As the European Parliament appointed Ombudsman Diamandouros to decide on maladministration by EU institutions, it would be right for the European Parliament to respect his position, he having been requested to decide whether there has been maladministration in the drafting of the Proposed Type Approval regulation.I agree with Mr Strong that if lawmakers are not clearly seen to be following law and acting within their powers, they present a poor model for citizens who are expected to follow the laws they make and bring the institutions of the European Union into disrepute.Along with Mr Strong I request that the European Parliament postpones its key votes in IMCO and in Plenary session until the European Ombudsman has published his decision as to whether there was maladministration in the process by which the draft legislative act covering Type Approval and proposed by the European Commission was drafted and consequently as to the lawfulness of that act.Yours sincerely.

[MrsC_772]

Done.

Thanks for the reminder - got the e-mail from MAG HQ last night but didn't get around to it yesterday.

[stopintime]

THIS IS WHAT NORWEGIAN MINISTER WROTE TO EU


The Minister
N-0030 Oslo, Norway

Mr. Efthemios Flourentzou,
Minister of Communication and Works, Cyprus
President of the Council of the European Union
Oslo, 29th October 2012
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC
Dear Mr. Flourentzou,
I write to you in your capacity as President of the Council of the European Union.
Please let me inform you that I welcome the Commission proposal and your engagement to prioritize the work on this proposal. It constitutes an ambitious step towards harmonized rules on roadworthiness testing and thereby towards increased road safety - not only for the European Union, but also for the European Economic Area, which includes Norway. I have the following comments to the questions suggested by the Presidency in preparation for the discussion of the Council meeting 29 October:
Question 1:
Do you agree that a sufficient degree of harmonization of testing can better be reached by the legislative initiative(s), as proposed by the Commission?
I support the initiative(s) to integrate the soft-law measures on roadworthiness tests into the legislative text, in order to achieve a sufficient degree of harmonization and quality of testing across the EU. I also mainly support the proposed points of inspection and the methods and instruments of control.
However, I do question the proportionality of some of the specific testing equipment, and believe this should be further examined. Furthermore, I mainly support the demands on the minimum competence and training requirements of inspectors. I consider, though, the proposal too ambitious on this point. I believe the extensive coursing and certification of inspectors as required in the proposal, will amount to considerable costs for the industry and make it more difficult to retrieve qualified
inspectors. I therefore believe that the proposal should be modified on this point.
Question 2:
Do you consider that the list of vehicles to be submitted to periodic roadworthiness tests and the frequency of these tests, as proposed by the Commission, are crucial drivers to achieve the underlying objectives of the proposal?
I do not consider this crucial for the objectives of the proposal.
I do not support the incorporation of two wheelers in the regime, as I believe that the link between accidents and technical failure should be further scrutinized. National statistics concerning accidents involving two-wheelers, indicates that technical failure as a (contributing) cause of accidents is modest. According to these statistics, other risk factors are the main causes of accidents. In addition, two-wheelers are often used on a seasonable basis due to climate conditions. On this basis, the proposal of including two wheelers in the periodic testing regime, seems not to be proportionate.
I also question the initiative of including light trailers in the testing regime -----------snip-------
As to the proposed inclusion of tractors with a design speed exceeding 40 km/h, I suggest the periodic tests should be limited to such vehicles with a mileage exceeding a certain qualified level, in order to avoid unnecessary costs for owners of tractors that are solely used for agricultural purposes.
I am also unsure as to the suggested frequency of periodic tests in the proposal, which imposes an increased burden on vehicle owners. I fear that the proposed frequency will lead to disproportionate costs for the vehicle owners and to capacity problems for the workshops.
Yours sincerely,
Marit Arnstad

[jerry]

I bet you're not anti-not paying import tax on Ducati parts as part of the EU Jerry ;)

Dont be nieve mate in the UKEUSSR you are paying tax on everything..also although the EU may have done a little good here and there (just like religions) on balance its a really bad thing , run by the elites for the elites , undemocratic, bureaucratic and bad for the ordinary people .

[Yorkie]

Done. I dont think i still have all the original bits!!!!

Yorkie.