New EU motorbike laws - Protests all over EU 25th Sept

Flyin Irishman

slashtom wrote: »

Are you referring to components like a race can that is marked "not for road use" being classed as illegal?

No, it refers to components that are currently used in race bikes, and also in road bikes:

If systems, components or seperate technical units on a list in a delegated act to this regulation, have a dual use, for vehicles intended exclusively for racing on roads and for vehicles intended for use on public roads, they may not be sold or offered for sale to consumers

So any component that may also be used in a race bike would no longer be road legal. This could be made to include things as common as air filters and tyres

turbodiesel

Flyin Irishman wrote: »

No, it refers to components that are currently used in race bikes, and also in road bikes:



So any component that may also be used in a race bike would no longer be road legal. This could be made to include things as common as air filters and tyres

Race tyres that are stamped "not for road use" are illegal anyway. There's plenty of road legal soft compound tyres that not do more than 2-3 k miles on a 1 litre sportsbike and even less if used on track days. I can't see the air filter coming in there either as long as we use the basis of like with like when a car uses an induction kit and still passes the NCT. Never thought I'd say this but an NCT under the same frequency as a car NCT is probably a good idea. But I will be out protesting as there a few items in there that i am very much against.....

When they decide that car drivers can only drive more powerful vehicles according to stages of experience than i might consider bikers being restricted on a likewise basis but as it stands if you can afford the insurance there's nothingn stopping an 18 year old getting into a high powered car with only a freshly passed driving licence under his belt......

I'm not anti 4 wheels myself and i spend just as much time in the car as i do my bike but I do believe in equal restrictions for all inexperienced road users.

carsQhere

slashtom wrote: »

Thanks for the links.

Although I think MAG UK are stretching the truth a little by stating that "Full sleeve day-glo clothing for riders and passengers has been proposed in the Irish Parliament" when in fact it is merely a proposal of a Government agency.

To someone outside Ireland the difference may not be apparent.

Remember, learners are already subject to mandatory high viz as they have to wear a tabard.

slashtom wrote: »

The PTI on the other hand is not without merit. The NCT has improved the quality of cars on the road, and there is little doubt that there are many poorly maintained bikes that shouldn't be on the road either.

PTI for bikes would be hugely expensive. Bikes are about 3% of vehicles. Modifying even a small number of Nct test centres to cater for bikes, training operatives, etc would result in a test cost far in excess of that for cars unless the costs were shared in which case the NCT for cars would go up in price also.

IIRC the RSA's own figures showed a statistically insignificant number of bike accidents were caused by mechanical failure. I think it was less than 1% and since bikes are only about 3% of traffic on the road what's the point?

daenerysstormborn3

I think some of you are missing the point here. Any part that can be used in both a racing bike and a road bike, I'm not talking about things that have stamped on them "not for road use", are going to be made illegal to buy.

And for those of you saying "I can't see this coming in and I can't see that coming in", it's there in black and white what the proposals are and the likes of the RSA and the government are going to make it as difficult as possible for bikers in Ireland because as far as they're concerned we're all speed freaks and the only possible solution to any problems on the roads is to get rid of us altogether.

Pique

pixiebean22 wrote: »

I think some of you are missing the point here. Any part that can be used in both a racing bike and a road bike, I'm not talking about things that have stamped on them "not for road use", are going to be made illegal to buy.

And for those of you saying "I can't see this coming in and I can't see that coming in", it's there in black and white what the proposals are and the likes of the RSA and the government are going to make it as difficult as possible for bikers in Ireland because as far as they're concerned we're all speed freaks and the only possible solution to any problems on the roads is to get rid of us altogether.

This is reminiscent of the 'reds under the bed' paranoia.

They want us gone.
They hate us.
They're out to get us.

Please !

Governments are not gonna sign off on legislation that will remove a large source of revenue (tax, licencing, fuel excise etc) from the coffers.

Removing parts that have a use in racing from road use is completely ridiculous and WILL NOT HAPPEN. In that case, what's to stop them from barring, all superbikes, supersports, 125s etc from the road as they race as standard on tracks and road races ? In essence, all faired bikes are illegal. All motocross/enduro. All that will be left will be streetfighters, tourers and big trailies. (My dream of owning a Street Triple R remains a possibility:) ).
You think Ducati & BMW are gonna allow that (and remember they are large lobbyists) ? No GS 650/800, S1000RR, 898, 1098 ? No KTMs at all.

The diagnostic ports for 'instant performance readouts' is impractical and will also be shot down. How do you retrofit things like this on older non FI bikes with sfa of an ECU (if any) ?

Barring older bikes from urban areas, possible to introduce, impossible to enforce.

The PTI is very plausible and no harm.
Compulsory Hi-Vis is likely.
Mandatory DRL is probable but tbh, who here rides without lights in any case?

daenerysstormborn3

Pique wrote: »

This is reminiscent of the 'reds under the bed' paranoia.

They want us gone.
They hate us.
They're out to get us.

Please !

Governments are not gonna sign off on legislation that will remove a large source of revenue (tax, licencing, fuel excise etc) from the coffers.

Removing parts that have a use in racing from road use is completely ridiculous and WILL NOT HAPPEN. In that case, what's to stop them from barring, all superbikes, supersports, 125s etc from the road as they race as standard on tracks and road races ? In essence, all faired bikes are illegal. All motocross/enduro. All that will be left will be streetfighters, tourers and big trailies. (My dream of owning a Street Triple R remains a possibility:) ).
You think Ducati & BMW are gonna allow that (and remember they are large lobbyists) ? No GS 650/800, S1000RR, 898, 1098 ? No KTMs at all.

The diagnostic ports for 'instant performance readouts' is impractical and will also be shot down. How do you retrofit things like this on older non FI bikes with sfa of an ECU (if any) ?

Barring older bikes from urban areas, possible to introduce, impossible to enforce.

The PTI is very plausible and no harm.
Compulsory Hi-Vis is likely.
Mandatory DRL is probable but tbh, who here rides without lights in any case?

Explain to me how you know this?

Nobody is being paranoid. These restrictions and proposals are being considered, therefore there is a possibility that they will come into effect. I don't see how that equates to people being paranoid.

And no, I don't think the bike manufacturers want this to happen but what say will they have if these proposals are made into law?

Running diagnostics on older bikes won't be much of a problem considering they're trying to ban bikes over 7 years old from urban areas which effectively would lead to them being off the road anyway.

Aside from what little information we do have, the most worrying part of all this is the Delegated Acts. What do they involve? What other restrictions will they bring into effect? We won't know until they're already signed off on.

I know some people may view this thread as being OTT in that it is impossible to believe that the government will sign off on the majority of these proposals but the fact remains that they are being considered with the possibility of some, maybe all, of them being signed off on and brought into law. That in itself is reason enough to protest and try our best to fight this.

KTRIC

What about older bikes, I can't see how they are going to retrofit all this stuff to them. Do they really think I'm going to bring my race tuned GSX 1400 in to be dicked around with ??? :rolleyes:

Paparazzo

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Explain to me how you know this?

Nobody is being paranoid. These restrictions and proposals are being considered, therefore there is a possibility that they will come into effect. I don't see how that equates to people being paranoid.

And no, I don't think the bike manufacturers want this to happen but what say will they have if these proposals are made into law?

Running diagnostics on older bikes won't be much of a problem considering they're trying to ban bikes over 7 years old from urban areas which effectively would lead to them being off the road anyway.

Aside from what little information we do have, the most worrying part of all this is the Delegated Acts. What do they involve? What other restrictions will they bring into effect? We won't know until they're already signed off on.

I know some people may view this thread as being OTT in that it is impossible to believe that the government will sign off on the majority of these proposals but the fact remains that they are being considered with the possibility of some, maybe all, of them being signed off on and brought into law. That in itself is reason enough to protest and try our best to fight this.

Is the any link to support the claim that bikes over 7 years old will be banned from urban areas? That part from the op is so vague, so unworkable, so stupid and so unenforceable that I just don't believe it.

carsQhere

KTRIC wrote: »

What about older bikes, I can't see how they are going to retrofit all this stuff to them. Do they really think I'm going to bring my race tuned GSX 1400 in to be dicked around with ??? :rolleyes:

No need to retrofit anything. Under a PTI or National Bike Test, or whatever it eventually might become, your "race tuned" gixxer will simply be failed for having one tooth less on the rear sproket, or non standard pipes, or emissions or whatever. Then you'll be up for 5 points (per not having an NCT disk on your car).

In the National Motorcycle safety Action Plan 2010-2014, the RSA has said it wants periodic testing as a matter of "equity".
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Motorcycles/National_Motorcycle_Action_Plan.pdf
Section 4.2.8

carsQhere

Paparazzo wrote: »

Is the any link to support the claim that bikes over 7 years old will be banned from urban areas? That part from the op is so vague, so unworkable, so stupid and so unenforceable that I just don't believe it.

I believe that's a domestic French proposal - AFAIK, it's not an EU proposal.

daenerysstormborn3

Paparazzo wrote: »

Is the any link to support the claim that bikes over 7 years old will be banned from urban areas? That part from the op is so vague, so unworkable, so stupid and so unenforceable that I just don't believe it.

It's a French proposal only so far

Henry Ford III

pixiebean22 wrote: »

It's a French proposal only so far

I've only ever seen older bikes in France.......

daenerysstormborn3

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I've only ever seen older bikes in France.......

Is that a joke?

psicic

I only just found out about these proposals today!

As far as I can tell, the following is what's actually proposed at EU level:
1. Sealed engines - no more engine mods, self-repairs or independent garages.
2. Compulsory ABS
3. Always on headlights and running lights
4. New Categories of bike introduced at licencing stage (We currently have two categories (the A1 and the A) so it looks like they want to introduce more restrictions for moving up to higher powered bikes)
5. Emissions testing on bikes

Have I missed anything?

The high-vis vests and banning older bikes is a French initiative - though I wouldn't be surprised if Ireland follows the high-vis vests one.

If you ask me, each of the EU proposals are aimed at the Chinese imports that are becoming more and more popular in order to drive up their costs, make them have to 'authorise' garages and so on.

There is an anti-bike lobby in EU - but probably not the MEP that's rapporteur on this. I do find it interesting that a lot of these proposals seem very similar to draft proposals from about twelve years ago. (I did a course in EU negotiations and the committee process, and as part of that we used real documents from the IMCO committee on a framework on the maunfacture, sale and use of motorcycles and the control of emissions within the EU.)

Flyin Irishman

Pique wrote: »

The diagnostic ports for 'instant performance readouts' is impractical and will also be shot down. How do you retrofit things like this on older non FI bikes with sfa of an ECU (if any) ?

They wont, they'll simply make it a mandatory requirement for all new bikes, so nobody needs to worry about there being a log of previous riding habits stored in their very own black box......................as long as you dont plan on ever upgrading to a new bike in the future (which will be a tremendous pain in the sack if you ever decide to treat yourself to a travelling holiday in France)

LLU

Paparazzo wrote: »

Quote:
4- OBD. On Board Diagnostics so that easy roadside checks can be made of our emissions and so that constant readouts of engine performance can be obtained. Expensive, complicated and with the threat, rather like a tacho, of identifying past riding style...
Does this mean they can stop you and check what speed you were doing?

cars have had obd ports for years. never heard of them being used for this.

LLU

pixiebean22 wrote: »

3- Automatic headlights on- passing the blame for poor observation on to us.

ah come on now!

copeyhagen

this isnt going to happen. period.

closing of independant garages as one example, come on!!!

goldie fish

pixiebean22 wrote: »

I have posted a link to the EU documentation.

You posted a link to EU documentation which has no occurrence of the word "motorbike" or "motorcycle".
Please show where the EU are making the proposals being discussed? I'm not being pedantic, I just need to know exactly what the deal is, so I can point it out to my MEP.

Syth

carsQhere wrote: »

I believe that's a domestic French proposal - AFAIK, it's not an EU proposal.

For the record the French are also proposing a NCT-thing for bikes aswell. I don't think they have that in France. They do have it in the UK (as an MOT).

Paparazzo

goldie fish wrote: »

You posted a link to EU documentation which has no occurrence of the word "motorbike" or "motorcycle".
Please show where the EU are making the proposals being discussed? I'm not being pedantic, I just need to know exactly what the deal is, so I can point it out to my MEP.

Exactly, I'm not going to protest and piss off the public on stuff that's not happening. I'd definitely want clarification on what's happening with links to back it up.
An email to Leo Varadkar might clear some stuff up

Syth

Reading that report from the RSA is interesting. There are some points that are show that it's not all bikers fault. If you're talking to your public representative, you should bring them up.

e.g.

RSA wrote:

14% of motorcyclist casualties resulted from collisions involving other vehicles
driven by unaccompanied learner drivers.

This law about learner drivers clearly needs to be enforced more.

RSA wrote:

research literature shows
that collisions involving SUVs cause more deaths and serious injuries among
pedestrians and cyclists as well as drivers and occupants of smaller vehicles . It is
also likely that such designs will have a negative impact on the severity of injuries
sustained by motorcyclists involved in such collisions

SUVs are bad, mmmkay

chasm

I recall reading something about this a month or so ago, but as it didnt seem to be mentioned in any irish media(no surprises there though!) i kind of forgot about it.

Just had a quick google and came across these:

http://www.righttoride.eu/?p=7455

On Tuesday 12th July 2011 the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) committee met to consider 298 amendments tabled by MEPs on the European Commission’s proposal – Approval and market surveillance of two – or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles.

The 15 minute session could not realistically wade through all the amendments therefore the MEP Wim van de Camp (The Rapporteur) in charge of the report, grouped the issues in a ten point summary:

Euro Emissions and Timetable for implementation

Standards for OBD (On Board Diagnostics) for scooter and mopeds

Time frame and engine size for implementing mandatory ABS (Anti Lock Brakes) and CBS (Combined Braking Systems)

Electric bicycles – speed and kilowatts

Anti-Tampering measures

Repair Maintenance Information (RMI)

Sustainability test – to look at the California test i.e. when a motorcycle is manufactured it complies with regulation – emissions and durability i.e. it should say within these regulations for a certain period of time/mileage.

End of series vehicles – new type approval rules

Weight of certain categories of vehicles

PTI (Periodical Technical Inspections)


However we must bear in mind that there is a long way to go, with the amendments to be finalised and voted on in a future IMCO meeting – 5th – 6th October 2011 and then presented to the European Parliament in October to be voted on (date TBC). Depending on this vote, there could be a further legislative process for all to agree.

(The article in the link is longer and more in depth)


Also found this: http://www.ridediaries.blogspot.com/ from RIDE magazines blog site. Seems to give a better breakdown imo

daenerysstormborn3

goldie fish wrote: »

You posted a link to EU documentation which has no occurrence of the word "motorbike" or "motorcycle".
Please show where the EU are making the proposals being discussed? I'm not being pedantic, I just need to know exactly what the deal is, so I can point it out to my MEP.

Chasm beat me to it.

chasm

Here's the links for the working document, draft report and amendments

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/workingDocsCom/comparlDossier.do?dossier=IMCO%2F7%2F04190&body=IMCO&language=EN

goldie fish

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Chasm beat me to it.

Not really, He posted a EU version of MAGs interpretation.

He did hoewver after you posted post the working document.
It's like reading the Bloody Lisbore treaty. However I thank chasm greatly for sharing it. I'll read it at work (I work in the civil service, I get paid to read that sort of crap usually).

Has the current protest taken into account the recent amendments?

daenerysstormborn3

goldie fish wrote: »

Not really, He posted a EU version of MAGs interpretation.

He did hoewver after you posted post the working document.
It's like reading the Bloody Lisbore treaty. However I thank chasm greatly for sharing it. I'll read it at work (I work in the civil service, I get paid to read that sort of crap usually).

Has the current protest taken into account the recent amendments?

Is it really that important who posted what and when?

Does anybody have any more demonstration details to post up?

goldie fish

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Is it really that important who posted what and when?

Does anybody have any more demonstration details to post up?

Yes, If you post "chinese whispers" as fact, your whole argument will be laughable, and further protests will not be taken seriously.

MAG should be doing this, instead of sitting on their hands.

chasm

goldie fish wrote: »

Not really, He posted a EU version of MAGs interpretation.

He did hoewver after you posted post the working document.
It's like reading the Bloody Lisbore treaty. However I thank chasm greatly for sharing it. I'll read it at work (I work in the civil service, I get paid to read that sort of crap usually).

Has the current protest taken into account the recent amendments?

"She" actually

daenerysstormborn3

goldie fish wrote: »

Yes, If you post "chinese whispers" as fact, your whole argument will be laughable, and further protests will not be taken seriously.

MAG should be doing this, instead of sitting on their hands.

Who is posting chinese whispers? MAG are doing something about this, hence this thread. Would anybody even know anything about these proposals if it wasn't for MAG?