EC Determined to Bureaucratise Motorcycling

The campaign group 'Right to Ride' reports the following:

On the 28th February MEP Wim van de Camp, as Rapporteur, presented his report to TheInternal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) and representatives of theEuropean Commission regarding the EU Commission's proposal for a regulation on type-approval and market surveillance of L (motorcycles) -category vehicles.

The committee meeting was broadcast live on the internet and unlike the previousmeeting which was chaired by UK MEP Malcolm Harbour it did not probe into the issuesand some committee members admitted they were standing in for colleagues, that theywere not experts and had written statements to read in response to the report. 

In fact the meeting was running late and one question that was asked at the end wasrefused a reply by the chair with the dismissive, "we are too busy - move onto thenext item".

The whole affair for those passionate and concerned with the future of motorcyclingwas nothing short of bland.  
Instead of being interspersed with searching questions and relevant comments, it wasa grey suited affair of safety and environmental rhetoric. 

But what of the report?

We found that the information provided by the Rapporteur was incomplete andpiecemeal, furthermore it appears to have only taken into consideration a minority of views e.g. his comments about ABS (Advanced Braking Systems) and the "switch"; AHO (Automatic Headlight On) and the "switch" are in our opinion the views of thosewho have no technical experience. 

It appears that their influence on the Rapporteur has unfortunately moved thediscussion on ABS and AHO into an area of nonsense and seems more like an extractfrom Dante's inferno - "You have escaped damnation and made it into Purgatory" 

The Rapporteur's position on anti-tampering goes beyond the scope of his remit - forthe simple reason that the Commission has put this proposal on hold due to the studythat is being conducted by Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) and will not have anyconclusions until the end of 2011.

The Rapporteur's position on mandatory OBD (On Board Diagnostics) suggests that notonly did he not listen to the concerns of the industry but appears to have beeninfluenced by his own constituency in the Netherlands by publicly admitting that heis against the introduction of a European wide Periodical Technical Inspection (PTI)which would be the most obvious substitute for mandatory OBD.  This is in our view aconflict of interest. 

What we do not understand is that in spite of visits to manufacturers and takingpart in the motorcycle workshop at the EU Parliament, he has taken positions thatbeggar belief. 

What seemed apparent - to us at least - is that he has missed a fantasticopportunity to ensure the future of motorcycling. 

It is our view that what was originally intended as the simplification ofregulations to reduce bureaucracy has turned into a labyrinth of proposals, willhave little or no safety benefit and will inevitably turn what should be a costeffective and efficient means of transport into the privilege of the select few dueto the increase in cost that the consumer will be obliged to pay. 

We can only hope that a full a report which is to be submitted at a public hearingof the IMCO committee on the 22nd March 2011 - and will form the basis of theopinion of the IMCO committee about the European Commission's proposals, will bemore concise, less biased and factual.

To view this article on Right To Ride EU including our full response visit -http://www.righttoride.eu/?p=6722


www.righttoride.co.uk


www.righttoride.eu