campaignactioncampaignactioncampaignactioncampaignaction Back to school!
Paddy Tyson examines our prospects for success in defeating Eurotrash in the wake of MAG reminding the Commission that it hasnʼt done itʼs homework
I expect I shouldn’t be feeling upbeat, given that I’m writing this after the intensive nine days that are the Motorcycle Live Show at the NEC. Given also that we are approaching the dreaded date for the MEP committee vote into everyone’s darling. I speak of the proposed EU Regulation on Type Approval and Market Surveillance for two and three wheeled vehicles and quadricycles COM(2010)0542. I am upbeat and not just because I’ve decided to call it TAMS for short, (phew! Ed), which should liberate about 20 minutes every day.
I feel upbeat because of how well the show went, how many well wishers came up to shake the hands of the volunteers on the MAG stand and because even though there is uncertainty surrounding TAMS’ legislative process, we should take comfort from the fact that we set out to get MEPs to read and debate this regulation instead of rubber stamping it and they are certainly doing that.
The committee stage vote (IMCO - internal market and consumer protection committee) was originally tabled for June this year, then October, November and now December 5th. There are no absolute guarantees that it will take place then either, but you’ll be reading this after that date, so you’ll now know more than me.
So why might it be delayed again? Well, following the UK Government’s decision to conduct its own impact assessment (IA) into TAMS, due to the weak nature of the one carried out by the EU a number of other influences have come into play.
Remember the Impact
Assessment is the assessment of the effect that a proposed
regulation might have on people. That means on users of motorcycles like us and on the motorcycle trade. In short, will this regulation cause undue problems for those who will be affected or impacted - hence ‘impact assessment’.
• MAG has gone to much effort in highlighting the weaknesses of the IA.
• MAG campaigner Jon Strong has made an official complaint to the EU Ombudsman about the poor IA.
• Subsequently questions have been asked in the EU Parliament by George Lyons MEP and by Marina Yannakoudakis MEP.
• As a result of this, a new IA began on 23rd November.
This IA isn’t examining every aspect of TAMS but it will examine:
• ABS
• It will also consider the speed at which various elements of TAMS are expected to be introduced, like the emissions requirements and whether or not Euro 6 emission controls should even be included
However, there is no way that the assessment can be done, the report written and then presented to the committee for discussion before the vote, when there are only seven working days available. This doesn’t even allow for coffee breaks of course. Will they be prepared to vote on something even though they don’t have the information they need? Well there’s a chance that they will, because some of them
hope that the results of the IA will complement the opinions they already hold. Yes really, you read that right.
Rather like the original proposal, whose authors admit that they lack the baseline data to support the legislation which they want MEPs to approve. Many, but not all, within the committee seem happy to vote on something without all the available information! The office of Mr Van de Camp (the committee rapporteur, or leader on this issue) said on Nov30th, that they plan to carry on regardless. Having spoken to the office of some other MEPs though, they are concerned about the impact such a bullish
and degree of sophistication of On-board Diagnostic systems (OBD),
• Endurance Testing, and the introduction timetables for EURO emissions standards - one of the things in the new IA.
Malcolm Harbour’s office (he’s chairman of the committee), say the MEPs who tabled amendments relating to rider training, side visibility reflectors, roadside random spot-checks, technical examinations of motorbikes and liabilities in accident situations, and the harmonisation of driver licence schemes, have now withdrawn them and at this stage in the
we set out to get MEPs to read and debate this regulation instead of rubber stamping it and they are certainly doing that
approach would have on people’s faith in the integrity of the system… Umm. Let’s see what happens.
Either way, when the
committee have voted and passed their report to the EU Parliament, we still have an opportunity to lobby all of our MEPs and make sure they realise that they should turn up on the day and vote on our behalf. The squeaky wheel really does get the oil. If we sit back and do nothing then there isn’t really a lot we can moan about later.
As the committee negotiations continue though, I can say that the key areas where
compromises are being sought, concern the categorisation of:
• All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs), Quads and electric bikes,
• The timeline for introduction
negotiations, the Committee seems to be in favour of deleting these Commission proposals anyway.
There are amendments tabled in IMCO calling for any
modifications to be checked by a competent authority (setting up national agencies to inspect emissions in particular), but it looks like these ideas do not have majority support in the Parliament, or in the Council of Ministers.
The bad news is the Committee majority seems to be in favour of ABS on scooters, which Malcolm Harbour opposes and which he believes the Council will delete anyway. They’d better not make that decision before they read the new Impact Assessment. Discussions about adding an ABS ‘off’ switch continue. Bored yet?
The ROAD 45
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84