More euro anti-bike propaganda

From todays MCN - does not make for happy reading - roadside spot
checks for bikes, a compulsory test after an accident and making the
MOT test harder and more expensive - but leaving car drivers out of it
as the backlash form them would be too much!

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/N.../September/sep2210-euro-moto-threat/Post.aspx

 

I call bollocks (and, yes, I know it's MCN)

It's not that long since the scare-of-the-week was how "Euro-
standardisation" on 2yr MOTs starting from 4yo - like most of the rest of
the EU are currently - would increase deaths on our roads.

Now there's two days to respond to an EU consultation (which has been
available since the end of June) apparently proposing "tests more than
once a year, tests of vehicles under three years old and more frequent
inspections as vehicles age" - even though it doesn't actually "propose"
those, merely give them as options?

And a random non-sequitur "worst case" that's far stronger than the TuV
currently requires?

Oh, look. No mention of cars in the article _at all_ - and no specific
bike focus in the questionnaire, either.

 

Well on of the question is "Do you think that Roadside inspections
should be extended to other vehicle categories (unannounced technical
inspections of commercial vehicles circulating)" and then gives the
options of "all commercial vehicles" or "All motorcycles" so no
mention of cars - why would cars *not* be included?

So really, the new law brings a new procedure for the police to
follow, ie pulling bikers for a roadside on the spot MOT check and a
"look your numberplate letters are 5mm smaller than required" - this
probably would be very popular by the boys in blue in north wales.

Don't know though - only my interpretation on this!

 

And you think that justifies your claim of "but leaving car drivers out
of it as the backlash form them would be too much!"

B'sides the fact that "all commercial vehicles" are already covered by
VOSA checkpoints, so it would seem safe to assume that they meant
extension to "all NON-commercial vehicles", roadside MOTs can effectively
be slapped on anything via defect notification if Mr Plod thinks you're
riding/driving a bag of shit.

Yes, paranoia is a wonderful thing when combined with abysmal
comprehension skills.

 

It ain't called More Crap than News for nothing. They can't even edit
an article properly:

- Raising the cost of inspections by up to £30%.

MOT's don't exist for bikes in France.

It's all bollox and they probably read the information from a bog wall
somewhere.

 

Ah, my memory is serving me correctly. I can't see Sarko agreeing to any
directive from a safety nazi in the EU, let alone spending money on a
testing infrastructure. Same applies to the ConDems.

 

The French gov't aren't exactly bike-lovers, with the 100bhp limit, so
it's probably omission rather than intent that stops 'em being testable
now.

The infrastructure's already there. CT testing centres are separate from
garages in France. Adding bikes to the vehicles they test would be
straightforward.

Not that a French CT on a car is really worth a wet fart. Structural rot
fixed with pop rivets? Well, so long as you can't actually _see_ the
road... <bof>

 

It's in the pipeline but is meeting with rather stiff resistance from
2 wheel riders.

Apparently, according to the FFMC, it'll cost nothing to put into place from
the government side as we'll bloody pay for it.

Costs involved would be administrative costs, the need to invest in specific
equipment and the need for trained personnel able to test bikes.

See above, not completely.

I thought it was actually quite strict. Aside from the fact that you only need
to do it every other year and before you sell a cage.

 

You've gone native.

 

Heheheheh. Norra chance.

 

The Swiss one is really strict, but there's not a fixed period it
needs to be repeated. E.g. Jude's 2003 car had to have one when we
moved Canton in Dec 2007 (actually done in Feb 2009, IIRC) but hasn't
needed one since. They just send you a letter at some random point
when they CBSA.

 

Still not learnt to speaka da lingo, eh?

<ducks>

 

That's a worrying abbreviation.

 

Ace wibbled forthrightly:

Heheheh. I'll get you one day. I'll just bide my time. Revenge, etc,
etc, etc.

 

<chomp> They had limited cards to play and I don't think they could
have played them better.

 

One specious 'argument' against the LibDems was that 'they don't have
any experience in office'. Harder to argue now.

 

Now Ed's in, which means a glimmer of hope for Labour, who knows?