Subject: [mag-uk-activists-list] Letter to your MEP regarding EU Regulation
The world of motorcycle politics is so terrifically exciting and fast moving, it's small wonder we don't sleep! (Or is it just me that finds it so?)
The proposed EU Regulation on type approval and market surveillance that we've come to know and love over the past 16 months, did pass its 'first reading' on 5th December when the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) voted on it and the near 300 amendments that been put forward.
You'll also be aware (unless you are new to these mailings) that not only did they accept the bulk of the original proposal, but added a few extra bits that aren't exactly in the best interests of the consumers they are meant to be protecting. One of my emails last week outlined horrified responses from both the European motorcycle retailers (ETRA) and the manufacturers association (ACEM) so it's good to know that apart from the UK Government, much of the rest of the bike industry is now aware of the power and possible outcome of this legislation. ABS for everything from 50cc up and the new article 18a which now covers modifications 'by the users or those acting on their behalf', which has got the retailers and bike shops upset. The new article 3 paragraph 68 now also specifies 'engine management systems or any other control module' which of course covers the power commanders etc that we highlighted a year ago and were told was nonsense. It also reiterates 'the transmission and its control, either a drive shaft or belt drive or chain drive, the differentials, the final drive and the driven wheel tyre (radius)' which is all a bit belt and braces.
But aside from the content, there is much that is concerning about the legislative process, as was highlighted last weekend when MAG organised another Riders Are Voters event in Crawley at P&H Motorcycles. Peter Skinner, Labour MEP for the South East has received more correspondence on this Regulation than any other (he first became an MEP in 1994) so he agreed to meet riders in one go so that he could hear all the concerns.
The bulk of the questions he was asked were about procedure: How could the Committee have voted before the impact assessment results were in? Why does the EU Parliament have to vote on a regulation when the specific technical elements of what is affected, will be decided after the vote? How can they make an informed decision when the 'Delegated Acts' (the technical bits) that are central to this, will be written later? If we are now seeing drafts of the Delegated Acts and they include mention of cycle parts, surely that is outside the scope of the Regulation? If the Commission didn't do the research before they introduced the proposal (saying as they did, that they had no baseline data but hoped they'd get some later) is it even legal?
Mr Skinner was really taken aback by the breadth of knowledge the assembled 100 or so riders had, and their articulate nature, but he was more taken aback by the legislation itself, having had to read it all before the event (which is of course, the very nature of what MAG does- getting representatives to actually read what they are going to vote on.)
He did say that we must never stop writing to MEPs about this, but what surprised me was that he said pro-forma letters are still OK, if you add the following; Please reply to the Central Office of the Motorcycle Action Group who are compiling responses.
His advice was that a standard and irrelevant response cannot be churned out by reply. The MEP will have to direct their attention to every part of the letter as numbers grow, in the knowledge that their response will be made very public, that they will be publicly held to account and that their later vote in the EU Parliament will be monitored. On the plus side, they only have to write one letter! Everyone's a winner.
So, given all of the above here is a suggested letter. If you don't wish to use it, please do try to use some of the points within it.
Please click here www.ridersarevoters.org and press the button that says 'Find Your MEP'. Remember, you probably have 6 or 7 MEPs so please write to each one of them.
Dear
As a constituent, I would like to raise my concerns regarding the content and progress of a piece of European Legislation, currently timetabled for Plenary vote on 14th March.
The proposed EU Regulation on Type Approval and Market Surveillance of two and three-wheeled vehicles passed its first reading, Committee stage, on 5th December even though an impact assessment on many elements of the proposal was ongoing.
Some new text adopted by the (IMCO) Committee, especially the extension of mandatory ABS to all scooters and motorcycles, the introduction of a new Article 18a (see below) and the Delegated Acts (drafts of which are now available), appear to have moved well outside the scope of the Commission's original proposal. Article 18a also relies on Member States to establish National policing.
ABS is being adopted by some riders, but the technology is not as advanced as for cars and there are many riding conditions where it is not suitable, or where combined braking systems (in which the industry has invested heavily) are more suitable, especially with smaller scooters. The Commission’s mandating of ABS is therefore inappropriate for both the market and manufacturing.
Articles 17 and 52 also directly impact on motorcyclists as consumers, controlling the sale and availability of after-market parts within the EU and the modification of certain aspects of the machine to suit riding conditions.
The Plenary session vote has now been timetabled for 14th March, which is too soon to enable sufficient discussion beforehand and which permits no time within the chamber for debate.
This debate is necessary, as there are many parts of this Regulation which I, as a rider and consumer, welcome, so this cannot be a yes/no vote on the acceptance or rejection of the proposal as a whole.
It is welcome for example, that Article 22 will lead to CO2 emissions being published at point of sale for every model. Similarly, paragraph 9 (page 11) which aims to over-turn the earlier decision to introduce power limits for motorcycles (1995), on the basis that no evidence can be found of a correlation between safety and power. This assertion rather undermines one of the central tenets of the whole proposal, that speed or 'tuning' has a detrimental effect on safety, again forcing the assumption that the Commission’s proposals appear not to be evidence led.
I urge you to read the Regulation COM (2010) 542 and the consolidated text post the IMCO Committee vote, which is not in the public domain and use your influence to delay the Parliamentary vote.
Could I respectfully ask that you send your reply to Central Office of the Motorcycle Action Group who are compiling replies in order to monitor voting behaviour. This can be either electronically to
campaigns-coordinator@mag-uk.org<...org
or by post to MAG (UK) PO Box 750 Warwick CV34 9FU
Yours Sincerely
Article 18a- Measures and Proceedings regarding modifications to L-category vehicles by the users or those acting on their behalf 1. If substantial modifications are made to the powertrain components by the user or by those acting on his behalf the vehicle shall comply with the technical requirements of the initial vehicle category and subcategory, or, if applicable, the new vehicle category and subcategory, which were in force when the original vehicle was sold, registered or entered into service. Those modifications shall be inspected and approved by the competent authorities in the Member States. 3. A modification is substantial when it affects the safety of the vehicle or its emissions to the environment. A modification is deemed to be substantial when it renders the original type approval obsolete.
_______________________________________________ mag-uk-activists-list mailing list mag-uk-activists-list@mag-uk.org http://mailman.mag-uk.org/mailman/listinfo/mag-uk-activists-list
My letter was not sent, because:
Your message is near-identical to others sent previously
Please read our stance on this issue to understand why sending identikit "copied and pasted" messages is detrimental to your campaign.
Sorry to be so harsh, but representatives have made it clear that the receipt of such fax "spam" could mean they bin all messages sent via WriteToThem.com.
Which would be A Bad Thing.
You might like to let the person who asked you to do this know that they've potentially sabotaged their own campaign too. Point them to our Guidelines for campaigning.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paddy Tyson
To: mag-uk-activists-...org ; RAV-list@mag-uk.o...org
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:50 PM
Subject: [mag-uk-activists-list] Writing to your MEP and some good news...
First things first, regarding the proforma letter MAG sent out recently: If you've tried to send your MEPs (and remember you probably have 6 or 7) the letter through the link that I sent out a couple of days ago, you may have only managed to write to one of them before you got a message saying that you couldn't cut and paste text.We are in discussion with the website 'write to them' about the problem, so you may instead prefer to use this linkhttp://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/...tmlwhich will provide all the MEPs' contact details, a biography, info about which committees they sit on and even a lovely picture so that you know who to talk to if you ever meet them, (but don't let this influence which ones you write to!).I'll be getting the link changed on the www.ridersarevoters website too.Now, if you haven't managed to write yet, you may want to change some bits of your letter, because following long meetings and phonecalls with Malcolm Harbour's offices (IMCO committee chairman) in UK and in Brussels yesterday, and further discussions with other MEPs, some new things have transpired. I know I said motorcycle politics could move quickly, but sometimes I don't joke.One- following our work to date and the efforts of those of you have been consistently writing to your MEPs, we can confirm that the Parliamentary vote has already been moved back to April.Yippee and a pat on the back for all, but we are aiming for a further delay, as even that may not provide us enough time to ensure this is Type Approval Regulation is properly debated and that all the MEPs get a chance to focus on it.Please do write to all of yours, don't leave to chance that someone else will do it for you, and remember, the more correspondence they get the more they have to do something about it.Two- the results of the impact assessment that began in November and which the IMCO committee chose not to wait for, are due at the end of this month. The UK Government had already done their own Impact Assessment which drove coach and horses through the EU Commission's original one, and that was central to the EU Parliament demanding the one that'll be completed any day soon. A wee bird, no, make that a flock of birds in Brussels believe that the impending results may not look good for the Commission (or indeed the Committee who voted in December ahead of having all the info) and if that's the case, we may find a lot of MEPs being even more receptive to our case and a further delay as National Governments reassess their position. There are 73 MEPs in the UK and that is 10% of the whole Parliament.I'll be in Brussels in a couple of weeks working to ensure our Riders' Rights colleagues in Germany, France, Belgium and Netherlands get writing too, because combined, that would be nearly 300 of the 736 total MEPs.Three- there are ongoing legal challenges into the validity of the whole Regulation as proposed in the first place and the EU Commission's procedural behaviour, but now, given the wording of the new article 18a, there may be another legal case to answer, as the ambiguity present in the text, could create categories of machine for which anti-tampering may be retrospective, which is definitely way outside the scope of the original proposal and puts all the onus on us and on bike shops, instead of the manufacturers of new machines.As ever, Motorcycle Action Group will do its best to keep you informed as things progress, but in the meantime, you may want to change the text in your letter to make it clear you now know the full Parliamentary vote (plenary session) is tabled for April, which is still too soon. Huge thanks to all of you in sunny Scotland by the way, who seem to be putting in major effort judging by the volume of responses I'm getting from Scottish MEPs.Kind RegardsPaddy TysonCampaigns Coordinator Motorcycle Action Group
The responses I got were very mixed, from complete arrogance via totally misinformed to no acknowledgement what so ever. Considering these folk are allegedly representing us in europe it is quite evident that all but one of my MEPs have no intention in doing so. One did take the opportunity to educate himself and we've had a productive correspondence. The rest.....well........ Ain't democracy great!
I just got this email from MEP......(after emailing like MAG said)
Here is my March report from the parliament :
Controversy over proposed EU law for Motorcycles
For at least six months British MEPs have received torrents of identical emails about a proposed EU regulation for motorcycles. Emailing is fine but what normally follows is that lobbyists come to the parliament and explain calmly what they need and answer our questions. Unfortunately, the UK's motorcyclist leaders (known as MAG) appear to have been given the wrong advice about how to lobby. The leading motorcycle magazine was, I am told, advised what to do by a UKIP MEP. So, instead of coming into the parliament and talking to MEPs, motorcyclists chose to block the M1 motorway last autumn thus annoying the British public but having no effect on Brussels. This was followed by a demonstration in Brussels by a hundred UK-only motorcyclists which was so small that nobody.in the parliament noticed it. The unhappiness of British motorcyclists, not fully shared by continental motorcycling organisations, is about the proposed new EU law. The existing EU law for motorcycles says that owners of small motorcycles up to 125cc may not modify the power aspects of their machines. The new proposal would extend this ban to all motorcycles including the most powerful. The Commission proposal for the law would only control "modifications by manufacturers", but the responsible committee in the parliament has added "after manufacture" too. The full parliament is likely to vote the First Reading in late-April or mid-May. UK motorbikers are upset because they are individualists who like to make their machines different from everybody else's and they fear this law will limit their individuality. After months of requests, I managed to obtain a briefing in Brussels from a German who works in the bikers' EU-umbrella body in Brussels (known as FEMA), but it appears that most British MEPs have still not been briefed. There is an urgent need for the MAG leaders to quickly modify their lobbying methods, get across to Brussels and talk, or their cause may be lost.
Does anyone know if MAG are going to parliament to speak up about all these legislations? It's all a bit worrying and are we going about trying to stop it in the right way?? seriously though does anyone know??
The existing EU law for motorcycles says that owners of small motorcycles up to 125cc may not modify the power aspects of their machines. The new proposal would extend this ban to all motorcycles including the most powerful.
So does that mean restrictor kits will be outlawed?
Hence stopping people from riding a big bike restricted to 33bhp. there are very few out there that are naturally that now from what people have said, so this will do away with people passing on a 125 and then riding a bigger bike that's restricted unless the manufacturer has fitted the restriction?
More and more cost to the motorcyclist!
yus its bloody worrying aint it shell! - what worries me though is that if we dont use the proper channels now we may have no chance of stoppign this... im gonna email MAG and see what they say....
Hey Suzi would your reply have been from Bill newton-dun? I have an identical email. I thought the idea was that we wrote or expressed our views, and our representatives, represented those views. Not it seems the view of our MEPs.
Your message is near-identical to others sent previously
Please read our stance on this issue to understand why sending identikit "copied and pasted" messages is detrimental to your reply. Sorry to be so harsh, but representatives have made it clear that the receipt of such fax "spam" could mean they bin all messages sent via WriteToThem.com. Which would be A Bad Thing. You might like to let the person who asked you to do this know that they've potentially sabotaged their own responses too. Point them to our Guidelines for responding.
yus good shout shell .... i was thiknin the same in bed last night... sad life i know hahahaha
it occured to me that this bloody MEP is meant to be representing us and that is why we all wrote to them... and clearly from his reply i can see what he thinks of bikers...totally agree Hairyone!
so yus... i am going to reply now to this good for nothing Member of the European Parliament who got voted in by who knows who the ...
ive sent an email suggesting he let me know who i would be better contacting to represent me and all motorcyclists in the european parliament because it would seem he does not even like motorcycles himself.... I have also suggested that he canot send an identical email to all of us when he has complained of us doing the same unless he lives by a different rule
I have suggested that the reason we all contacted him is because he is meant to represent us and why is he not.
I'll see what he sends back!
Just got this reply from MEP.....
Thank you very much for the message, Suzi.
The great majority of emails which I have received from motorcyclists have been identical. So it is correct for me to send them the same reply. Otherwise you will accuse me of "saying different things to different people"
I am very happy to represent your views, and those of all motorcyclists in the East Midlands if only anybody would please explain, calmly going through the legislation line-by-line, precisely what it is that you want.
Just sending lots of identical or similar emails, and insults and anger, does not help me or the other MEPs who will vote on this what precisely you want.
So, please, now, write me a list, line by line, about which parts and paragraphs of the legislation you wish to be changed.
I look forward to your answer.
All good wishes
Bill Newton Dunn MEP
yes Bill ive let meself in for it aint i!!! gawd..... il have to make up some blurb after reading some of the legislation.... now where did i put that long long lenghthy darn email - i want to respond with some legitimate factors so he has to bally well do somethin about it!!
anyone out there willingl to help greatly received
as for doing it in bed..... well....i think even my bed aint ready for that much excitement in one night...
![MAG uk - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![MAG uk - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
