The reply is at the top, my mail is down the bottom, its a big read but hopefully worth while

Dear Mr Earl,Thank you for your email. Unfortunately this issue does not fall within Dr. Tannock's area of expertise, but please find below a statement by Malcolm Harbour MEP, Dr. Tannock's colleague, who is the Chairman of the Internal Market Committee within the European Parliament. If you have more questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr Harbour's office (malcolm.harbour@europarl.europa.eu).Best wishes,Laura BrazierOffice of Dr. Charles Tannock MEPLondon Region-ConservativeUK Conservative Foreign Affairs SpokesmanECR Group Coordinator on Foreign Affairs Committee Vice-Chairman, EP Delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------European ParliamentWIB 04M081Rue WiertzB-1047 BrusselsBelgiumTel:  +32 2 28 45870  Fax: +32 2 28 49870charles.tannock@europarl.europa.euwww.charlestannock.com Thank you for your email regarding the Commission proposal for an EU Regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. This proposal is currently before the European Parliament in 1st reading with the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Committee in the lead. The Committee vote has been put back to 17th October with adoption by the Parliament expected in December to ensure better alignment with progress made on the dossier by the Council of Ministers. Negotiations are about to start between the MEPs following the file in view of reaching a coherent set of compromise proposals on the amendments which were tabled. I would like to remind you that no decisions have yet been taken on the proposal by the IMCO Committee. The key areas where compromises will be sought concern the appropriate categorisation of All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and Quads, the timeline for introduction and degree of sophistication of On-board Diagnostic systems (OBD), the appropriate categorisation of Electric Vehicles and E-bikes, Endurance Testing, and the introduction timetables for EURO standards.I am sympathetic to some of your concerns about the legislative process in the European Parliament, but I would urge you not to panic and to have some faith in the MEPs working most closely on the file, whose common interest it is to draft good legislation, and who are working in consultation with experts to achieve this. Some disparaging allegations which have been made reveal just how unreasonably the work of the IMCO Committee - as well as the actual scope of the draft law - have been represented. Indeed, a number of amendments tabled by MEPs in other political groups are quite vague or off-beam, but in all of our Committee deliberations, if there is anything worth saving in the more questionable ideas, these are eventually redrafted properly and included into consolidated amendments which are checked by our European Parliament legal service, including on whether they are actually admissible. Moreover, especially on a technical dossier such as this one, irrelevant, inappropriate or unclear amendments tend not to survive the sift at Committee stage, let alone when we enter into negotiations with the Council of Ministers. Issues raised not relevant to this Regulation.The amendments tabled by MEPs which are outside the scope of the Commission's proposal constitute political recommendations which are very unlikely to feature in the adopted text. If however there is majority support for any of these ideas, the amendments concerned can only feature in Recitals to the Regulation which means they have no legal effect. Even if these recommendations make it through the Committee stage, which I doubt, both Council and Commission would resist them featuring in the final text of the Regulation as they have no corresponding Article. The amendments concerned relate to driver/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.There is very little Conservative MEPs can do about motoring-related proposals which are outside the scope of this draft Regulation but which are being considered by the governments of other Member States as national legal measures. In the context of this draft Regulation, we are simply not engaged in a discussion on national debates concerning the mandating of high visibility jackets for riders, the banning of older motorcycles from urban areas, nor are we discussing EU funded research on throttle and speed control schemes. These are all considerations which are completely outside the scope of this legislative proposal. Furthermore, picking up on other concerns constituents have expressed, there are no proposals on the table about mandating the sealing of the power train from the air box or relating to setting a diameter and aspect ratio for the rear tyre.Focussing on those comments received which are relevant to our work in IMCO:Mandatory ABSIt is already the case that motorcycle manufacturers are fitting ABS as well as traction control systems on high powered motorcycles, and this follows consumer demand. There is also strong political pressure to get the balance of interests right between riders, the industry, and safety, while not loosing sight of improvements to motorcycle emissions. The overall cost benefit of ABS is stacked in favour of mandatory ABS for higher powered motorcycles. However, riders have been arguing for an ABS off-switch for certain conditions such as driving on loose gravel. This concern is almost exclusively relevant for dual use rides (off and on-road), and please note here that Enduro and Trial motorcycles will have a separate category (L3e) under the revised rules without mandatory ABS. Furthermore, when negotiating compromises, we will be asking the lead (or Rapporteur) MEP to consider proposing an off-switch for ABS for those PTW categories where ABS will end up being mandatory. Finally, there is political pressure in IMCO to introduce ABS on lesser powered PTWs, but we are resisting this as there is a lack of consistent evidence that this would improve safety for these types of motorcycle. Anti tampering and single vehicle approvalClearly, the IMCO Committee does not support putting an end to aftermarket sales of spare parts for repairs and improvements. Anti-tampering measures are intended to stop alterations to the vehicle’s power for safety purposes or to meet environmental performance requirements. These are currently limited to mopeds and motorcycles under 125cc producing less than 11kW. The Commission has now proposed to extend cover to all vehicles within the scope of the draft law and we are well aware that there is concern over the extent to which this may restrict the ability of after-market parts manufacturers to sell their products because of potential difficulties they may have in securing type approval, particularly for parts produced in small volumes. In any case, the European Parliament retains a right of scrutiny over any such future measures and it is absolutely not the case that the Commission will be able to design these technical specifications behind closed doors, nor is it in their interest, so drive train improvements or part replacements using aftermarket parts will continue to be allowed. Furthermore single vehicle approvals (SVA) will continue to be possible for those who tune their own motorcycles or modify their rides with parts, which if not designed to work together, require individual approval. Under the new proposals, after modification or tuning of the power train, a motorcycle must still comply with applicable technical requirements set at EU level (Article 18(4) of the Commission proposal). For the rest, the matter is largely left to national rules, which means riders and repairers will continue to be able to modify motorcycles as per the applicable rules in the UK. There are amendments tabled in IMCO calling for any modifications to the motorcycle to be checked by a competent authority (setting up national agencies to inspect emissions in particular), but I strongly believe these ideas will not meet with majority support, neither in the European Parliament, nor in the Council of Ministers.Mandatory Automatic Headlight-OnIndeed, in certain specific circumstances, there may be safety grounds for switching a motorcycle's headlight off, such as when the sun is behind the rider and the headlight blends into the bright background or when the motorcycle headlight is directly aligned and in front of one of the headlights on a car or van (and stays aligned over the period the rider is being looked at by other road users), making the rider almost invisible. However, even in these circumstances, we are not at all convinced that there is clear evidence to support that the motorcycle is less visible to other road users. This depends on the precise colour and intensity of the bright background (the sun's colour and intensity varies, as do other vehicles' headlights in size, colour, glare and relative distance from the ground). If the blending is not a near perfect match, we believe that the rider would be more visible with his headlight on anyway. Overall, our position is quite clear that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks for this safety provision. Mandatory on board diagnostic equipment (OBD)The intention of OBD is not to affect the motorcycle's behaviour, but to provide the rider with information that there is a malfunction in the form of a warning light. This could be developed into OBD systems which provide more detail on the type and severity of the malfunction, but we are against any limp-home functions that may activate unexpectedly while riding. If the malfunction is so serious that the motorcycle runs a real and imminent risk of being seriously damaged, compromising rider security in the process, a limp home function might be welcome, but our proposal would be that it activates only once the motorcycle has been brought to a standstill first. We are supporting OBD Stage (I) requirements but proposing to delete OBD Stage (II) from the draft Regulation because these would entail significantly higher costs for manufacturers which would be reflected on retail prices, without demonstrating a good return on investment in terms of added benefits. Furthermore, we understand that most PTW manufacturers already offer monitoring systems similar to what OBD Stage (I) would require, which may explain why some MEPs support the idea of bringing forwards the implementation date here (as part of Euro stage 4(5)). The Conservative MEPs have not tabled any amendment to that effect and will try to resist this to ensure all manufacturers can comply in time. I hope this responds to your concerns.-----Original Message-----From: Graham Earl [mailto:graham.earl@ Sent: 21 September 2011 12:50To: TANNOCK CharlesSubject: Letter from your constituent Graham EarlThis message was also sent to: Syed Kamall MEP, Jean Lambert MEP,Marina Yannakoudakis MEP, Sarah Ludford MEP, Mary Honeyball MEP, GerardBatten MEP, Claude Moraes MEPEmail: graham.earl@Wednesday 21 September 2011Dear Sarah Ludford, Claude Moraes, Syed Kamall, Mary Honeyball, MarinaYannakoudakis, Gerard Batten, Jean Lambert and Charles Tannock,I would like to bring to your attention the EU proposed legislation concerning motorcycles and the freedom of Motorcyclists to choose their own mode of personal transport with the articles 18 & 52 and possibly others.These proposals are due to be voted on by the EU in early October 2011, so time is of the essence. These proposals are not only detrimental to motorcyclists as a minority group but also possibly discriminatory. They would also affect the livelihood of thousands of British subjects whose jobs and businesses are currently in this sector ( This refers to the anti tampering legislation.)At a time when the economy is in a critical situation these proposals, at a stroke will wipe out an entire industry, cause massive job losses and therefore reduce the exchequers income from taxes while at the same time increase the burden on the welfare state.A motorcycle is built as a compromise to suit an average sized and weight of rider and modifications such as a change of handlebars or footrests is as much about safety as about visual aspect.It is reasonable to suppose that a rider who is more relaxed and comfortable on his or her machine will be more alert to their environment. Also it is reasonable to accept that a 9 stone solo rider will require different suspension characteristics than an 18 stone rider who usually carries a pillion passenger and luggage so suspension modifications are often a necessity. This is not so critical in a car as the weight of the machine is massively heavier than a motorcycle so the additional weight of passengers is proportionally less and has much less effect on the vehicle ride height and suspension.Legislation concerning Hi Vis clothing will only serve to add additional costs to what is for many a cheaper and more convenient form of transport. It implies that the onus is on the motorcyclist to make themselves as conspicuous as possible, not on other road users to pay proper attention to their driving, in the event of an accident involving more than 1 vehicle which has not been proven to be the case in the majority of this type of accident. It is also discriminatory against a minority.The French proposal that motorcycles over 7 years old will not be allowed to be used in Urban areas is quite astonishing as most older bikes are very fuel efficient and converting thousands of motorcyclists to car use in urban areas would only serve to exacerbate the already critical congestion.In addition to these measures, there are proposals to install data download devices which will allow the authorities to spy on and quite possibly attempt to prosecute riders for indiscretions like speed, to conduct roadside vehicle inspections to ensure that no non standard parts are not being used, even down to what spark plug you install. If you think this is only going to apply to motorcyclists, think again,we are considered to be the thin end of the wedge because more people drive cars than ride bikes, so the rationale goes that the EU plan to enforce it on motorcyclists first, then phase it in for cars.  I can only hope that common sense wins the day and urge you to take all steps necessary to ensure that these proposals are quashed before they become law. I am appaled at the way that the Eu are attemting to ride roughshod over Motorcyclists freedoms with these latest proposals. The only information i have beeen able to gather is from the Motorcyle Action Group website press release. The way in which the EU bring articles to vote also appears to be far from Democratic. They are again for the umpteenth time trying to bring in Anti Tampering laws for motorcycles, this has been going on for decades, it is time to stop. There are many other issues in these articles, some of which no one will even know what they are until the article is passed, how undemocratic is that? I for one do not need to be told when i need to wear Hi Viz clothing or when to switch on my headlight, I have a perfectly good brain of my own for that. The EU seem to want us all to be grey suit wearing automotans doing as we are told and paying our taxes, imagine if you were told to wear an average size suit but had a far from average size body, you'd want tochange it so it fitted you better, at the moment we have the right and the freedom to do so, this new legislation will put an abrupt, unwelcome and undemocratic end to that choice.As an English tax payer I have an expectation that those people elected to the domestic and EU parliaments will represent the views and best interests of myself and every other UK national.I make no appology for not being a fan of the EU, my wish is to be governed by the parliament at Westminster, but as I am saddled with the EU, for now, I must ask all of you to stand up to these outrageous and economically catastrophic proposals. I am ENGLISH not European and i want to keep it that way. Yours sincerely,         Graham Earl5e4ddccfa6c8c448a752/5a65e8598a811cf7f835(Signed with an electronic signature in accordance with subsection 7(3)of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.)                                                                                                                                                                             

Here is my reply from David Martin MEP
Labour MEP for Scotland

Dear Mr Bissett,

Thank you for your email and confirming your
location.

I hope that I can address some of the concerns you have
regarding the issue of regulation on the approval and market surveillance of
two- or three-wheel vehicles affecting motorbikes which is currently at first
reading stage in the European Parliament.

Following the Commission
proposal, the draft report has been authored for the Internal Market and
Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) by Dutch MEP Wim van de Camp, an
enthusiastic motorcyclist. The amendment deadline of the report has passed and
following correspondence from constituents, my Labour colleague Catherine
Stihler, who is a member of the IMCO Committee, has tabled amendments with
Socialist colleagues to take comments from constituents into
account.

After the vote in IMCO the Rapporteur, Mr van de Camp and shadow
rapporteurs representing each of the political groups will negotiate the finer
details of the report with national Governments and the Commission to find a
solution which is fair and acceptable for all parties
involved.

Compulsory ABS

The Commission proposal recommended
compulsory ABS to be fitted to all newly manufactured 2 or 3 wheeled vehicles.
Following consultation with the department of Business and Innovation it is my
understanding that compulsory ABS is not appropriate for all vehicles or
terrains. The current proposal takes this into account with an exemption for
enduro and trial bikes which are the bikes which are most affected by ABS. As a
compromise, we believe that ABS should be fitted to all new vehicles, with the
default position of the ABS being engaged on starting the engine. However, there
should be the option of starting the engine to disengage ABS for dirt tracks or
rocky terrain. Compulsory ABS should not apply to lower powered motorcycles as
the cost/benefit ratio is not sufficient, this is a position which the Socialist
shadow rapporteur will encourage in negotiations with the Council.

High
Visibility Jackets

Concerns have been raised that it will be mandatory
for all riders to wear high visibility jackets. This lies outside the scope of
the report, and as a result does not feature. There is a level of discussion in
some Member States to introduce proposals related to high visibility jackets but
please be reassured that this will not happen in the UK and the rumours that it
will are completely untrue.

Banning of older motorcycles from Urban
Areas

Older motorcycles will not be banned from urban areas in this
report. Again, this rumour has surfaced from discussions by some national
Governments in Members States but rest assured the UK will not ban older
motorcycles from being used anywhere in the UK.

Anti Tampering
legislation

Labour MEPs are aware of the value to the single market of
aftermarket sales and servicing. Further, we understand that there is a deep
rooted cultural history of self-maintenance and modification. Please be
reassured that this regulation is not intended to stop this practice. The
anti-tampering legislation is designed to stop dangerous modifications from
taking place and to put a stop to those practices which put riders lives at risk

Single vehicle approvals (SVA) will continue to be legal for those who
wish to make modifications to their motorcycle. The majority of the suggestions
made in the draft regulation are already in place in the UK at
present.
Mandatory on board diagnostics (OBD)

Most PTW manufacturers
producing new models are already compliant with the rules regarding OBD in the
draft regulation (OBD stage (I)). This section of the draft regulation will not
provide police with any details of the ride behaviour of motorcyclists; rather
it is in place purely to warn the rider of a serious malfunction to enable them
to bring the motorcycle to a controlled stop.

The next stage of the
legislation is a committee vote which is due to take place on October 17th,
although is expected to be delayed to allow more time for negotiations.
Following the Committee vote the report is likely to be voted by all MEPs in
mid-November.

Thank you again for your email.

Best
wishes,
David

David Martin MEP
Labour MEP for Scotland


                                                                                                                                                                             

Ok so some of the issues they say are government legislation for that nation state, however if we as a nation said no we are not doing that the EU would still enshrine it in EU law so why then should the frogs be able to introduce a law affecting all who travel there...... but then again the french do what the french want...usually through the EU parliament...

Bottom line it is gonna cost us money in the long term and will hurt motorcycling

                                                                                                                                                                             

Bump come on people you all drip like taps about EU interference but has no one else bothered there arse to actually email their MEP ...,shame on you all....get emailing Here is a copy of my e-mail, please adapt and use yourself to find your own MEP use this link or cut and paste. http://www.europarl.org.uk/section/list-county/list-meps-county Dear Sir, I am writing to you to ask what your stance is on the EU motorcycle bill you will be voting on scheduled for 17th October.  I am a keen motorcyclist and am distressed at the levels of interference and lack of direct consultation with actual motorcyclists on these policies. As you may remember 40,000 of us motorcyclists took to the roads a few Sundays ago to peacefully protest our views on this.  I  thought we lived in a democracy, yet how can this be when our representatives in power do not represent the segments of society that new rules are going to effect adversely for no real reason other than they can. These committees who make recommendations are seldom knowledgeable in the subject. I do wonder how many 'advisors or experts' are actually motorcyclists. I believed that my 22 years armed forces service in the Marines was to defend democracy and freedoms for the people or is this just something politicians tell the masses because it looks good on TV and to gain votes. Please, I urge you to stand against any legislation that will burden an already severely economically strapped public from more hardship and strangle the motorcycle aftermarket business across the UK and Europe. I look forward to your reply. Yours faithfully John Bissett 

i'v got 5 reply's but haven't read them yet 
                                                                                                                                                                             

I have had no reply, usually i would be on it like a terrier, but have lost a dear mucker, so my eye has been off the ball, but will be business as usual soon as i get back from Mobile Chaos this weekend                                                                                                                                                                                 

The responses smell of complacency & smoke.. Anti-tampering & OBD in particular leave us wide open to Euro beaurocrats - a small number of little Hitlers trying to make names for themselves regardless of the consequences. Once they're given an inch it's ten times as hard to get it back. 
Better stop before I really blow a fuse.. rant on hold.
steve
* no response to emails yet. Expect they'll be v.much like those above.

Got Another reply...they seem to be changing their views on this so we need more people to e-mail and write...

6
October 2011



Dear Mr Bissett,



Thank
you for taking the time to write to me recently to highlight the issues that
you, as a motor cycle enthusiast, have with the proposed EU legislation
regarding ‘Approval and Market Surveillance Regulations of Two-or-Three-Wheel
Vehicles and Quadricycles’.

I understand your concerns with some of the
detailed proposals under discussion, as there appear to be genuine concerns
about the potential to create a set of rules that could be quite unfair to motor
cyclists. I am not in favour of un-necessarily rigid regulation, and will
certainly take your ideas on board, in the belief that a more balanced approach
should be found that better combines any genuine safety issues with the cost and
practical implications of regulation.

For example, anti-tampering has
been a contentious issue for many years and I am aware of the arguments driving
the issue. On the one hand, no one wishes to see low powered machines tampered
with to the extents that they become high speed vehicles capable of speeds
beyond the ability of the rider or of the design parameters of the brakes, frame
etc. On the other hand, it is ridiculous that in extreme cases nothing can be
changed on a machine, even items like the original make of tyre having to be
fitted when replacement time comes. I agree that the former cases are best dealt
with by enforcement and sensible modifications should be left to the
owners.

I appreciate that motor cycles are an environmentally-friendly
form of transport which should be encouraged. Many thanks again for writing to
me about this issue. Do let me know if I can be of further assistance to
you.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Hudghton MEP

                                                                                                                                                                             

i have already queried this through the MAGwebsite link but i have now sent e mail to my local MEP and will post his reply as soon as i can