Suggested letter template for writing to your MEP’s
Here is a suggested letter template to send to your MEP’s regarding the proposed EU regulation on Type Approval and market surveillance. If you don’t wish to use it, please do try to use some of the points within it. It is also always a good idea to personalise the letter slightly.
Please click on the ‘Find Your MEP’ button in the left hand column.
Remember, you probably have 6 or 7 MEPs so please write to each one of them.This takes you to the write to them web tool to contact , if preferred you can email them individually – details can be found at http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/your_MEPs/List-MEPs-by-region.html .
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 in April 2012.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
or by post to
PO Box 750
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.’