Cafe Racer Forum

Cafe Racer Forum for the Cafe Racer culture enthusiasts
HomeHome  PortalPortal  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Display results as :
Rechercher Advanced Search
Latest topics
» gs550 7k miles cafe racer build
Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:30 pm by carbon moto

» moto guzzi v50 80 build
Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:52 pm by TheMadman

» Suzuki A100
Tue Jan 26, 2016 2:36 pm by roflhat

» Triumph Trident anyone?
Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:58 am by pauliexjr

» Finished at last
Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:23 am by Kerzo

» Cagiva project
Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:31 pm by pauliexjr

» Any Londoners or South Easterners?
Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:16 pm by RussJ

» not been on here for a while
Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:10 pm by RussJ

» Honda h100A 1980, Some history and build pictures.
Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:07 pm by RussJ

free forum

Share | 

 The Anti tampering Regulation

Go down 
gone fishin

Posts : 541
Join date : 2011-10-26
Location : black country

PostSubject: The Anti tampering Regulation   Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:35 pm

posted this some time ago on bodgies thread

1.The Anti tampering Regulation: Specifically Article 18 which wants to stop all modifications to complete power train, from airbox to controlling the rear tyre profile.

2.Compulsory ABS. If we can’t stop this, we must get a switch so that we have an option in difficult conditions where ABS doesn’t function well.

3.Automatic headlights on- passing the blame for poor observation on to us.

4.OBD. On Board Diagnostics so that easy roadside checks can be made of our emissions and so that constant readouts of engine performance can be obtained. Expensive, complicated and with the threat, rather like a tacho, of identifying past riding style…

5.RMI. Repair and Maintenance Information. Rather than keeping it hidden and available for huge expense, there is a chance that manufacturers will be forced to provide ECU codes etc for a fee. What that fee is remains to be seen.

6.The very worrying article 52: “If systems, components or seperate technical units on a list in a delegated act to this regulation, have a dual use, for vehicles intended exclusively for racing on roads and for vehicles intended for use on public roads, they may not be sold or offered for sale to consumers” So if your K&N filter can fit a CBR race bike and a CBR road bike, the best way to police that, is to make it illegal to sell the filter in Europe.The Delegated Acts are the most scary thing, as they are the lists and details drawn up by the unelected and we won’t get to see what they are including until after the Regulation has been passed!

7.In solidarity with the French we need to be drawing attention to their recent government proposal to ban all bikes over 7 years old from an urban area and to make the wearing of day-glo/ reflective clothing compulsory.

8.Full sleeve day-glo clothing for riders and passengers has been proposed in the Irish Parliament too.

9.All these issues lead to the same thing, that we must take the blame for the incompetence of other road users. And while the emergency stop has been removed as a compulsory element of the UK car driving test, we are jumping through hoops with ill-judged UK interpretations of EU licencing directives.

10.Another EU licencing Directive is on its way (3DLD) to step the bike licencing system still further and the DfT and DSA still haven’t sorted the consultation process, even though it is meant to be in law by now and enacted January 2013.

bit of a update had this email forwarded to me today its well worth a read......

i aint a MAG member or a massive fan but at least there trying ,so a big well done from me cheers cheers cheers cheers

As we approach 24th June and MAG's day of action, campaigning advances continue to be made, so you may even feel like viewing it as a celebration of what we can achieve.
The horrible article 18(a) of the EU Type Approval Regulation has now been kicked out. Even though the IMCO Committee wanted to make matters worse when it added it, by even restricting what bike shops could do on your behalf, the Commission and the Council (National Governments) have said that wasn't acceptable. Hooray!The latest, as we reported a couple of weeks ago, is that bikes over 47bhp will be exempt from the whole anti-modification thing as well. This compromise could be another 'hooray!' but... the onus will be entirely placed on the manufacturers to ensure we, the user, physically can't modify our bikes by them using best engineering practice to stop us. The way the text is worded now, it appears we won't be the ones held accountable as we would have been under the earlier text. But there's another but. Why should we sacrifice riders who choose to ride a machine under 47bhp, or what will be the new A2 category of bike in the future? I quite fancy one of those new NC 700 Hondas and that'll make me a candidate.MAG has always said that anti-tampering beyond that which has existed since the 1990s for mopeds and 125s, is not acceptable, especially when there is no evidence to justify it. Besides, surely if this is all about ensuring safety and emissions control, exempting big bikes rather undermines the argument, so we will continue to press for rational discussion and for some evidence to justify what is being proposed.
You may have read that other organisations believe there is no issue with the proposed EU Regulation. Indeed the BMF even wrote that no part of the proposal was of concern to them except compulsory ABS. Perhaps they believe none of their members have ever fitted an end can, or remapped their ignition, or changed sprocket sizes, but what about the principle of evidence here? If MAG is so off-track and there is nothing to worry about, why did the EU Ombudsman say that the EU Commission had a case to answer? Why does it believe that the Commission seems to have proposed something without justification and in so doing breached the Treaty of the EU itself?Would the UK Government bother spending public funds on an impact assessment into the EU proposals if it wasn't concerned? Why did it find that there appears to be no evidence?Would the Commission state in Annex XVIII of its own proposal that there is no baseline data available to even establish if there is a ‘problem’ with modified bikes being unsafe or harmful to the environment?Would an MP belonging to the party in Government formally request that the UK consider taking the EU Commission to court and would he be supported by MPs from all other parties?Would MEPs write to the Commission and demand to see proof that there is justification for these new laws? Not Euro-sceptic MEPs, but Labour and Lib Dem ones.Would Green MEPs even be talking to us now?Would the Minister for Transport (Norman Baker) state in writing to the Houses of Parliament, May 17th, that “The Commission has not published any indicators to support the extension of anti-tampering measures to unrestricted motorcycles as part of their current proposal… The Department’s (DfT) impact assessment could not find evidence to support anti-tampering measures on unrestricted motorcycles and on this basis the (UK) Government has opposed proposals to extend anti-tampering measures to unrestricted motorcycles” (please note, as above, anti-tampering already exists on bikes up to 125cc)He also said that the EU Commission had now begun a study to see if there is evidence! This proposal has already passed the Committee stage in the EU Parliament. It’s been public for 18 months! 4 Committees examined it, then one (IMCO), voted on amendments and presented a recommendation to the whole Parliament at the start of Jan 2012. At this late stage, a study is underway to ‘find’ evidence. I’m absolutely convinced that it’ll be a study without prejudice, but it’s rather like a defendant being brought before a judge for sentencing and the police saying “oh yes, evidence. Give us a minute".Remember the Impact Assessment that IMCO commissioned back in November, which ended up finding the wrong answers? Well the consultants, London Economics have had another go at their brief and this time find that there is a slight cost benefit advantage, although they still say there is no ambiguous case for the IMCO ideas of extending ABS to all, or for bringing forward Euro 5 emission controls.

Our Government continues to fight our corner in Brussels and we must continue to get our MEPs to fight for us in the EU Parliament. Don't give up, every letter counts and now we have until the 10th Sept before they vote on this. We can only affect British MEPs and we must trust those in other countries to do the same. A recent FEMA report praised the continued efforts of those riders in the UK who are actively writing letters and keeping up the pressure. That's us, we're leading the way.
June 24th can concentrate the minds of those MEPs in your constituency who haven't yet seemed interested. All your letter writing has really turned the Lib Dems around and that is a real credit to your persistence (OK those of you in the East Mids who are blessed with Mr Newton Dunn have, I know, had a different experience)June 24th can also be a celebration and acknowledgement of how far we've come from that original EU proposal of October 2010. With our Government behind us a show of strength can act as a boost to them, but blocking the motorways entirely will be wholly counter productive. We need to show that we are an organised lobby so a regimented ride at no less than 40mph is necessary. This, remember, is part of wider campaigning.
We are working on an amendment with MEPs that will be tabled in the EU Parliament to ensure that the wording of Article 18 is acceptable and unambiguous. We will not put our heads in the sand and hope for the best. There is no-one else fighting for riders.We will continue to battle and with your help justice may just prevail.
MAG remains opposed to anti-modification laws, but we are particularly opposed to laws that have no basis. If this becomes law, a very interesting precedent will have been set and the EU will, I believe, have lost any credibility it may have had.
Back to top Go down
View user profile


Posts : 782
Join date : 2011-02-08
Location : Livingston

PostSubject: Re: The Anti tampering Regulation   Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:30 am

Miffa, I don't normally copy other people's posts and certainly not without asking, so do you mind if I fire this over to a couple of other sites I lurk on? By building cafe racers we would automatically fall into several categories of violation if any versions of these daft regulations ever become law, so the more people aware of the fight and supporting MAG the better!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
gone fishin

Posts : 541
Join date : 2011-10-26
Location : black country

PostSubject: Re: The Anti tampering Regulation   Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:38 am

please feel free as you say the more people aware of whats going on the better

heres the origonal post i made
Back to top Go down
View user profile


Posts : 181
Join date : 2011-07-11
Age : 47
Location : Shevington

PostSubject: Re: The Anti tampering Regulation   Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:38 pm

I bet the gob shite who dreamt up all these ridiculous regulations never got a mechano set as a child, and would not know what a spanner is.
Finally I bet he goes fecking ballroom dancing on the weekend.
Back to top Go down
View user profile


Posts : 359
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 51
Location : weeley, Essex

PostSubject: Re: The Anti tampering Regulation   Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:14 pm

all because he couldnt claim his expenses for miss whiplash
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content

PostSubject: Re: The Anti tampering Regulation   

Back to top Go down
The Anti tampering Regulation
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Cafe Racer Forum  :: General Chat-
Jump to: