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/Ne...reat/Post.aspx

M R-e-a-d-i-n-g <(E-Mail Removed)> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

> 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

I call *******s (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?

> but leaving car drivers out of it as the backlash form them would be
> too much!

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

On 22 Sep, 16:22, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> M R-e-a-d-i-n-g <big_sidebu...@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
>
> 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!

M R-e-a-d-i-n-g <(E-Mail Removed)> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>> 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?

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 ****.

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

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

M R-e-a-d-i-n-g wrote:
> 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/Ne...reat/Post.aspx

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.

--
Cab

Cab <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:d1f13a94-d159-4955-9e0b-(E-Mail Removed):

> M R-e-a-d-i-n-g wrote:
>> 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/Ne...al-news/2010/S
>> ept
> ember/sep2210-euro-moto-threat/Post.aspx
>
> 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.
>

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.


--
wessie at tesco dot net

BMW R1150GS

wessie <(E-Mail Removed)> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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

> Ah, my memory is serving me correctly. I can't see Sarko agreeing to any
> directive from a safety nazi in the EU

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.

> let alone spending money on a testing infrastructure.

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>

On 22 Sep 2010 17:08:20 GMT, Adrian wibbled:
>> Ah, my memory is serving me correctly. I can't see Sarko agreeing to any
>> directive from a safety nazi in the EU
>
> 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.

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

>> let alone spending money on a testing infrastructure.

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.

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

See above, not completely.

> 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>

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.

--
Cab :^) - Cogito sumere potum alterum
Z1000ABS : http://www.rosbif.org/ukrm (just for WUN)
The ALL NEW ukrm website : http://www.ukrm.info
email addy : ukrm_dot_cab_at_rosbif_dot_org

Cab <(E-Mail Removed)> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

>> 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>

> I thought it was actually quite strict.

You've gone native.

On 22 Sep 2010 18:22:28 GMT, Adrian wibbled:
> Cab <(E-Mail Removed)> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>> 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>
>
>> I thought it was actually quite strict.
>
> You've gone native.

Heheheheh. Norra chance.

--
Cab :^) - Cogito sumere potum alterum
Z1000ABS : http://www.rosbif.org/ukrm (just for WUN)
The ALL NEW ukrm website : http://www.ukrm.info
email addy : ukrm_dot_cab_at_rosbif_dot_org