[crispy]

I sent this last night after i saw a bit of a texting campaign idea over on the other side which was starting to turn into a 4 liner email campaign...

I thought I'd expand on the idea and maybe personalise giving some of my background info that might suggest why i have strong opinion on the upcoming voting/protests/Demos/

This was the list of MEP's mentioned for Ireland.

Maybe you can improve......

To: info@briancrowleymep.ie, sean.kelly@finegael.ie,
nessa.childers@europarl.europa.eu,
proinsias.derossa@europarl.europa.eu, liam.aylward@europarl.europa.eu,
gay.mitchell@europarl.europa.eu, info@paulmurphymep.eu,
mairead.mcguinness@europarl.europa.eu, phil@phil.prendergast.ie,
patthecope.gallagher@oireachtas.ie, marian.harkin@europarl.europa.eu,
jim.higgins@europarl.europa.eu

Hello all,

This is a plea not to vote in favour of an upcoming "eu anti tampering bill"
which will adversly affect the custom motorcycling building buisness in
Ireland. Customising bikes is imperative to our rights and freedoms as
individual citizens.

I was a motorcycle mechanic when i left school for 4 years in the XX's. I've
been riding bikes since 19XX. My dad is 70 years old and he still rides a
bike every week. My mum met my dad when she had a Honda 50 in the 1960's. My
wife had a bike before I met her. All this and none of us actually met
whilst riding a bike or wearing anything that said we were/are bikers. ie.
just looked like "normal " joe and josephine soaps but for all of us there
was biking in our blood. (you'd be surprised just how many normal appearing
*voters are bikers* underneath that appearance) .

So as you can see bikes have and will continue to be a large part of mine
and my families daily life.

Apart from affecting us this bill if introduced in full, will result in the loss of
many skilled mechanics jobs, and the closure of many small bike shops and
related suppliers around the country. It is imperative in the current
climate that we protect irish jobs.

I like many others have gone out of my way to take advanced training and
riding skills. How many other motoring groups can you say regularly do this
in Ireland. Many of us (admitedly as we get older and wiser) keep our riding
skills in check and police ourselves. We don't need European non biking
bureaucrats (quite possible even non motoring of any sort on any regular
basis) telling us what is good for our own safety without even consulting us
the road using public.

I implore you once again please do not vote in favour of many of the
sections that are part of the upcoming bill (See the link below)

*Link to Bill<http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/publications/promising_deliverable_3. pdf>
*

If you or one of your team can take a look over this bill you will see that
much of the evidence used in reports seems to be quite stale and dates back
to the 70/80/90's.

Yours Sincerely

Chris XXXXXX
(Advanced Motorist/Ex Motorcycle Courier/Ex Motorcycle Mechanic/ Ex Motorcycle Racer, also ex
Van & Truck Driver,Ex Transport Manager, Ex Chauffeur, Current part time
Taxi Driver, And most importantly an Irish Citizen Voter) I think all of
this qualifies me to have some form of an informed opinion about what is
good for the motorcycling and road using Irish Public


And this is by far the best response I got. It came from Jim Higgins office...

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your email. I will look into the issue, it has indeed
already come up for discussion in the Transport Committtee, of which
Jim Higgins is a member. I would urge you however, together with the
other members of your campaign team not to call for a blanket
rejection of the legislation. The reason for this is simple - It is
very unlikely that the report will be rejected outright, even if Jim
were to vote against. However if you could pick specific points which
you have most difficulty with, something could then possibly be done,
for example rejection of certain paragraphs and so on.

For example, there has been much discussion on ABS and Jim supports
the mandatory fitting on ABS on larger bikes. So for this reason for
example, it is unlikely he would vote outright against the report.

I hope this has been of some help and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sean de Burca,
Assistant to Jim Higgins MEP.

This post has been edited by crispy: 08 September 2011 - 12:54 PM

[HatchA74]

I don't get it...

Jim Higgins Office said:

For example, there has been much discussion on ABS and Jim supports
the mandatory fitting on ABS on larger bikes. So for this reason for
example, it is unlikely he would vote outright against the report.

They want to stop people making alterations to their bikes but they want to bring in mandatory ABS on bigger bikes? Surely that requires a lot of after market customising and alteration on bikes that don't have ABS as standard??

Typical Irish "government" with their heads up their asses.

This post has been edited by HatchA74: 08 September 2011 - 04:11 PM

[fabio]

Fair play to you Crispy for putting that together. I'll take those email addresses and I will be putting together a letter myself I'd say using a good bit of what you have above if you'd not mind!

Specific bits of the legislation...that's a good point but to be honest I just don't want any of it at all. However in putting together a campaign, much like with food, bite sized pieces are best.

[galwaygirl]

Very well written Crispy! Fair play to you.
Likwise, i'd like to use those emails and compose something similar if its ok with you.

[Fazerman]

Well done.

I think that answer means maybe if he gets enough mails he might argue some points of the proposed bill, maybe.

But our french brethren did this My link


This is what we all need to do, monday morn, a couple of hundred bikers, cuttin off dawson street, nassau street and kildare street, this is the only way we will get people and politicians to pay attention.
I am sick of reading about this issue on bike forums and there be little done about it apart from the ludicrous idea of a sunday 25th rideout!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vixen]

sorry only got a chance to read this now. Thanks for mailing that, it was a very good email and i really hope it makes them think!

As im new to biking im a bit lost in all this stuff so i duno what id write to them (if anyone wants to write me a short mail and ill sign it and send it thatd be great! )

[crispy]

Feel free yo use all or part of it as you need. It's not often i go to the stage of writing a letter but this time all of us need to take that little extra step. Usually, like most people I join in with the ranting and raving online or in my own mind. But this time we need to take that extra step and make our feelings known that we disagree with these proposals. But I think Jim Higgins assistant is correct about fighting not for a ""blanket no" but a "selected no".

Think of any form of negotiation. Whether it's looking for planning permission or looking for a pay rise or new equipment in the worplace or your workplace looking for a pay cut or a change in work practices. Nobody likes to come away empty handed and that includes the commision/commitee that is suggesting these changes and also ourselves. Nobody ever comes away from these things without feeling that they at least have won a battle even if thay haven't won the war.

We will probably have to agree to some things (Admitedly I haven't read the full article) but if we can fight some points rather than a blanket no then we are much more likely to win those points.

It's been a long time since I remember bikers having to fight against europewide proposals but last time I got off my butt I was a lot younger and had less ties/demands and my time. That was back in 1994 when the 100bhp was being proposed and I (along with a couple of hundred Irish bikers) went to france to protest (along with tens of thousands of european bikers), and it looks like it is being proposed again (http://www.autoevolu...gain-17753.html).

MAG Ireland has been the longest running campaigner against unwarranted attention from interfeering non motorcycling bureaucrats who constantly try to to tell us what is good for us.
http://www.irishbike...08/page__st__60

And MAG Ireland amonst others are now in need of our support to show a phsyical stand both in communicating to the people that have the votes on these proposals that we are against the proposals and we want them to vote no.

I just like many, have let my membership lapse but whether your a member of any group/club or just a joe soap biker we need to stand up together if we are to get the MEP's to listen to our cries of vote no.

So please write/email/text the guys that have the voting rights and if possible take part in the riding demos and then together we can make our calls of vote no heard loud and clear.

This post has been edited by crispy: 09 September 2011 - 08:28 AM

[Fazerman]

Agree completely that We need to fight some things and not a blanket ban but feel we also need a big protest (stopping the traffic). The 100hp limit is already law in France so I think it's only a matter of time before it gets here

[The Greek AKA The cat]

Nice one Crispy. I might get in direct contact with Jim Higgins becasue I have strong misgivings about mandatory ABS particularly on the likes of the BMW1200GS, a bike designed to go off road. But only if you can turn off the ABS.

[Linda]

Well done Crispy brilliant letter. You've raised many of the points that MAG and FEMA has being raising.

Most of the ideas seem to be coming from old reports when the problems that they apply to no longer exist because of new technology.

ABS is being made mandatory for new larger bikes. Smaller bikes such as those suitable for learners will have linked brakes. The point the Greek made is exactly the point that was made by FEMA that you should have the ability to switch the ABS off when it would be hazardous to use it. I know that the Swedes with 70% of their roads classed as gravel roads have a great deal of difficulty with the proposal.

Fazerman that protest was against the proposals being bought in by their own gov not the EU proposals. FFMC in France has defeated the 100bhp law in France and it is no longer law in that country. This was a great blessing as one of the fookwit EU commissioners wanted to bring it back again.

Thanks to sterling work mainly by the Finnish and Swedish it now looks like one off builds will be excluded from these new regs.

The saddest part of this whole issue is that ACEM the manufacturers association are fully supporting and coming up with their own proposals to add to this list of stupidity.

Vixen I'm currently working on a letter/email for the MAG website so that people can get ideas.

Crispy your a star

[fabio]

A default email/letter from MAG that we can flood inboxes with would be the job Linda...fair play for the good work!

[andy gaw]

These MEP's won't even read this bill, and if they did they wouldn't understand it, so the whole lot will be swayed by the "health and safety" issue and vote in favour, go to whatever protest run is in your area and make a bit of noise...and when the bill is made law, just ignore the fecken thing, by the time it is passed we will have very few gardai to police it anyway

[Linda]

And once again you've hit the nail on the head Andy. Nowadays everything is being sold under the banner of safety a lot of the framework regulations have nothing to do with safety.

[fabio]

Some of us will have no choice but to ignore laws such as "no bike over 7 years old may enter an urban area". Bloody joke.

I agree with you again Brocky, good chance few will read it but I'm going to bang off an email to a few of them anyway. Can;t do much harm.

[fabio]

To whom it may concern,

The new legislation soon to be voted on by you and your colleagues concerning motorcycles is a matter of huge importance for many in the motorcycling community here in Ireland.

Not only will it have an effect on how we are allowed to use our motorcycles as forms of everyday transport but it will, in certain cases, also affect the safety of people on motorcycles. Motorcycles make up a very small number of total vehicles on Irish roads and while there is evidence that motorbike riders are at a higher degree of risk as regards serious injury or worse in an accident as compared to a car driver, this should not be used as an excuse to bring in a raft of legislation which is seriously flawed.

At this moment in time there is confusion among the general public as regards the licencing system for motorcycles and this is deterring many young people from getting on two wheels and using motorbikes or scooters as their first, and perhaps only, form of transport. This has brought many young people to instead buy cars and use these as their everyday forms of transport. What is my point here concerning the legislation to be voted on? Quite simply the government here in Ireland, more so than many other EU countries, does not see the motorcycle (or PTW) as a viable means of reducing traffic congestion despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Motorbikes take up less space on the road, are less polluting than cars, often use less fuel than cars (and definitely so when one compares the whole vehicle with space per person as a car with just one person in it is a lot less environmentally friendly than a motorbike with one person on it), and are easier to park, leaving more space for others. On top of this when one considers the social and charity elements inherent in motorcycling in Ireland, it is clear that motorcycles are a tool for social good. However it has to be questioned just how long motorcycling, not just as a social activity, but as an everyday mode of transport, can remain viable if new regulations such as the ones this new legislation proposes are enacted. These new rules will make motorcycling more expensive than ever and make it ever more confusing for people to become familiar with, deterring them from taking to bikes to beat the traffic.

More regulation is not always a good thing and while I acknowledge that EU regulation has often been a good tool to force our country to deal with issues we have left lagging, in this instance it is to the contrary. We see everyday cars that are customised in certain ways by their respective owners and among motorcyclists this is also a hallmark but in contrast to cars the modifications made to motorcycles are there to improve safety, improve running and to improve comfort. It is not all about going fast and making more noise - especially not when it is an everyday mode of transport.

The anti-tampering section of the new legislation will seriously inhibit anyone from modifying their motorbikes in order to make them safer and more comfortable. What if someone needs to lower their bike in order to feel more comfortable when standing at traffic lights? What if someone wants to i-upgrade a poor headlight system fitted by the manufacturer? What if the motorcycle's exhaust has rotted through and needs replacing? The anti-tampering rules will make all of this impossible or very difficult and for what? There is no evidence to suggest that modifications made to a motorcycle are a contributor to road accidents. In fact if you are a motorcyclist you will know that a motorbike which is uncomfortable is one which can affect your concentration and your safety - a bike is like a good suit, it is tailored to you (why else is the aftermarket parts business for items such as new seats, heated handlebar grips and better lighting etc so well developed?) to ensure that it is comfortable and thus safe.

The section on Mandatory Onboard Diagnostic Equipment is also flawed because manufactures are already going down this route in response to consumer demand. Most motorcyclists know their own motorbikes and take good care of them. It is obvious to 99% of motorcyclists when their machine is not working right much like how you know when your car is not working right! Various lights and other equipment are not necessarily needed for this but their inclusion on certain motorbikes by certain manufacturers is not contested. Their mandatory introduction across-the-board however is. Not only will it increase costs, which inevitably means higher prices for the customer, but it also opens the frightening possibility of law enforcement agencies having the power to randomly stop motorcycles in order to test the vehicles through the on-board diagnostics. This is an Orwellian thought yes, but one that is very real with this legislation in the pipeline. On top of this it will also be a further obstacle to the addition of various aftermarket items as described in the paragraph above as the diagnostics will not cope with parts added by the owner and this is indeed a safety concern.

Another safety concern is the proposed introduction of mandatory ABS systems. While ABS is an effective technology for cars, trucks and other vehicles of a dual-track nature, it is not necessarily a good thing for bikes. Motorcyclists must possess a finely developed sense for correct braking procedures, a lesson that compulsory ABS, especially on small machines used mainly by learners, would render unimportant. This lack of importance is a very dangerous thing as motorcyclists must know how to brake properly with or without ABS but if you are to learn with ABS then you lose the ability to brake to 100% of your capacity. In the moments before a potential collision this could mean the difference between a collision or a close-call. On badly surfaced roads ABS can also be a problem because it prevents you from purposefully locking a wheel in order to turn more safely on surfaces such as gravel. Irish roads, apart from the Motorway network, are relatively poor and in winter ABS can be both a good and bad thing. Bad in that it takes control away from the rider but good in that it can prevent wheels locking-up on well surfaced roads. The option of it's use must lie with the rider who can best judge based on weather, road conditions and other factors.

I would urge you to listen to those who know best, those who ride motorcycles, and vote against this flawed and unsafe set of legislation. I would also urge you to keep in mind that motorcyclists are voters and in general are very close to their motorcycles not just as machines but also as social outlets, as hobbies, and to interfere with a persons mode of transport and their hobby or passion in one fell swoop will incite a backlash. It is also worth bearing in mind that for some time now motorcyclists, at least in Ireland, have felt discriminated against when compared with cars. Any 18 year old person with a car driving license is legally allowed to drive a Ferrari or Porsche or other high performance car with no restriction to the machine. However that same person with a motorbike license must ride a restricted motorbike for two years after gaining their "full" license - the motorbike must be modified to produce a maximum of 33kw of power which means the engine has to be modified to restrict the amount of air/fuel entering it. How is this fair or ever safe? And how does it interact with the new legislation to stop modifications to bikes as these restrictions are, for the most part, fitted as aftermarket parts to ensure the machine complies with current regulations? Contradictions abound.

It is time that motorcycles are given their due place on the road - change your mindset and see bikes and other PTW's as ways of reducing traffic congestion, reducing air pollution in cities and enhancing the social good (go and compare the amount of charity runs/events that motorcyclists partake in with those of cars - there is no comparison!). I, for one, am sick and tired of motorcycles and motorcyclists being targeted unfairly. It is my mode of transport and it is my hobby - I will not sit back and see it destroyed.

Yours faithfully...

That is the email I just sent off to the list that Crispy put together. I'd encourage you to write one and send it off yourself - if you haven't time to write your own one take this or Crispy's one and send it. Just copy and paste, it'll take all of two minutes and the more voices the better.

If anyone is interested here's the link to the actual piece of legislation (have a look and nod your head in agreement with Andy Gaw saying most of the MEP's won't even read this): http://assets.dft.go...-euproposal.pdf

[The Mex]

Nice one Fabio!! (and Crispy)


.... I am very concerned with the Jim Higgins reply though. (even though not a direct reply from the man himself)

The new law, and it's wide scope of content being presented, once passed, is in essence the end of motorcycling as we know it, (sounds overly dramatic I know, but really, I'm serious here)

For a start, I wonder what percentage of us own bikes under 7 years old? (Not me for one)

.... and while ABS, for some seems to be an OK thing, it takes away the ability to "lay down" a bike, not something you might ever need to do, or even be able to do, but the ability to do so has up till now has saved lives...
In some accident situations, (in particular, "single vehicle accidents") it's your own bike that can kill or hurt you, a bit of control over how you part company from it can leave you around to explain how. It should be down to choice.

I do wonder what is the root cause of this new law requirement, any bit of it...
... Who thought it up and why?

There are far more (by number) dangerous, noisy and hideously modded cars about, yet bikes are back under the EU microscope again...

We and our governments have already unilaterally accepted restrictions on new licenses for bikes, (33KW/ first 2 years) which puts us on an unlevel field compared to someone getting a new car license. (Ok, maybe we did stamp our feet a little to show we were unhappy at the time.)

... but this whole thing makes me sick....


Overall, I consider myself a good, productive, law abiding citizen.
I am a bit different to "the norm," in that I have a love of motorcycles, in particular motorcycles that are "personalised" by their proud owners...

.... but now, because of that what makes me different, it seems "they" are going to change the law and make me and anyone like me, a criminal....

This post has been edited by The Mex: 12 September 2011 - 02:23 AM

[Linda]

Nice one Fabio well done. One small quibble ABS is to be fitted to larger bikes only, smaller bikes (learner legal) will have linked brakes fitted as standard. Your arguments against ABS are valid for both sets of brakes.

The anti tampering rules are being pushed for by the manufacturers. Hardly an uninterested party I would have thought. ACEM the manufacturers association are pushing these as a safety measure and sadly nowadays whenever you put in the word safety everyone starts jumping through hoops without stopping to ascertain whether or not it is a safety issue. All must bow down to the great god safety even though this is a false worship that seems to allow science to be thrown out the window. You only have to look at our own RSA and the issue of Hi-Viz MAG wrote to the RSA over a month ago asking for their scientific evidence that hi-viz works,we're still waiting for a reply. My own personal feelings are that we should all boycott the manufacturers for a year and show them that the consumer is the one to satisfy not the H+S elves. All this is doing is restricting consumer choice and while I'm no expert in competition law must be in breach of the EUs own competition rules.

OBD FEMA has demanded that the manufacturers must issue their codes to all, the manufacturers response is that they will be available for a fee! this could put many small bike shops out of business. Last year a guy contacted the MAG office he owned a bike by the largest manufacturer and was having problems with his fuel pump, the dealer took the machine in plugged in the laptop and said it was working fine this carried on for a couple of months I advised him to go to RedZone where they discovered that the problem was with a loose wire going to the fuel pump the problem only showed up when the bike was at higher revs the difference between a mechanic and a laptop!
ACEM are also the ones pushing for PTI (NCT) for bikes across the EU. They approached FEMA asking for our support and where disappointed when we said no as there was no real need, across the EU approx 1% of all bike accidents are caused by the bike being unroadworthy.ACEM did further research on that 1% and stated that 15% were caused by worn tyres and 2% by failed brakes I responded that actually meant that 0.15% and 0.02% of ALL accidents that is the case whilst their presentation made it look like 15% and 2% of all accidents a big difference.

Mex the 7 year rule is just a French issue not an EU one. As to why nobody knows maybe they just want their city centers to look all shiny and new. But your right this does seem to be a back door way of banning bikes they haven't got the balls to do it openly so they make it harder and harder in the hope bikers will just give up and because they don't understand us they don't understand why we won't

[fabio]

I've had a few replies from the MEP's...this one from Jim Higgins of FG...

Dear Nevin,



Thank you for your email. I do apologise for the delay in giving you a final response to your queries, however, I preferred to wait until I had the time to fully investigate this matter thoroughly, together with the help of my assistant Sean de Burca, whom I know has already replied to some of the many emails my office has received. This email regroups all of the concerns my office has received, to try to allow you to understand my position on the matter.



At the outset, let me commend you on the approach you have taken in contacting the MEPs by email to voice your concerns. Many people complain, but few people actually try to co-ordinate themselves so as to explain their grievances to elected representatives.



Because of the massive amount of legislation being dealt with by the European Parliament, the workload is broken down into Committees. The report in this instance is coming through the IMCO Committee, of which I am not a Member. This means, that when the Committee is voting on the legislation in October, I will not be allowed to vote for or against. Nevertheless, I am a member of the Transport Committee, and so have taken a strong interest in this report even before now. In plenary in November, all MEPs will be allowed to vote on the final report.



The report in question, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approval and market surveillance of two-or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles[1], is 55 pages long. I have examined the report in detail. The report is written by Wim Van de Camp, of the Netherlands, whom I know personally, and who is himself a biker. Let me also state unequivocally, that I attach a high level of importance to the issue of road safety. It is not just the safety of experienced bikers that is being discussed, rather the safety of all road users.



In relation to your query on the banning of 7 year old bikes in urban areas, I have checked the proposal, and spoken with the MEP who has written this proposed legislation to double check, and I can see nothing which indicates that a ban on 7 year old bikes in being proposed. In short, this is not being proposed.



In regards to complaints which have been received about the proposal to make automatic headlights mandatory, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that since the 7th of February 2011, all new cars sold in the EU must have automatic headlights fitted as standard. This is because in countries such as Canada and Sweden, studies have shown reductions of between 3 and 10 per cent in the number of collisions, thanks to automatic headlights. I cannot therefore see why this might not also be applicable to motorcycles.



I support the mandatory use of high-visibility jackets for motorcyclists. It may not improve safety on the lane of a motorway nearest the central reservation, but it might improve things when it comes to visibility on a roundabout or at junctions - all places a motorcyclist has to invariably come into contact with before entering into a motorway for example.



I fully agree that it is not always the fault of the motorcyclist for not being seen. Some drivers drive blissfully unaware of the presence of motorcyclists in nearby lanes, and this is something which can be addressed by a combination of training for drivers, use of automatic headlights, use of high-visibility jackets and improved training for the motorcyclists themselves, together with an appropriate awareness campaign by the RSA.



In relation to Article 18, and the modification of power trains, It should be noted that this means If a power train has been modified, the vehicle should still be compliant to the same requirements as were applicable when the original vehicle was entered into service. This is intended to ensure that there are minimum standards respected when work is taking place on aspects of a bike's propulsion components. This, as I understand it, will still allow motorcycling enthusiasts to modify and make more comfortable their bikes, so long as the specifications regarding the power train are adhered to.



As regards compulsory ABS, this is an issue I have looked at for many months now. I understand fully that ABS is not suitable, even dangerous, in off road conditions. There is provision made for the exception of the Enduro and Trial motorcycles to allow for off road bikes.



When it comes to OBD or On Board Diagnostics, I raised the issue with the rapportuer some months ago. He agrees with me that applying OBDs to mopeds might be too costly, however he has stated that fitting OBDs to larger motorcycles is financially feasible, this is because the proportionate costs would be smaller.



I do not agree with arguments made that motorcyclists are being blamed for the incompetence of road users. All road users must take responsibility for their own actions, motorcyclists, car drivers, pedestrians, HGVs, cyclists etc since all groups interact with one another on the road. Road safety and the reduction in the number of deaths on our roads require a multi-faceted approach, and the current proposals are not intended to penalise motorcyclists unfairly.



I must also point to data which says that for 2010, 0.65 per cent of all road kilometres in Ireland were done on motorcycles; however 8 per cent of all deaths occurred on motorcycles. I accept that not all of these deaths were the fault of the motorcyclist, nevertheless, a motorcyclist is currently 12 times more likely to be killed than another road user in Ireland.



I take the point of 17 year olds being allowed to drive Porsches and other high powered vehicles with a normal Driver's Licence. I will write to Minister Varadkar on Monday next to raise this point.



Finally, I am acutely aware of the role that Powered Two Wheelers play in the fight to reduce congestion, and will support the widespread use of motorcycles, on condition that we improve safety for all our road users.



I hope that this clarifies my position on the matter to hand, but my office remains at your disposal for any further assistance I might be able to offer.

[Linda]

Thanks Fabio Jim Higgins has been supportive over the years and has some understanding of the issues. Not enough obviously.

[crispy]

I just read a response we got back fromm Jim higgins yesterday.

Looks we we have an uphill battle.



At the outset, let me commend you on the approach you have taken in contacting the MEPs by email to voice your concerns. Many people complain, but few people actually try to co-ordinate themselves so as to explain their grievances to elected representatives.

Because of the massive amount of legislation being dealt with by the European Parliament, the workload is broken down into Committees. The report in this instance is coming through the IMCO Committee, of which I am not a Member. This means, that when the Committee is voting on the legislation in October, I will not be allowed to vote for or against. Nevertheless, I am a member of the Transport Committee, and so have taken a strong interest in this report even before now. In plenary in November, all MEPs will be allowed to vote on the final report.

The report in question, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approval and market surveillance of two-or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles[1], is 55 pages long. I have examined the report in detail. The report is written by Wim Van de Camp, of the Netherlands, whom I know personally, and who is himself a biker. Let me also state unequivocally, that I attach a high level of importance to the issue of road safety. It is not just the safety of experienced bikers that is being discussed, rather the safety of all road users.

In relation to your query on the banning of 7 year old bikes in urban areas, I have checked the proposal, and spoken with the MEP who has written this proposed legislation to double check, and I can see nothing which indicates that a ban on 7 year old bikes in being proposed. In short, this is not being proposed.

In regards to complaints which have been received about the proposal to make automatic headlights mandatory, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that since the 7th of February 2011, all new cars sold in the EU must have automatic headlights fitted as standard. This is because in countries such as Canada and Sweden, studies have shown reductions of between 3 and 10 per cent in the number of collisions, thanks to automatic headlights. I cannot therefore see why this might not also be applicable to motorcycles.

I support the mandatory use of high-visibility jackets for motorcyclists. It may not improve safety on the lane of a motorway nearest the central reservation, but it might improve things when it comes to visibility on a roundabout or at junctions - all places a motorcyclist has to invariably come into contact with before entering into a motorway for example.

I fully agree that it is not always the fault of the motorcyclist for not being seen. Some drivers drive blissfully unaware of the presence of motorcyclists in nearby lanes, and this is something which can be addressed by a combination of training for drivers, use of automatic headlights, use of high-visibility jackets and improved training for the motorcyclists themselves, together with an appropriate awareness campaign by the RSA.

In relation to Article 18, and the modification of power trains, It should be noted that this means If a power train has been modified, the vehicle should still be compliant to the same requirements as were applicable when the original vehicle was entered into service. This is intended to ensure that there are minimum standards respected when work is taking place on aspects of a bike's propulsion components. This, as I understand it, will still allow motorcycling enthusiasts to modify and make more comfortable their bikes, so long as the specifications regarding the power train are adhered to.

As regards compulsory ABS, this is an issue I have looked at for many months now. I understand fully that ABS is not suitable, even dangerous, in off road conditions. There is provision made for the exception of the Enduro and Trial motorcycles to allow for off road bikes.

When it comes to OBD or On Board Diagnostics, I raised the issue with the rapportuer some months ago. He agrees with me that applying OBDs to mopeds might be too costly, however he has stated that fitting OBDs to larger motorcycles is financially feasible, this is because the proportionate costs would be smaller.

I do not agree with arguments made that motorcyclists are being blamed for the incompetence of road users. All road users must take responsibility for their own actions, motorcyclists, car drivers, pedestrians, HGVs, cyclists etc since all groups interact with one another on the road. Road safety and the reduction in the number of deaths on our roads require a multi-faceted approach, and the current proposals are not intended to penalise motorcyclists unfairly.

I must also point to data which says that for 2010, 0.65 per cent of all road kilometres in Ireland were done on motorcycles; however 8 per cent of all deaths occurred on motorcycles. I accept that not all of these deaths were the fault of the motorcyclist, nevertheless, a motorcyclist is currently 12 times more likely to be killed than another road user in Ireland.

I take the point of 17 year olds being allowed to drive Porsches and other high powered vehicles with a normal Driver's Licence. I will write to Minister Varadkar on Monday next to raise this point.

Finally, I am acutely aware of the role that Powered Two Wheelers play in the fight to reduce congestion, and will support the widespread use of motorcycles, on condition that we improve safety for all our road users.

I hope that this clarifies my position on the matter to hand, but my office remains at your disposal for any furhter assistance I might be able to offer.


Le gach dea-ghui,


Jim Higgins.