russbost
|
| posted on 12/2/18 at 09:55 AM |
|
|
@Sam_68 "Congratulations, though - you've obviously got the system that you wanted: nannied to the point where even the most trivial risk
is removed... including environmental risk." - Where do you come up with this cr*p from Sam? we certainly don't have a system that I like
nor wanted, as I pointed out had you bothered to read my post, SVA was one thing, IVA quite another & obviously I want a total nanny system,
that's why I designed such a boring middle of the road car!
To get back to NOT bickering & the important item that's actually in hand, there is a very important paragraph in that complete kitcar link
above which reads "Peter Bailey, of Chesil Motor Company has spoken to Mike Lowe who told him: “…if the consensus of the opinion is that this
will kill the British kit car industry, we are very much open to listening and asking Ministers if we can remove this proposal from the package of
proposals.” so it at least sounds as tho' the people in control MIGHT listen to sensible arguments; think about some of the ramifications of
this, would a Cobra with a modern fuel injected quiet, tame V8 be the same as one with a bucket sized carb on a big block old school V8? Obviously
not, same goes for stuff like Ford GT 40's, D type, SS100 etc etc ALL the old school replica's would either disappear or turn into toned
down versions much more like a modern car & quite losing the spirit of the original.
If you read the piece from Complete Kitcar there is much in there concerning engine choice & the reasons for it (I assume Chesil incidentally are
still using the old VW lump, was that ever available with injection, management & a CAT?), it warrants reading & the points raised therein are
precisely the sort of thing we should be pointing out to the powers concerned
As I've already said, if you agree with the proposals, fine, do nothing, that's your choice, but if you disagree then please write in
& try to send something original rather than just a copied template from someone else
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
|
|
jps
|
| posted on 12/2/18 at 11:21 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbost there is a very important paragraph in that complete kitcar link above which reads "Peter Bailey, of
Chesil Motor Company has spoken to Mike Lowe who told him: “…if the consensus of the opinion is that this will kill the British kit car industry, we
are very much open to listening and asking Ministers if we can remove this proposal from the package of proposals.”
I suspect that it'll help a lot if there is representation from manufacturers about this change, I can imagine ministers more interested in
changing policy if they think business will suffer. Is there anything this community could do to raise this issue with kit manufacturers, etc?
From a business point of view I think there's a wider point to consider that just "do many of our buyers fit Pintos". I can imagine
that short-notice implementation of something like this would be rather off putting for someone thinking of starting a build. Would you start a 12
month project if you knew that the goalposts could be changed at 6 months notice?
|
|
|
jps
|
| posted on 12/2/18 at 11:22 AM |
|
|
Whoops - double post...
[Edited on 12/2/18 by jps]
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 12/2/18 at 11:38 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbostWhere do you come up with this cr*p from Sam?
Why, directly from yourself, Russ:
quote:
I thought pretty much everyone agreed that overall SVA was a good thing, made a LOT of people clean up their act. IVA, however was a different
matter, where else but in a government department could you think that an increase in charges of over 700% for a test that had barely changed could
possibly be reasonable
On the one hand, you are saying that (apart from the cost) IVA is virtually identical to SVA, which 'everyone agreed' was a good
thing. On the other, you are now saying that we have a system that you neither like nor wanted.
Which is it - you seem confused?
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 12/2/18 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jps
I suspect that it'll help a lot if there is representation from manufacturers about this change, I can imagine ministers more interested in
changing policy if they think business will suffer. Is there anything this community could do to raise this issue with kit manufacturers,
etc?
Of course, it's a particular and specific issue for Chesil: the authenticity of their cars relies upon them being able to fit long-obsolete
air-cooled Beetle engines. There will be one or two others, too - Suffolk Sportscars springs to mind - but by and large it's not that big an
issue for the manufacturers.
Truth be told, it would probably suit the majority of them quite well to have a system that demanded we buy a complete, 'compliant'
drivetrain package from them, instead of hunting ebay for donors.
I am a member of the Niche Vehicle Network, which represents small volume vehicle manufacturers and is a 'statutory consultee' on the
latest proposals. They haven't even bothered highlighting this matter with us.
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 12/2/18 at 12:35 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by russbostWhere do you come up with this cr*p from Sam?
Why, directly from yourself, Russ:
quote:
I thought pretty much everyone agreed that overall SVA was a good thing, made a LOT of people clean up their act. IVA, however was a different
matter, where else but in a government department could you think that an increase in charges of over 700% for a test that had barely changed could
possibly be reasonable
On the one hand, you are saying that (apart from the cost) IVA is virtually identical to SVA, which 'everyone agreed' was a good
thing. On the other, you are now saying that we have a system that you neither like nor wanted.
Which is it - you seem confused?
As usual, the pedant pulls individual sentences apart rather than looking at what's actually been said "overall SVA was a good
thing" Yes, it was I ran a garage business back in the day & was an MoT tester, you simply would not believe some of the homebuilt kitcars
which were brought in to us for MoT when all you needed to do was build the car & MoT it, then apply for registration, locknuts missing from track
rod ends, loose steering rack, non-working or leaking brakes/brake hoses, hoses, wiring etc. chaffing anything from fan belt to handbrake cables,
handbrake cable shortened by tying knots in it; one car actually had the column fall off the rack whilst on the ramp, he hadn't fitted a pinch
bolt!!! - the standard was utterly appalling, a normal MoT at the time took around half an hour, one of these could take 2 hours, have a 4 page
failure on a red ticket (remember those, prohibited driving the vehicle away?). So YES, resoundingly, something needed to be done & the CONCEPT of
the SVA was a good idea, it's implementation was, as usual for a government department, utterly useless as it had to cover everything from a one
off kitcar to things like hearses/ambulances/imports etc etc one size does NOT fit all & all the rubbish about sharp edges etc. was far too heavy
handed & didn't apply any rules of common sense, the big problem with IVA is indeed the cost & has decimated the (already dying/damaged)
industry
For anyone that doesn't want to object to this, fine, ignore it, but please leave those that want to discuss what should be done & how to do
it, in peace to do so
Sam, if you want to make childish pedantic comments to me or anyone else then I suggest you do it by U2U rather than distracting from what many people
feel to be a serious subject. I will no longer respond to any comment made by yourself or others which is "off topic" let's keep
discussion to the subject in hand
I am hardly surprised that the Niche Vehicle Network haven't taken any notice as they are primarily manufacturers of brand new vehicles using
modern technology such as carbon fibre, hybrid & electric motors, they are hardly likely to be interested in something affecting old technology
are they? (please don't bother to answer that)
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 12/2/18 at 01:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
As usual, the pedant pulls individual sentences apart rather than looking at what's actually been said
On the contrary, Russ; I deliberately quoted your sentence in full, because the only criticism you raised against IVA was the cost: you specifically
stated that otherwise, it had (quoting your own words) "barely changed" from IVA which 'pretty much everyone agreed was a good
thing'.
If you don't like being quoted on what you say, instead of what you think you mean, then try saying what you mean with more care.
I'm sure we would all like IVA to be cheaper, but the reality is that it probably doesn't cover its costs even at the current rate, and if
you want to see how that would play out, you only need to look at the German TUV or Australian ADR systems (the latter, you effectively have to employ
a consultant engineer to oversee your build).
Your own position on this seems to be very confused, to say the least, so please don't present yourself as in some way representing the wider
car building community.
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
I am hardly surprised that the Niche Vehicle Network haven't taken any notice as they are primarily manufacturers of brand new vehicles using
modern technology such as carbon fibre, hybrid & electric motors, they are hardly likely to be interested in something affecting old technology
are they? (please don't bother to answer that)
The Niche Vehicle Network are not manufacturers of anything. They are a body that consists of, and represents, numerous manufacturers within the
specialist car industry.
Their leading and most active members are companies like Westfield, Ariel, Morgan, Ginetta and the like, but there is nothing to stop you yourself or
Furore joining them, if you are really interested in making representations on behalf of the industry.
|
|
|
snapper
|
| posted on 13/2/18 at 07:09 AM |
|
|
No you not think that the cliff edge proposed in the consultation is the main issue, disadvantage for those who are currently building.
There is not enough time for those people to change to a newer engine and the cost would be high.
Those who are building must respond to the consultation and I would hope those who have been lucky enough to have already completed theirs would
support the others not so luck especially if you have a Pinto engine for instance because you would have failed.
Let’s start a list of who has responded
1.me
I eat to survive
I drink to forget
I breath to pi55 my ex wife off (and now my ex partner)
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 13/2/18 at 11:12 AM |
|
|
This info is from the thread on Pistonheads
"I have now had confirmation via the assistant to my local MP that the new rules - if they come into force - will not be retrospective. They
will apply to cars registered later in 2018 at a date to be confirmed. Anyone building a car with an engine that won’t comply with current emissions
legislation needs to get it registered and IVA’d as soon as possible as a contingency against Government madness...."
To add to the list Paul started
Let’s start a list of who has responded
1.Snapper
2.Russbost
I would add, that if you are concerned about these proposals, but can't find time/be bothered to write in yourself, you can ask Adam Wilkins at
Complete Kitcar to add your name to the group submission they are making - adam@performancepublishing.co.uk
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
CTLeeds
|
| posted on 13/2/18 at 03:00 PM |
|
|
I've sent an email with my concerns even though I think my 1997 BMW engined Rush should pass when I get to test stage.
I think the manner in which they are planning to rush through the changes is entirely unfair to builders that have already started with an engine that
will struggle to pass the proposed new limits on emissions. I suggested (being as they love paperwork) that new builders embarking on a project from
the proposed date of the new limits download and complete a declaration to DVSA that ties them to the new legislation going forward. Existing builders
could complete a declaration that ties them to a completion date two years (or something) from the proposed date.
I understand that the government have to take action on air quality and kit builders can't be exempt from that but introducing changes that are
fair, proportionate and give an appropriate lead time for projects to be completed is surely the way forward.
On a side note I thought I saw on the document that the Niche Vehicle Network was on the list of consultees. I mentioned them in my email as I suspect
they are more concerned with the shifting of turnkey cars rather than kit builders and therefore could offer false representation in my opinion.
Chris
|
|
|
joneh
|
| posted on 13/2/18 at 03:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
This info is from the thread on Pistonheads
"I have now had confirmation via the assistant to my local MP that the new rules - if they come into force - will not be retrospective. They
will apply to cars registered later in 2018 at a date to be confirmed. Anyone building a car with an engine that won’t comply with current emissions
legislation needs to get it registered and IVA’d as soon as possible as a contingency against Government madness...."
To add to the list Paul started
Let’s start a list of who has responded
1.Snapper
2.Russbost
I would add, that if you are concerned about these proposals, but can't find time/be bothered to write in yourself, you can ask Adam Wilkins at
Complete Kitcar to add your name to the group submission they are making - adam@performancepublishing.co.uk
I've responded in full to the questionnaire with a plea to either not change the emmision regulations or give us more time to complete...
|
|
|
clive7883
|
| posted on 13/2/18 at 03:45 PM |
|
|
I have replied via an email, also sent a hard copy by post, a friend has also responded by post,
so that's 2 more..
|
|
|
Hoylegj
|
| posted on 18/2/18 at 05:04 PM |
|
|
Everyone should be responding online to the consultation and asking for Cars that go via BIVA to be exempt. Otherwise even cats and fuel injection may
not get you through as time goes on and the standards become even harder. remember they are going to be linked it to emissions rules at the test
date I.e. Therefore Amateur biulds will find this harder and harder as time goes on
so please respond to the consultation ask for BIVA exemption
[Edited on 18/2/18 by Hoylegj]
|
|
|
Peter Perfect
|
| posted on 18/2/18 at 09:34 PM |
|
|
Ive submitted my response
I've responded, if the proposals go ahead my build stops
For the attention of
Robert Lloyd-Smith
Zone 1/33, Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 4DR
Dear Sirs,
proposal document called ‘Road Vehicles – Improving air quality and safety’.
The following are my response to sections 4.10 - 4.13 of the above document, and Questions 8 and 10
Q8. Do you agree with the introduction of WLTP in IVA, for light vehicles built after 1 July 2018? Answer: No
Q10. Are you content with our proposal to require kit cars to meet the latest MOT standards, removing the current rule where vehicles are tested to
MOT standards according to the age of their engine? Answer: No
I am building, and have been for many years a Ronart W152, and whilst it is not a strict replica, it is a homage to the golden era of British motor
racing, as it is on lines of a1950 grand prix car. As such there is a need to have an earlier style engine to retain the character and style of the
car. It has been designed for jaguar XJ6 series 1,2 or 3, 4.2 litre straight 6 engine with period triple carburettors, Such an engine arrangement
would be impossible to meet the current mot and proposed emission criteria controls. The build commenced having only after the engine obtain the
historic age verification to allow emissions to be tested on an age related basis.
It could be said that the alternative would be to modify the chassis, mechanics, rear axle, electrics and body panels to accommodate a more modern
engine. As well as incurring unimaginable expense, such a change would detract from the vehicle, the whole design, the original character of the car,
and therefore its sale-ability. As it would no longer reflect the period the car is paying homage to. the car not been worth a fraction on the current
market resale price in excess of £40,000.
If an alternative solution is not possible as a modern jaguar straight 6 cylinder engine and axle are not available, and if they were would it
increase the build cost astronomically, and as explained above have detrimental effect on the resale values?
I Would there be existing builder who after expending many hundreds if not thousands of hours and personal expense into the build would effectively
have a project that would be uneconomical to continue as my projected build completion date is may years beyond the proposed implementation date.
On a wider view
Small scale manufacturers of specialist and kit cars do not form a big industry, but are unique within Europe and in fact in the world, having
produced thousands of specialist cars over the last 50 years, and have become established as the world centre for this type of car.
The introduction of SVA and then IVA allowed the kit car industry to produce vehicles to a recognized safe standard – a fact borne out by the low
insurance premiums that we as owners enjoy.
The introduction of the proposal would be the death of yet another small industry, and one that is unique in this country. It is another sign of the
Government not supporting small industries and removing the possibility of home build engineers, Rather favouring mass production and requiring
everyone to be the same.- not good.
It is important to economic growth that this industry to continues both for manufactures, the supply chain suppliers and the builders , but these
current proposals could be, and many are sure will be the death of many small firms. This is not an excessive expectation, but a reality. As many have
individually explained, it is the proposed change to MoT emissions standards for kit cars that would be very damaging to our cars… the older style of
engines perhaps being vital to the core appeal of the model, and/or the potential costs of fitting compliant engines being so expensive as to cause
sales to fall to unsustainable levels.
Many builders and manufactures have small workshops and not a vast workforce, but all have many times that number indirectly employed who have
specialist skills and rely on our continued, and regular, work.
The proposal could be seen as a personal vendetta to the kit car industry and the builders as, if the old engines are in classic cars and the cars are
restored, the proposals don’t apply. But if we refurbish the old engines and these are done to the same standard as applied by the classic car owner,
for use in a kit car ,they do apply and have to meet current mot emission standards.
As you will notice, on a day-to-day basis there are very few classic cars on the roads and even less Kit cars, all often reserved for special
occasions, days out and perhaps limited touring during the summer months.
It is not uncommon for these cars to have limited mileage insurance, typically 2000-6000 miles per year, with many not covering more than 1000 miles
annually. The emissions impact by this small ‘fleet’ of cars is also tiny and does not warrant the heavy-handed controls that are being considered.
I hope that you now have a better picture of our industry and its precarious position if this legislation became enacted.
I strongly request that this part of the proposed new legislation be dropped.
Regards
Howard
|
|
|
Hoylegj
|
| posted on 18/2/18 at 10:05 PM |
|
|
The way I read it as the years pass the rules for emissions will get tighter. By that time all cars will be electric or hydrogen. If we have to
make.out builds meet those standards we will struggle to build anything. Your choice, respond to the consultation or not. Personally I enjoy this
hobby/sport and have responded to try and keep options open for others that follow us
|
|
|
CTLeeds
|
| posted on 20/2/18 at 06:38 PM |
|
|
Just had a reply to my email...
"Thank you for your recent response to our consultation on Road vehicles - Improving air quality and safety.
I can confirm that we have received your comments and that your response will be carefully considered as part of the consultation".
The results of the consultation will be published alongside the consultation documents, at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/road-vehicles-improving-air-quality-and-safety
Yours sincerely
Robert Lloyd Smith
Mr Robert Lloyd Smith | International Vehicle Standards, Department for Transport
|
|
|
stig mills
|
| posted on 21/2/18 at 06:09 PM |
|
|
If the proposals are adopted;
1. Kits that use donors made in the last 25 years will not be affected.
2. Kit cars that are currently registered will not be affected if the proposals are adopted.
3. New car MOT standards as ref in the proposal means BET (basic emission test). To comply a CAT will be needed.
4. The majority of kits manufactured today use post 1995 engines and therefore comply with BET.
5. Kits currently under construction with carbs may struggle to pass but with a CAT it may be possible.
6. Kits that use engines over 25 years old may struggle to pass but with a CAT it may be possible.
7. Currently a kit with a post 1995 engine goes through a far more strict test than one with a 60's engine but that may change.
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 21/2/18 at 07:56 PM |
|
|
"3. New car MOT standards as ref in the proposal means BET (basic emission test). To comply a CAT will be needed." - yes, but what will
MoT emission standards be in, say, 3 years time - no one knows, agree to this at your peril! 
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
PorkChop
|
| posted on 21/2/18 at 09:48 PM |
|
|
Well, they haven't changed for almost 16 years, when OBD / Euro 3 came in, beginning in 2000. Some food for thought and for people to draw their
own conclusions - the Euro standard has just entered it's sixth iteration since then (Euro 3, 4, 5, 5b, 6b, 6c and recently 6d Temp).
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 22/2/18 at 08:06 AM |
|
|
Well, if it hasn't changed in 16 years it obviously isn't going to is it? No, wait, by 2040 (supposedly) ALL new cars will be electric, so
what MoT regs do you think we'll have then? Is it not feasible (likely perhaps) that we may have changes a long way b4 that? Why take a
chance?
& it still doesn't change the position for the poor sod with a several 1000 £££'s worth of carb'ed V8 sitting in his garage
& no way of finishing the car b4 June - wake up & smell the roses!
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
clive7883
|
| posted on 22/2/18 at 09:19 AM |
|
|
I can't believe people are being so lax about this, if this goes through, it will be the start of the end for kit cars, hot rods and even
modified road cars, re mapping etc will all eventually be affected !!!
|
|
|
CTLeeds
|
| posted on 22/2/18 at 10:33 AM |
|
|
I'm not sure that many people are being "lax" about it. I know many that have emailed to make their point. I also know some people
are in agreement with the proposed changes going forward. I think the real issue lies in the timescale in which any changes are due to be made,
that's the unfair bit as I see it. My car will probably be alright ('97 BMW 2.8 with EFI and CAT) come IVA day but I emailed to make the
point on behalf of other people that are building using carbs, no cats etc.
Personally I think it won't happen but that's just my opinion and I'm usually wrong.
|
|
|
stig mills
|
| posted on 22/2/18 at 10:44 AM |
|
|
MOT emissions are changing on 20th May.
The new rules will allow kit cars built based on donors up to 25 years old to pass.
Those with older engines or carbs will need a CAT and then they may pass.
The levels to achieve are quoted below from the new MOT manual.
"The emissions limits to be met are specified for both the fast and normal idle tests.
At fast idle, CO must be at or less than 0.2%, HC at or less than 200 parts per million
(ppm), and the lambda value(1) must be between 0.97 and 1.03. At normal idle, CO
must be at or less than 0.3%."
|
|
|
chillis
|
| posted on 22/2/18 at 01:07 PM |
|
|
Not me - I was writing to the magazines (those being the days before internet was in such commonplace use) saying exactly that it was the thin
end of the wedge, for exactly the reasons that have transpired... that it would give an easy mechanism by which the Regs could be progressively
tightened and made more obstructive, without the ability for effective resistance, to the point where the industry ceased to be viable.
We were sold a dummy, with SVA - the ultimate outcome was inevitable.
To be fair, my concerns were based mainly on the similar system for homebuilt aircraft, where the UK has a delightfully Catch-22 situation that
you're not allowed to build a design unless it has proven successful over so many flight hours, but you're not allowed to fly a prototype
to gain those hours - leaving us only able to pick up designs second-hand from other countries.
I firmly believe that you can't have a progressive and innovative engineering industry without some risk, and there was never any
evidence that kit or self-built cars were particularly dangerous - just the opposite, from the insurance figures; they were always a very good
risk.
Congratulations, though - you've obviously got the system that you wanted: nannied to the point where even the most trivial risk is
removed... including environmental risk.
Whilst I agree with what you say and there were many of us at the time who felt the same, the reality is if the SVA had been opposed with any degree
of vigour then kit cars would have been banned there and then. The government was aware that the EU whole vehicle type approval would outlaw kit cars
and they could have just said there's nothing we can do and that would have been it.
By working with the government we were able to get concessions the allowed kit cars to continue at least for a while. Sadly kit cars, modified cars
and anything non-mainstream will come under continued pressure as the drive to reduce cars and personal transport is now a major government aim (this
is not a pollution related issue though the government will use that to justify anything that is perceived as unpopular.)
Individual and individualised transport has had its day sooner or later we all have to accept that
Never under estimate the ingenuity of an idiot!
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 22/2/18 at 02:17 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chillis
...the reality is if the SVA had been opposed with any degree of vigour then kit cars would have been banned there and then.
...Individual and individualised transport has had its day sooner or later we all have to accept that
I don't necessarily disagree, but the best chance we had to resist 'legislative creep' was pre-SVA, when there was a large and
vibrant industry, and we could genuinely say that it was worth thousands of jobs and £millions to the economy, as well as (back then) feeding
innovation and skills into other sectors of the transport industry.
But as you say, having (rightly or wrongly) meekly accepted SVA, the rest becomes inevitable.
The industry is a mere shadow of its former self, and resistance to what amounts to a very mild rationalisation of the Regs in the form of these
latest changes will merely prod the sleeping monster of central Government into realising we're simply not worth the trouble any more, for a
relative handful of oily-fingered eccentrics, and the plug will be pulled on IVA, period.
|
|
|
