TUV Time!!!!!

[stolzy]

The big problem in France is not older riders (who tend, generally, to look after their bikes) but cash-strapped kids riding around on badly maintained smaller bikes. (happy to buy a new louder 'can' but not replacing bald tyres, rusty chains etc).

And yet the argument for CTs for bikes seems to have been lost.

 

[ChasF]

Also, crashes due to technical failure as actually extremely rare (approx 1%) and so far the only ones to gain from a test are the testing body that does the test!
The EU really wants this to happen despite countries with no RWT (RoadWorthiness testing) having crash stats with no discernible difference to those that do not have one!

When they introduced Controle Tecniques for car in France about 20 years ago the goverment said their aim was to set the level of the test such that cars of more than X (15, I think) years old would fail and be deemed beyond economic repair thereby giving manufacturers a leg up with new car sales.

As corrosion isn't a major issue with bikes they can't really do the same thing for/against us so it is generally considered a waste of time as the only people who would profit are the testers.

 

[Ogmios]

... a waste of time as the only people who would profit are the testers.

quelle suprise!

the following text is long, but is the most recent and i believe most true and from a trustworthy source.
(note; i'm involved with FEMA through MAG Irl. so must declare 'an interest' )

"The views of FEMA

FEMA is disappointed that the biased positions of the testing industry are still being taken into account while the views of riders remain ignored. The prejudiced studies and data provided by CITA and its members have already been taken for granted by the European Commission. The European Parliament, as the only legislative body in Europe directly representing European citizens, must not make the same mistake.

The countries of Europe are different. In Germany it is possible to race on a motorway without speed limit, riding in Sweden is only possible during several months of the year due to weather conditions. Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands have better accident statistics than Germany – even though they do not have RWT for motorcycles. Along with the Council FEMA calls to turn the proposed regulation into a directive and to leave the decision to the Member States on whether and how often mopeds, scooters and motorcycles are to be presented for periodic testing."

From here:
http://www.fema-online.eu/index.php...ail,0&cntnt01articleid=350&cntnt01returnid=15

 

[Redboots]

IF a test can be proven to lessen the chance of technical failure of a part / Bike - we'd be mad not to welcome it.

The French have thrown out the CT on the grounds it would financially impact the poorest group - scooter/moped riders.
They also said that roadworthy-ness was a very small contributor to accidents.
The Dutch and Swedes lobbed it out as well

 

[Sylvester]

The French have thrown out the CT on the grounds it would financially impact the poorest group - scooter/moped riders.
They also said that roadworthy-ness was a very small contributor to accidents.
The Dutch and Swedes lobbed it out as well

I'm not sure if mandatory inspection of bikes would make them any safer. For me I allways make sure that everthing I drive/ride is in as perfect condition as I can make it. By trade I'm an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, fixing/maintaining stuff is just how I roll, but imagine how pissed off you would be if some dullard smashed up your pride and joy and the insurance refused to pay out coz they were driving an unsafe shed. Many years ago I had my trusty Morris Marina totaled by a Tart trying to pick up a cassette from the floor of the car she was driving. Turns out she was not insured. Didn't even get a picture of a dead horse for my troubles and I was without wheels for a while till I could find another donor car to transfer all the serviceable bits across. Yeah, I know I deserved it for driving a Marina but if a f%ckwitt on a moped with bald tyres etc crashed into me and killed my Bemmer I would not be amused if the insurance would not pay up.

 

[Sylvester]

Useful thread this.

There's much talk of 'harmonising' MOT / TUV type tests over the entirety of the EU.
The TUV is often cited as the best standard and the one to go for.

IF a test can be proven to lessen the chance of technical failure of a part / Bike - we'd be mad not to welcome it.

But it has NOT been proven.
Also, crashes due to technical failure as actually extremely rare (approx 1%) and so far the only ones to gain from a test are the testing body that does the test!
The EU really wants this to happen despite countries with no RWT (RoadWorthiness testing) having crash stats with no discernible difference to those that do not have one!

Most of the countries that have no RWT probably couldn't be arsed to collect the data anyway. Espesh if it would prove they needed it.

 

[Sylvester]

It was just the Brits with their crap French that "interpreted" that as hi-vz armbands [/QUOTE]

Hey! I'm not the one wearing Redboots.

 

[Redboots]

Hey! I'm not the one wearing Redboots.

Ho-ho!
They mostly stay in the cupboard now I have a gentleman's bike
High Bandog Deasert boot in summer and the trusty Road Stars at this time of year... I do have an LED DRL though

 

[ianf]

One of my German customers had his fireblade failed... For having a polished/chromed frame.

He went to 3 places hoping to find a slightly more lenient tester without success.

It appears to be a way of getting rebuilt/streetfightered older bikes off the road, as it '*could* be masking a dodgy welding repair'. He had to de-register it and will be trailering it here to sell in the uk. As far as I know it was purely a bling thing.

My mate's consigned his bike to his daughter that lives in London to sell on.

If anyone's after a '93 Fireblade (that will need registering in the UK) the advert is on Pistonheads...

http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/motorbikes/honda/fireblade/honda-cbr900rr-for-sales/1067610

Ian