Sound approach to power play

Date: 06/03/1997

THE 25,000-strong peaceful protest by motorcyclists in Brussels last year was welcomed by MEPs, who said they supported the fight against needless bureaucracy.

Riders came from all EU member states and beyond - which for some meant a week on the road in pouring rain - to make their point. It was about real citizens with real concerns.

Since the formation of the Federation of European Motorcyclists (FEM) in 1988, this popular motorcyclists' lobby has found itself a 'citizen' participant in the evolution of power relationships between the institutions. Motorcyclists' common-sense arguments were echoed by a democratic and open Parliament battling against an autocratic and secretive Council of Ministers.

In 1989, MEPs successfully modified the terms of driving licence harmonisation which threatened a complex graduated system.

In 1992, they prised concessions from the European Commission and Council preserving the right of users to alter or modify machines and providing relief from crippling restrictions on small producers.

The January 1995 defeat of the 100-brake horsepower (bhp) 'superbike' ban brought the democratic deficit conspicuously into the public eye. In defending the principle of 'no legislation without evidence', Parliament made it the only directive to go through both the complete pre- and post-Maastricht institutional processes.

The present controversy is over a 'multi-directive' which is made up of 12 directives completing the single market.

When it was proposed in December 1993, FEM responded by challenging the automatic sequential reduction of limits ('ratcheteering') and anti-tampering measures which would have undermined Parliament's earlier sympathetic position on customising.

But parliamentary support weakened and motorcyclists, with much soul-searching, entered the sordid bargaining world of politicians and officials.

Important campaign aims were given up in an April 1995 compromise, thus restoring parliamentary unity. The resulting first and second readings produced votes supported by 95&percent; of MEPs against an 80-decibel noise limit and in favour of an enforced 82 decibels.

But now, betrayed in conciliation (a Maastricht tool for enhancing democracy) on this point and others, we are left with only the 'grace' concession which excludes motorcycles over 125cc from the anti-tampering measures.

We are not Euro-naïve. We know that the EU game is one of 'compromise'. But two compromises have stripped us almost totally bare. We are deeply saddened that Parliament appears to be accepting its own impotence.

We appreciate that there is a problem with motorcycle noise. The solution to the motorcycle noise nuisance lies, however, not with tighter limits but with the enforcement of reasonable ones.

Motorcycle noise legislation has never been enacted with ease or practicality of enforcement in mind, so shops openly offer 'illegal' replacement exhaust systems for sale and motorcyclists modify their silencers. We think that proper consideration was not given to this in the conciliation talks between Parliament and Council.

Complaints about motorcycle noise continue. It was for this reason that the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) Belgium, supported by the Amsterdam police, staged a series of noise demonstrations before MEPs in early 1995.

MEPs accepted that 82 decibels as a limit, combined with effective enforcement, would substantially improve the situation in practice. The police strongly advised against 80 decibels, agreeing with the US Environmental Protection Agency that this would be counter-productive before the issue of enforcement was tackled.

We urged MEPs to go for an 82-decibel limit to encourage user cooperation and deter silencer modification which results in louder bikes than would otherwise be the case with a sensible limit.

Furthermore, a 1.6-decibel reduction requires a 16kg weight increase on a 250cc machine, increasing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, whilst consumers pay more 'ecu per performance' for nothing. Belgium has an 86-decibel limit, most countries have 82 and the human ear cannot detect the difference between 82 and 80.

MEPs also jettisoned proposed 'home maintenance' amendments, with the result that some regular servicing costs will massively increase, along with pollution and environmental waste. Small commuter machines will become throw-away items if consumers are forced to live with this Draconian measure.

Europe needs policy integrity, not knee-jerk harmonisation to the strictest standards possible. Blind ratcheteering by legislators has discouraged democratic debate.

The Parliament's vote in favour of 82 decibels was not just a verbal message to the Commission and Governments to 'forget lower limits, get on with enforcement', it was also a legislative message. That is why, in the interests of winning the enforcement battle against lazy governments, Parliament must hold out for 82.

The news is reverberating around Europe. MAG Holland is inviting everyone to protest in Amsterdam in June, and along with MAG Ireland is seeking maximum votes against the conciliation text. The Fédération Française des Motards en Colère in France is preparing to play host to a European delegation at the Strasbourg plenary session, and the MAG UK and British Motorcyclists Federation intend to make it an election issue.

Our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic are “horrified” at the prospect of 80 decibels and shear bolts figuring in a global standard, and Australian riders are “stunned”.

What can I tell them? For users, the single market advantages in this case are questionable. Short-term price increases may be less severe in the long term, and it is doubtful that choice will be improved if air-cooled models are threatened.

We welcome the recent move towards consumer interests in Commission proposals, but this particular directive will have a great impact on the machines we ride tomorrow, whilst aggravating problems.

People have switched to powered two-wheelers for mobility in today's congested streets. The Commission's Green Paper The Citizens' Network stated that “a report by the Commission's motor vehicle emissions group calculated that a powered two-wheeler could carry out an urban trip in between 16 and 46&percent; less time than a car while using between 55 and 81&percent; less fuel”.

There is ample place in this market for job-creating entrepreneurs. But ETRA, the European Two-wheel Retailers Association representing 6,500 small businesses in seven countries, has made it clear that the anti-tampering provisions will damage firms and turn people away from two-wheel advantages.

Had Commission President Jacques Santer's motto “do less but better” been implemented in 1992, perhaps those companies would not be on the brink of disaster. After-sales business bosses have also spoken out strongly against the restrictions. Both groups are unrepresented. This internal market rule ignores the needs of small businesses.

Motorcycling often suffers through misunderstanding or ignorance. The amended Design Protection Directive exempts car repair parts from 25 years' protection to which motor and pedal cycles remain subject, fuelling higher spares and insurance prices and theft. Bikes are included in the imminent End-of-Life Vehicles Directive, despite evidence that this could kill a culture of motorcycle re-use and recycling. Let us hope the Commission takes a more balanced view of CE markings for bike clothing: jobs are on the line again.

Preserving the interests of a group of citizens who are regularly the victims of popular prejudice is not easy. So we are grateful for the support shown by the European Parliament over the years and FEM wishes to continue the constructive relationship in developing a truly democratic Union.

As responsible consumers, we have taken a wholly respectable position on the current issues.

If we are forced to live with 80 decibels, and politicians and officials want to salvage some confidence among a large group of enthusiastic citizens in the ability of the EU to legislate fairly and with common sense, then I suggest they give motorcyclists a complete and total commitment that there will be Union-wide enforcement and a subsequent cost-benefit analysis with meaningful consultation before any further ratcheteering takes place.

I sincerely hope that, at this last moment in the longest and most difficult of our campaigns, riders will be not be disenchanted by having received the cynical 'Euro-treatment'. There have already been enough problematic referendums on EU treaties.

Simon Milward is general-secretary of the Federation of European Motorcyclists, a federation of national riders' rights organisations from 20 European countries.