 |
|
21.08.06 Vehicle converters continue to express their opinions
(...)The UK has more than twice the number of disabled drivers (as a percentage of the population) compared to anywhere else in the world, and even those living in remote places can become mobile very inexpensively. We also have the lowest recorded rate of accidents caused by disabled drivers, yet it seems that bodies like Motability, the Forum of Mobility Centres and the Department of Transport are giving overseas companies more than a helping hand to take over our well-run, proven industry, just as happened with the British car industry.
(...)Some British companies are already supplying Motability-accredited vehicles converted on the continent. Unlike home-grown conversions, these will not be restricted to 75 a year. In sharp contrast, it is practically impossible for British companies to sell converted vehicles in Germany, Spain, France or other EU member states, as they all have non-return valves in their fuel pipelines.
(...)we are being told that LVTA is necessary for safety and quality,
but at the same time the The industry should be concentrating on pressure to introduce new legislation to test wheelchair restraint systems and seatbelts as standard, both at the design stage and incorporated in the yearly MOT for vehicles over three years old, not causing panic for no good reason in the very people who keep our companies afloat.
(...)Most [conversion companies] have a turnover of between 20 - 75 vehicles a year, and they would not be affected by this Directive at all. These smaller companies are producing high quality work, geared towards the end user, with their specific difficulties and requirements borne in mind during the conversion process. It is always detrimental to the end user when quantity is the only issue and not quality. The disabled passenger/driver of these vehicles would be at a disadvantage at the end of the day if companies can knock out 1000's of these vehicles, all the same spec, size, shape and form, irrespective of whether the disabled person is able to use the product easily or not. This has happened before.... We do not want monopolies in this industry, God forbid. I believe this is what this Directive is trying to provide, a fair crack of the whip for smaller businesses.
(...)Change is coming, to object to it by suggesting that disabled people are being discriminated against is a surefire way to gain exposure. However, look carefully and you will see that actually the change should encourage a greater level of safety for disabled people. I am sure that my car would be cheaper if the manufacturer hadn't invested several million in developing the airbags and the pre-tensioning seatbelts, but personally I would rather pay the extra £50 per unit and travel with confidence.
(...)The emphasis is being put on the negatives of the legislation, which will really effect the manufacturing companies, not the end user. The legislation is of course, as with most EU law, bedded down in quite a lot of bureaucratic nonsense, but the primary objective - for all vehicles to reach the same safety standards, is, I believe, sound. How could anyone seriously object to disabled people enjoying the same standards as non-disabled people?
(...)From a business point of view, LVTA provides a quick and easy turnaround
route to get the vehicle to the customer with the minimum of fuss. ESVA
(Enhanced Single Vehicle Approval) is much more time consuming and adds
another branch to the already complex
(...)Certain companies attempt to play down ESVA as an "unsafe" and "cheap" option compared to LVTA - if this is indeed the case, why would you not make your whole range LVTA compliant? Because it doesn't make financial sense to go for LVTA when perhaps only one vehicle per week is involved.
(...) In the early days, the seventies and eighties, we had no interference from Desk Jockeys, and Mrs Thatcher - despite not fully understanding what it was all about - kept all silly European rules and regulations relating to mobility for the disabled on the other side of the water. We were the leading light in the world, had no interference and our industry became the envy of the world.
(...)NMEDA in the USA run this industry with hands on, and all major Motor Manufacturers in the USA, the VA and Government make good use of their expertise. In sharp contrast, in the UK any research, data collection and reporting is handed to Universities and other outsiders, who get very handsomely paid and who in turn obtain all the information required from members of NMEDA UK and WAVCA, who do not get one penny for their expertise.
(...)Bureaucratic jobs grow faster then weeds in a field and Brussels is no exception. Over the years I have attended meetings at my own expense and of late have been taken aback by the fact that those with hands on have retired and a new breed of "don't knows" are now in charge, who simply make sure that decisions taken by those at the helm are taken on board.
(...)I have always been an individual and no matter what rules Brussels introduces, I will find a way to deal with it. However, although I will make money, this does not enhance employment in the UK and I will end up employing most members of my production staff outside the UK and having to make redundant employees in the UK.
|
|
back to WAV feature front page
|
|
