Link: https://etsc.eu/eu-road-safety-progress-under-threat-from-new-era-of-deregulation/

ETSC highlights five critical areas where recent legislative changes or proposals are actively undermining safety:

• Small electric vehicle safety “freeze” : a promised 10-year halt on new safety requirements for small EV's, despite 40% of road deaths occurring in the urban environments where these vehicles proliferate.

• The rise of 60t “megatrucks”: pushing for cross-border movement of massive “gigaliners” that pose extreme risks to infrastructure and vulnerable road users.

• Standards dilution: the risk of a shift toward mutual recognition of US vehicle standards, threatening to flood EU markets with heavier, less-regulated SUVs and pickups.

• Younger lorry drivers: revisions to the Driving Licence Directive that lower minimum ages for HGV drivers, despite clear evidence of higher risk profiles for younger operators.

• Technical inspection gaps: leaving 70% of the motorcycle fleet (mopeds and motorcycles up to 125cc) without mandatory EU-wide annual safety checks.

Was interested who is lobbying who in this case: https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-transport-safety-council?rid=78891371297-34

Seems like this is mainly the EU lobbying itself 🤦

Why do yall need annual motorcycle inspections??

Make no mistake, these are the indirect result of US bullying via "mutually agreed trade deals", undermining every single policy the EU has put in place for the benefit of their citizens instead of business entities. The trade deals ARE the lobbying.

The US is in freefall and they're dragging us down with them. From chat control, to unreasonably huge cars in our roads, combined with lax safety standards.

https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/accepting-us-car-standards-would-risk-european-lives-warn-cities-and-civil-society

I guess for the same reason we need annual car inspections.

Probably something along the lines of : people cant be trusted to keep an eye on their vehicle's condition and we don't want any more pollution and accidents than there already is.

I think it also helps keep vehicles healthy for longer, even though that effect is negated by the fact that we're getting pushed to replace perfectly functional cars with electric ones...

To fill the pockets of inspection operators that get bribe money for passing inspection on shitty vehicles

I know 3 guys in my area that do this, none of them were fined even once.

Bikes are such simple machines though, theres people who can't read but can fix a Honda.

Diagnosing a car problem requires specialist knowledge and equipment, excepting BMWs and some other more technical bikes. Is/was people riding unsafe bikes a problem in Europe, or was car policy just copied over to bikes because reasons?

I have zero doubt that's common, but are corrupt bike inspectors an influential political block? The same applies in US states that require emissions testing, minus the bribery.

Most narrow-minded response in the thread. Wow.

Fuck the US and their shitty influence.

but are corrupt bike inspectors an influential political block?

I'm not sure I understand

Surely those bike inspectors, while they benefit, aren't writing bike legislation or telling the guys who do.

I see any anti-car groups that oppose motorcycles the same way I see environmental groups that want to close nuclear plants.

Yes ideally they would be unnecessary because we'd have public transit and walkable/bicycle-friendly infrastructure, but for 80% of car users, they can be a drop-in replacement, don't require any political influence like building infrastructure, and help build opposition to car-centric urban design.

Oh.. Yea

You're just biased. Motorcycles are just as bad for the environment as cars. Motorcycle accidents also result in death more often. They are often also louder than cars. The only upside they have is that they are easier to park.

To make motorcycles better, you have to go electric, which of course also drastically reduces possible travel distance on a single charge, and also introduces dependencies on electrical systems.

Motorcycles are just as bad for the environment as cars.

Doesn’t seem possible. Maybe you’re biased?

Motorcycles are just as bad for the environment as cars

Depends on the bike; a 125cc Honda Wave burns 1 gallon of gas per 160 miles, ~60 isn't uncommon for bigger bikes.

Motorcycle accidents also result in death more often

Yes, 2 wheeled vehicles are less safe than cars. We can make streets safer for everybody by lowering speed limits and reducing car usage.

They are often also louder than cars

That's not the bike, it's the muffler.

The only upside they have is that they are easier to park.

They also require a fraction of the right-of-way. This becomes more apparent in places with a smaller portion of cars; 15 feet of road can accommodate 100+ bikes or 2 cars. This is the key benefit; by decreasing the area that needs to be dedicated to car RoW and parking, and the overall speed, you make a place more bicycle and pedestrian-friendly.

To make motorcycles better, you have to go electric

Electric mopeds are extremely common in east asia, minus Japan. For shorter trips, light-weight electric mopeds that can ride on pedestrian paths are very popular and pretty much necessary for delivery drivers in fully pedestrianized areas. The transition/addition of electrics has been very effective in China where it supplements public transit, but less so in Vietnam where people can't afford electrics, there's less public transit, and fewer places to safely charge bikes.

Unwillingness to accept the truth. Look in the mirror.

Depends on the bike; a 125cc Honda Wave burns 1 gallon of gas per 160 miles, ~60 isn't uncommon for bigger bikes.

Depends on the car too. Motorcycles are worse for the environment than hybrid cars.

Yes, 2 wheeled vehicles are less safe than cars. We can make streets safer for everybody by lowering speed limits and reducing car usage.

Speed limits exist in Europe. Motorcyclists regularly ignore them.

That's not the bike, it's the muffler.

"He hit me!", "He didn't hit you, the arm hit you". A distinction without a difference.

This is the key benefit; by decreasing the area that needs to be dedicated to car RoW and parking, and the overall speed, you make a place more bicycle and pedestrian-friendly.

You can also get rid of all motorbikes and improve public transport. One motorcycle takes up the space of at least 2 bikes. And one bus can transport many more people in the same area than bikes ever could.

pretty much necessary for delivery drivers in fully pedestrianized areas

That's false. I invite you to visit Denmark (Copenhagen) or the Netherlands. Electrified bikes and cargo bikes can move a lot and can do so safely in areas with bike paths.

Speed limits exist in Europe. Motorcyclists regularly ignore them.

Enforce them. Or even better, build roads that encourage people to ride at reasonable speeds. Cobbles are very common in places where they don't want to ban 2wheelers, but seriously discourage them. Otherwise there's speedbumps, curves, more narrow roads

A distinction without a difference.

Except you literally have to modify a bike to make it louder than it comes with a stock exhaust. People do the same shit with cars.

You can also get rid of all motorbikes and improve public transport

You get rid of motorbikes, people continue to drive cars. Bicycles can't displace cars in car-centric hells the way motorcycles can.

One motorcycle takes up the space of at least 2 bikes

lol ride in Hanoi or HCMC some time. You'll be shocked by how many bikes they can fit on a square meter of road.

one bus can transport many more people in the same area than bikes ever could.

Depends on the bus service. For a BRT with a dedicated lane and priority at lights? Absolutely. In a car-centric hell where buses fight cars in traffic? Nah, hundreds of bikes will get down the road before the bus.

So you think that the emissions of manufacturing and shipping are the same for a 200 kg motorcycle as they are for a 2000 kg car? Please explain how you’ve come to this conclusion.

Please explain how you come to the conclusion that operating a motorcycle is not as bad as a car.

I wish the EU would ban US cars altogether and prevent big cars from entering cities altogether.

They are, but it seems that lots of people have forgotten how to take responsibility for their actions and property...

The age-old story of the (hopefully) few making things suck for everybody.

I don't follow, are you saying a few people caused accidents by failing to maintain their bikes, necessitating the law or a few legislators were applying car law to bikes without understanding the difference?

I have no idea how the legislation came to be, I now realize that was your main question...

I was just giving my opinion on why I think it's a good thing we have those checks on bikes as well as cars.

So yeah I just meant that there are too many selfish idiots around us to let anyone take full responsibility over their vehicle's health, bike or car.

Nobody is saying motorcycles should never be checked for compliance. The question is why the much simpler and lighter vehicle is subject to the same interval as the 2+ton machines that can injure dozens and close down a road if poorly maintained.

This feels like it was written by car-brained legislators who want to bring everyone down to their level, like when bicycle liscense plates were a thing.

And I didn't say that anyone said that.
I didn't get that 'annual' was the important part of your question, my bad.
Idk man you're probably right