An end to 'modified' cars?

[otolith]

shakotan said:

You are the expert, I'm simply offering up how I [rightly or wrongly] am interpreting this Legislation, and allowing you educate me.

I'd like to know what - if any - you think the consequences of this legislation are. As above, do you think our current MOT test is compliant, or do you think it will need to change?

We certainly don't test cars for compliance with the environmental standards that they were required to reach for type approval, for instance. I don't see that we realistically can do, the only way that I can see of practically doing so is to enforce conformity with the original specification.

[richb77]

My motorcycle currently has a road legal exhaust system on it. Stamped with the correct type approval markings from the (aftermarket) manufacturer. At MOT time the tester looks for the markings whilst wearing ear defenders . It passes the "is it type approved" test every single time.

[anonymous-user]

I am not all that interested in links to classic car websites, as I am working on what the draft Regulation says. If the Regulation is enacted, courts will interpret the Regulation, not what the DOT or classic car clubs say about it.

My reading of the draft Regulation is that:-

(1) it calls for a standardised approach to roadworthiness testing across the EU;

(2) it requires the test to ensure that the car's safety and environmental characteristics are as they were when it was registered;

(3) it allows for modifications subject to testing.

The test is not tied in to type approval, and does not stipulate, for example, that the wheels could not be changed. Significant exhaust mods, or removal of an airbag, or such like, might run into problems, but these might be overcome by re-testing.

I reiterate that I am not a fan of the proposal, but I think that we need to be realistic about what it means, and not all jump (or drive) off a cliff just yet.

[trashbat]

otolith said:

We certainly don't test cars for compliance with the environmental standards that they were required to reach for type approval, for instance.

Not as such, but we do test to standards relevant to the age of the vehicle. For example a 1990 engine is tested against 1990 standards. As far as I can see this is compatible with a reasonable interpretation of the proposal.

Going further, something like:

EU said:

uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to

could mean something as trivial as CE marked. It is certainly not mandating type approval as per the whole OEM vehicle.

[anonymous-user]

I add that i cannot cannot claim sufficient knowledge of the technical details of the current MOT Test to express a view on whether the test will have to be tightened up in order to comply with the Regulation. Bear in mind that some member states have not used roadworthiness tests in the past. Standardisation to the extent of requiring at least a basic test across the EU seems to me a good idea. Regulating silly and potentially harmful chavmobile mods might be a good idea too. Going beyond that would not be a good idea.

[shakotan]

breadvan - can you comment on this extract from the opening 'Context of the Proposal'

Context of the Proposal said:

For the inspection of vehicles and especially for their electronic safety components it
is crucial to have access to the technical specifications of each single vehicle.
Therefore vehicle manufacturers should not only provide the complete set of data as
covered by the certificate of conformity (CoC) but also the access to data necessary
for verification of the functionality of safety and environmental related components.
The provisions related to access to repair and maintenance information should be
applied similarly for this purpose, allowing inspection centres to have access to those
information-elements necessary for roadworthiness testing. This is of crucial
importance especially in the field of electronic controlled systems and should cover
all elements that have been installed by the manufacturer.


Before a vehicle is allowed to be put on the market, it has to fulfil all the relevant type or
individual approval requirements guaranteeing an optimal level of safety and environmental
standards. Every Member State has the obligation to register for the first time any vehicle that
got the European type-approval on the basis of the “Certificate of Conformity” issued by the
vehicle manufacturer. This registration is the official authorisation for the use on public roads
and enforces the different introduction dates of different vehicles' requirements

During a vehicle's lifetime it may be subject to re-registration, due to a change of ownership,
or a transfer to another Member State for permanent use. Provisions on a vehicle registration
procedure should be similarly introduced to ensure that vehicles which constitute an
immediate risk to road safety are not used on roads. The goal of roadworthiness testing is to
check the functionality of safety components, the environmental performance and the
compliance of a vehicle with its approval.

Particularly the last line.

[Yertis]

Breadvan72 said:

Regulating silly and potentially harmful chavmobile mods might be a good idea too. Going beyond that would not be a good idea.

But that's the problem, what constitutes a chavmobile mod is open to interpretation. Is it an exhaust which just makes the car louder (silly, chav) or one like I have which makes it louder and faster (and therefore, arguably, more dangerous).

[anonymous-user]

Shakotan I note that document, but the Regulation does not make provision for this, and the Regulation is what a court would construe. It could look at the Recitals (which have nothing of direct bearing on the point), but the general travaux preparatoires (to use the Eurospeak) would not outweigh the Regulation itself.

[otolith]

trashbat said:

otolith said:

We certainly don't test cars for compliance with the environmental standards that they were required to reach for type approval, for instance.

Not as such, but we do test to standards relevant to the age of the vehicle. For example a 1990 engine is tested against 1990 standards. As far as I can see this is compatible with a reasonable interpretation of the proposal.

Yes, we do have different MOT emissions standards by year of manufacture, but they are both massively looser than contemporary EU emissions standards and tested by much more primitive means. You could fit a sports cat to a 2009 car which would never have passed Euro5 but which will pass an MOT. You can have a diesel remapped in a way which would have failed particulate limits as OEM but which will pass an MOT smoke test.

There is a desire amongst EU regulators to prevent what they consider "tampering" with emissions controls.

[shakotan]

Breadvan72 said:

Shakotan I note that document, but the Regulation does not make provision for this, and the Regulation is what a court would construe. It could look at the Recitals (which have nothing of direct bearing on the point), but the general travaux preparatoires (to use the Eurospeak) would not outweigh the Regulation itself.

But it's the opening preamble of the Regulation which I extracted it from?

[anonymous-user]

I add two points relevant to construction of the Regulation:-

(1) All EU legislation has to be interpreted in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

(2) The EU has signed up to the (non EU ) ECHR, and it is in any event effectively incorporated into UK law by the HRA 1998, and any interference with property rights should be proportionate.

[Daston]

What I don't understand is what will happen to cars that have mods already fitted that are not type approved. There must be a lot of TVR's out there with aftermarket suspension etc as the factory is now closed.

I was planning on getting an S2000 next year and fitting a supercharger etc. May have to rethink this if I got to spend either loads extra getting it legal.

How are Rally car's and road going competition cars going to be delt with? I imagine a lot of their stuff is stamped with "competition use only"

[otolith]

Breadvan72 said:

I add that i cannot cannot claim sufficient knowledge of the technical details of the current MOT Test to express a view on whether the test will have to be tightened up in order to comply with the Regulation.

The MOT test certainly does not test compliance with the European standards necessary to put a car onto the market (and realistically cannot be made to do so other than by preventing any modification from standard) - is that state of affairs compliant with the proposed legislation?

Breadvan72 said:

Regulating silly and potentially harmful chavmobile mods might be a good idea too. Going beyond that would not be a good idea.

Somebody is going to quote Niemöller at you for that!

[trashbat]

otolith said:

Yes, we do have different MOT emissions standards by year of manufacture, but they are both massively looser than contemporary EU emissions standards and tested by much more primitive means. You could fit a sports cat to a 2009 car which would never have passed Euro5 but which will pass an MOT. You can have a diesel remapped in a way which would have failed particulate limits as OEM but which will pass an MOT smoke test.

There is a desire amongst EU regulators to prevent what they consider "tampering" with emissions controls.

Indeed - hence DPF and EGR valve removal and so on being currently acceptable. This is a valid area for concern, although it has always been foreseeable that performing this kind of modification will cause future MOT failure.

The reality is likely to fall somewhere in between; cars cannot reasonably expected to perform as originally specced long into their lives - the original specs are often fudged anyway. Remaps etc play with flexibility in more than just emissions; cars leave the factory designed to satisfy as broad a set of market and stakeholder desires as possible (economy & emissions being only part of this), whereas you likely drive it in a specific fashion with specific aims. There are still trades to be made even if the environmental compliance becomes more rigorous.

[900T-R]

otolith said:

There is a desire amongst EU regulators to prevent what they consider "tampering" with emissions controls.

Thing is, they need the MOT-standard emission tests to be significantly more lax than Type Approval (Euro X)-standards or most vehicles would need to be taken off the road come the first MOT (especially diesels and [i]especially if consistently driven in an 'energy conserving' way as per modern driving license curriculums/shift indicators etc.)...

While it's true that the boundary level emissions of harmful gases and particles for cars are several times lower than they used to be a decade ago (an argument that's being trotted out for replacing older cars with new ones on every occasion) I'd wager to guess that compared to real world emissions, the decrease is insignificant and ever stricter standards for new cars/engines are little more than window dressing.

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

Somebody is going to quote Niemöller at you for that!

I should jolly well hope so! For a Eurothread to get this far without anyone going Godwin on our asses is surely an outrage!

[shakotan]

Daston said:

What I don't understand is what will happen to cars that have mods already fitted that are not type approved. There must be a lot of TVR's out there with aftermarket suspension etc as the factory is now closed.

I was planning on getting an S2000 next year and fitting a supercharger etc. May have to rethink this if I got to spend either loads extra getting it legal.

How are Rally car's and road going competition cars going to be delt with? I imagine a lot of their stuff is stamped with "competition use only"

I think you are focusing on something that isn't there, breadvan has already pointed out that nowhere within the Regulation Scope does it refer to Type Approval for the vehicle or for any components.

[Negative Creep]

Rich G said:

Another link for Breadvan72 to take a look at...

http://www.classiccarsforsale.co.uk/news/car-clubs...

From the article:

TIMEFRAME 10 YEARS

• INTENTION To reduce road casualties to 50% of current levels by 2022 and to zero by 2050


How on earth will you ever achieve zero road casualties?

[trashbat]

otolith said:

Breadvan72 said:

Regulating silly and potentially harmful chavmobile mods might be a good idea too. Going beyond that would not be a good idea.

Somebody is going to quote Niemöller at you for that!

From the other thread:

trashbat said:

Rockatansky said:

I sort of take your point, but I find it a little too "doesn't affect me so why should I care?" - that sort of attitude is just as scary as that of the EU in the first place.

"First they came.." etc. (Niemoller)

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they would have come for the modified car enthusiasts,
but the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC stipulates a rest of at least 11 hours in any 24 hour period,
so they didn't.

[muhuha]

So whether you own some barry boy fibreglass car, a car with some tweaks, a green laner or a road legal race car this will affect you? So i assume one your MOT is up to renew you'll be required to take it to a more extensive test center and pay £450? to confirm the modified parts are road legal?

Did someone say m25 blockade?