Modifying to be illegal?
Discussion
Picked this up from the Motorcycle Action Group (see this weeks MCN) but it would apply to all vehicles, even to non-road machines. Basically any change from oem is deemed as tampering and would be illegal. Clearly the term tampering has been chosen to invoke an emotive response to owners making changes. This would be a huge restriction of personal freedom, not to mention the devastation it would cause to the uk customising, modification and engineering sectors.
“The Motorcycle Action Group is encouraging motorcyclists to respond to proposals from the Department for Transport (DfT) that would restrict owners from modifying their bikes. The proposals are part of the DfT’s ‘Future of Transport’ review and are lumped in with lots of other vehicle standards that the department is looking to modernise. Under the proposed changes it would be a crime to ‘tamper’ with ‘a system, part or component of a vehicle intended or adapted to be used on a road’. MAG were in attendance at the webinar where the proposals were first made.
The consultation is only short too, just eight weeks rather than the usual 12, so quick action is imperative. You can respond directly here: www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/ETVHG5/ “
I would advise reading through the whole survey first before going back to the start and providing your responses as it is quite lengthy. Hopefully you guys on PH will know better ways of making our voice heard on this.
Mods; happy for this to be moved to a more appropriate forum.
“The Motorcycle Action Group is encouraging motorcyclists to respond to proposals from the Department for Transport (DfT) that would restrict owners from modifying their bikes. The proposals are part of the DfT’s ‘Future of Transport’ review and are lumped in with lots of other vehicle standards that the department is looking to modernise. Under the proposed changes it would be a crime to ‘tamper’ with ‘a system, part or component of a vehicle intended or adapted to be used on a road’. MAG were in attendance at the webinar where the proposals were first made.
The consultation is only short too, just eight weeks rather than the usual 12, so quick action is imperative. You can respond directly here: www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/ETVHG5/ “
I would advise reading through the whole survey first before going back to the start and providing your responses as it is quite lengthy. Hopefully you guys on PH will know better ways of making our voice heard on this.
Mods; happy for this to be moved to a more appropriate forum.
I suspect the costs of implementing the systems necessary to enforce such restrictions would make it unlikely to occur, especially if the plan is to stop sale of ICE vehicles in the near future. (Even moving to a system of approved and inspected modifications like you have to do in Germany or Australia would be a massive cost for little gain).
More likely is restrictions on usage to show they are doing something to reduce emissions.
Also, there are lots of existing rules about not making mods to emissions systems that don't seem to do much to limit modifications.
More likely is restrictions on usage to show they are doing something to reduce emissions.
Also, there are lots of existing rules about not making mods to emissions systems that don't seem to do much to limit modifications.
bigothunter said:
TUV have insisted on certifying aftermarket car parts for many years. I'm not sure where modified bikes stand legally in Germany. Would certified aftermarket "upgrades" still be allowed under this new scheme?
Spain is the same. Any modifications have to be inspected and authorised and then registered on the logbook. 
If this means that only type approved parts can be used then well and good - I can't see how that can be a bad thing.
And if it helps bring an and to the noisy pop/bang/overrun craze that seems to be part of the modder culture these days then fan-bloody-tastic! Bring it on!
Noisy vehicles done just for the owners selfish vanity are an absolute blight on modern life, whether you live in a city or the countryside. I hope they all get f
king crushed.
And if it helps bring an and to the noisy pop/bang/overrun craze that seems to be part of the modder culture these days then fan-bloody-tastic! Bring it on!
Noisy vehicles done just for the owners selfish vanity are an absolute blight on modern life, whether you live in a city or the countryside. I hope they all get f
king crushed.and what about modifying a car so that it can be driven by someone disabled?
under the suggested framework it will be considered tampering as it will be modifying parts to do with control of the car...
we have legislation to ensure that cars are safe etc. why do we need big brother to add in more control - it is clear from the pejorative language and wording of the survey that it comes from a position where someone has already decided that any alterations to a car outside its manufacture = bad thing. It is also clear that it is designed to stop people modifying cars or tampering with control mechanisms that are clearly in and coming which allow manufacturers / government to monitor them (ref. in-use within the questions) - this is to stop people preventing tracking etc.
it will clearly be aimed at a future where we might have built in road-pricing - to stop people altering the devices, it is designed to allow manufacturers and government more ability to control vehicles - all a bit big brother?
We have incredibly safe roads, we already know that the majority of injuries and deaths on our roads are from human error - not modified cars, or someone having badly tampered with a steering system so that the car can't turn left! We don't need more legislation which covers things that are un-necessary... some sections make sense - ability to explore new tech etc. - but the tampering element should be considered controversial by anyone who wishes to maintain their own ability to make decisions and choices - it risks killing the mod industry / the tuning industry / the restoration industry / etc. The fact that they use the word tampering is deliberate to make it look bad - no-one would want their car 'tampered with' it has built in connotations - but actually if what they mean is modify or even improve - well, sensible people might indeed want that - we have legislation already to stop it being done badly, so why do we need legislation to restrict it?
under the suggested framework it will be considered tampering as it will be modifying parts to do with control of the car...
we have legislation to ensure that cars are safe etc. why do we need big brother to add in more control - it is clear from the pejorative language and wording of the survey that it comes from a position where someone has already decided that any alterations to a car outside its manufacture = bad thing. It is also clear that it is designed to stop people modifying cars or tampering with control mechanisms that are clearly in and coming which allow manufacturers / government to monitor them (ref. in-use within the questions) - this is to stop people preventing tracking etc.
it will clearly be aimed at a future where we might have built in road-pricing - to stop people altering the devices, it is designed to allow manufacturers and government more ability to control vehicles - all a bit big brother?
We have incredibly safe roads, we already know that the majority of injuries and deaths on our roads are from human error - not modified cars, or someone having badly tampered with a steering system so that the car can't turn left! We don't need more legislation which covers things that are un-necessary... some sections make sense - ability to explore new tech etc. - but the tampering element should be considered controversial by anyone who wishes to maintain their own ability to make decisions and choices - it risks killing the mod industry / the tuning industry / the restoration industry / etc. The fact that they use the word tampering is deliberate to make it look bad - no-one would want their car 'tampered with' it has built in connotations - but actually if what they mean is modify or even improve - well, sensible people might indeed want that - we have legislation already to stop it being done badly, so why do we need legislation to restrict it?
Dog Star said:
If this means that only type approved parts can be used then well and good - I can't see how that can be a bad thing.
And if it helps bring an and to the noisy pop/bang/overrun craze that seems to be part of the modder culture these days then fan-bloody-tastic! Bring it on!
Noisy vehicles done just for the owners selfish vanity are an absolute blight on modern life, whether you live in a city or the countryside. I hope they all get fking crushed.
Oh the old "wah-wah noisy cars near me" - There are 5 near me who I hear on a daily basis, including an old LR-Defender with a pop-bang map And if it helps bring an and to the noisy pop/bang/overrun craze that seems to be part of the modder culture these days then fan-bloody-tastic! Bring it on!
Noisy vehicles done just for the owners selfish vanity are an absolute blight on modern life, whether you live in a city or the countryside. I hope they all get f
king crushed.
, it's less than 30seconds of my day they impact. Whereas if this goes through I'd need type-approval to change the aerial on my car from a black stick to a shark-fin which is just absurd. Both points show that people need to see the bigger picture, noise impact is minimal on your life (and is only going to reduce with more and more electric cars on the road) and it's time to push back against yet another restriction on personal freedoms.
If it really bothered you that much you'd f
k off to somewhere where those restrictions are already in place. If you don't like the way I've put it, here's a more eloquent response;
akirk said:
and what about modifying a car so that it can be driven by someone disabled?
under the suggested framework it will be considered tampering as it will be modifying parts to do with control of the car...
we have legislation to ensure that cars are safe etc. why do we need big brother to add in more control - it is clear from the pejorative language and wording of the survey that it comes from a position where someone has already decided that any alterations to a car outside its manufacture = bad thing. It is also clear that it is designed to stop people modifying cars or tampering with control mechanisms that are clearly in and coming which allow manufacturers / government to monitor them (ref. in-use within the questions) - this is to stop people preventing tracking etc.
it will clearly be aimed at a future where we might have built in road-pricing - to stop people altering the devices, it is designed to allow manufacturers and government more ability to control vehicles - all a bit big brother?
We have incredibly safe roads, we already know that the majority of injuries and deaths on our roads are from human error - not modified cars, or someone having badly tampered with a steering system so that the car can't turn left! We don't need more legislation which covers things that are un-necessary... some sections make sense - ability to explore new tech etc. - but the tampering element should be considered controversial by anyone who wishes to maintain their own ability to make decisions and choices - it risks killing the mod industry / the tuning industry / the restoration industry / etc. The fact that they use the word tampering is deliberate to make it look bad - no-one would want their car 'tampered with' it has built in connotations - but actually if what they mean is modify or even improve - well, sensible people might indeed want that - we have legislation already to stop it being done badly, so why do we need legislation to restrict it?
under the suggested framework it will be considered tampering as it will be modifying parts to do with control of the car...
we have legislation to ensure that cars are safe etc. why do we need big brother to add in more control - it is clear from the pejorative language and wording of the survey that it comes from a position where someone has already decided that any alterations to a car outside its manufacture = bad thing. It is also clear that it is designed to stop people modifying cars or tampering with control mechanisms that are clearly in and coming which allow manufacturers / government to monitor them (ref. in-use within the questions) - this is to stop people preventing tracking etc.
it will clearly be aimed at a future where we might have built in road-pricing - to stop people altering the devices, it is designed to allow manufacturers and government more ability to control vehicles - all a bit big brother?
We have incredibly safe roads, we already know that the majority of injuries and deaths on our roads are from human error - not modified cars, or someone having badly tampered with a steering system so that the car can't turn left! We don't need more legislation which covers things that are un-necessary... some sections make sense - ability to explore new tech etc. - but the tampering element should be considered controversial by anyone who wishes to maintain their own ability to make decisions and choices - it risks killing the mod industry / the tuning industry / the restoration industry / etc. The fact that they use the word tampering is deliberate to make it look bad - no-one would want their car 'tampered with' it has built in connotations - but actually if what they mean is modify or even improve - well, sensible people might indeed want that - we have legislation already to stop it being done badly, so why do we need legislation to restrict it?
tomic said:
MercScot said:
Jazoli said:
Are you a bit short on brain matter? this will apply to all vehicles, not just motorcycles.
Thank fk for that, no more Saxo's with dustbin exhausts either - bring it on!banning all modifications would have a serious negative impact on motorsport. Races just with standard OEM cars? dont be silly.
Also the car modification industry is worth millions and employs 10's of thousands who may loose their jobs.
If the reasoning is to stop chav types running decats and dangerous camber/suspension mods etc then legislation is already in place for that and at best, just needs revision slightly to make prosecution easier.
Also the car modification industry is worth millions and employs 10's of thousands who may loose their jobs.
If the reasoning is to stop chav types running decats and dangerous camber/suspension mods etc then legislation is already in place for that and at best, just needs revision slightly to make prosecution easier.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff