Modifying to be illegal?

[KTMsm]

Dingu said:

I could well be wrong but a brief read of the Tampering section suggests it is trying to stop the bypass of safety systems or emissions standards rather than stopping non OEM parts generally.

If a non OEM exhaust made more noise but also had more emissions or it was a defeat device when the speed limit stuff comes in then that would be banned it seems, however non OEM brakes, same emissions non OEM exhausts, Halfords catalogue or mobility alterations don’t appear to be mentioned or covered.

Do you think the aftermarket will put all their parts through the test process to prove to the Government that their parts are exactly the same ?

How much do you think that'll cost ?

[Dingu]

KTMsm said:

Do you think the aftermarket will put all their parts through the test process to prove to the Government that their parts are exactly the same ?

How much do you think that'll cost ?

I think you may be debating the wrong person, I haven’t said I’m in favour of the proposals, just keen to try and keep opposition in line with the proposals.

If we all fill in the survey with objections to areas not covered (e.g. what about motability alterations or having spare wheels with winter tyres etc) then it will slide unhindered into law. If we respond making strong points like you raise there about whether it would cause businesses to fail and the parts industry to become an effective monopoly (OEM only) that is a direct argument against them which should hopefully carry weight.

[DodgyGeezer]

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!

Agreed - needs to be applied retrospectively as well

so....

- no parking sensors/cameras
- no aftermarket ICE
- no 'idiot gauges'
- only the exact tyres supplied with the car
- do you really want Audi's chocolate wheels as your only choice (especially with the state of our roads)?
- no winter wheels/tyres
- no improved oil/air filters
- up-spec to leather/heated/cooled/massage seats? Sorry, es ist verboten!
- no personalisation of your car (not a fan of eye-lashes or pixie dust - but if people want 'em....)
- dealerships only for service and repair (and supply of new parts)

what happens when the OEM decides they no longer want to manufacture/store/supply OEM parts? Bin and buy new? Very ecologically sound, albeit great for the OEM!

As I understand it a lot of the pop-pop-bang-bang st is actually standard from the factory so the control freaks/idiots on here would still hear that fkwittery going on - it would be allowed.....

[brman]

Dingu said:

I think you may be debating the wrong person, I haven’t said I’m in favour of the proposals, just keen to try and keep opposition in line with the proposals.

If we all fill in the survey with objections to areas not covered (e.g. what about motability alterations or having spare wheels with winter tyres etc) then it will slide unhindered into law. If we respond making strong points like you raise there about whether it would cause businesses to fail and the parts industry to become an effective monopoly (OEM only) that is a direct argument against them which should hopefully carry weight.

So where is the detail that says (for example) it will not cover motability alternations or spare wheels that are not OEM? From what I can tell it is a little vague as to the scope of the proposed changes.

[kambites]

DodgyGeezer said:

As I understand it a lot of the pop-pop-bang-bang st is actually standard from the factory so the control freaks/idiots on here would still hear that fkwittery going on - it would be allowed.....

This is another good point. Some of the most obnoxious modifications of yesterday have been adopted as OEM by manufacturers today.

[Dingu]

brman said:

So where is the detail that says (for example) it will not cover motability alternations or spare wheels that are not OEM? From what I can tell it is a little vague as to the scope of the proposed changes.

Looking specifically at the Tampering section (you need to click a link once you have followed the link in the OP for the full details of everything) it starts extremely general but goes on to list 4 specific areas they are interested in.

Consultation said:

Specifically, we would look to create:

a specific offence for supplying, installing and/or advertising, a ‘tampering product’ for a vehicle or NRMM – this would apply where a principal effect of the product is to bypass, defeat, reduce the effectiveness of or render inoperative a system, part or component (the product may be a physical part or component, hardware and/or software)

a specific offence for removing, reducing the effectiveness of, or rendering inoperative a system, part or component for a vehicle/NRMM and advertising such services

a specific offence for allowing for use or providing a vehicle or NRMM that has had the operations described in the previous 2 points performed on it

a new power to require economic operators to provide information, where a service/product they have supplied amounts to or enables ‘tampering’ with a vehicle or NRMM – this would apply in any of the above senses and include requirements to provide relevant information on the quantities of products sold or modified

Whilst full of jargon it does state that the principle purpose of the change would be to reduce the effectiveness of, bypass etc a system. I think with the best will in the world changing the wheels couldn’t reasonably be described as doing that in most circumstances. Ditto non OEM brakes etc as there are already standards to be met. Also with motability if anything it’s enhancing systems for the driver who will be using it by making it easier to operate.

To put it another way if they intended to ban all modifications it would be a lot simpler than the tampering section they have produced currently.

As I have said I’m not arguing for the proposals or trying to be awkward, merely interested that objections made in the consultation are relevant, otherwise it may as well become law tomorrow for all the chance of it being altered or stopped

[singlecoil]

Undercover McNoName said:

Boo-fking-hoo, nobody cares about your noisy motorcycle except you.

And the people who have to hear it, even when they don't want to.

[HazzaT]

Dingu said:

Whilst full of jargon it does state that the principle purpose of the change would be to reduce the effectiveness of, bypass etc a system. I think with the best will in the world changing the wheels couldn’t reasonably be described as doing that in most circumstances. Ditto non OEM brakes etc as there are already standards to be met. Also with motability if anything it’s enhancing systems for the driver who will be using it by making it easier to operate.

That makes it sound like it's specifically aimed at stuff like O2 Sensor spoofers for decats and OPF deletes and that sort of thing. I don't think it makes remaps etc illegal but it would put tuning boxes and pedal boxes (as well as exhaust valve removal/always open settings) in a pickle.

[tomic]

DodgyGeezer said:

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!

Agreed - needs to be applied retrospectively as well

so....

- no parking sensors/cameras
- no aftermarket ICE
- no 'idiot gauges'
- only the exact tyres supplied with the car
- do you really want Audi's chocolate wheels as your only choice (especially with the state of our roads)?
- no winter wheels/tyres
- no improved oil/air filters
- up-spec to leather/heated/cooled/massage seats? Sorry, es ist verboten!
- no personalisation of your car (not a fan of eye-lashes or pixie dust - but if people want 'em....)
- dealerships only for service and repair (and supply of new parts)

what happens when the OEM decides they no longer want to manufacture/store/supply OEM parts? Bin and buy new? Very ecologically sound, albeit great for the OEM!

As I understand it a lot of the pop-pop-bang-bang st is actually standard from the factory so the control freaks/idiots on here would still hear that fkwittery going on - it would be allowed.....

I can honestly say that I’ve never bought anything on your list. My Lexus LS has every possible option including cameras and sensors and is dealer serviced. Got a specialist to fit a Tyre Pressure Sensor once, but that’s it. My E30 BMW is so standard it even still has it’s original dealer fitted Blaupunkt tape player. Never bought winter tyres or been stuck without them, never bought an idiot gauge, or an aftermarket filter, and all my tyres are decent brands. Bet I’m not in a minority either.

Would love to see other E30 owners remove their mods though.

[Undercover McNoName]

singlecoil said:

And the people who have to hear it, even when they don't want to.

Well, that was my point.

Derventio said:

Congratulations Undercover McNoname (or is it Alfahol Addict?). Your quest to become the forums biggest idiot is going swimmingly. Now once you realise your opinions are as relevant as a white crayon, perhaps you will do us the honour of leaving whilst the adults discuss things.

U ok hun?

[TarquinMX5]

Limpet said:

TarquinMX5 said:

No requirement for anybody to enforce. It can be left to people to 'do the right thing'. Problem solved.

Move on. Build Back Better.

What makes you think most of them would 'do the right thing'?

There's no moral issue here (beyond a potential environmental one in the case of decat / GPF delete) and it's an entirely victimless 'crime', so it simply becomes about the likelihood of being caught and facing consequences. If that likelihood is trivial (which it will be), the rules will be ignored.

Which was the point, really (but our illustrious leader's way of dealing with things)

[brman]

Dingu said:

brman said:

So where is the detail that says (for example) it will not cover motability alternations or spare wheels that are not OEM? From what I can tell it is a little vague as to the scope of the proposed changes.

Looking specifically at the Tampering section (you need to click a link once you have followed the link in the OP for the full details of everything) it starts extremely general but goes on to list 4 specific areas they are interested in.

Consultation said:

Specifically, we would look to create:

a specific offence for supplying, installing and/or advertising, a ‘tampering product’ for a vehicle or NRMM – this would apply where a principal effect of the product is to bypass, defeat, reduce the effectiveness of or render inoperative a system, part or component (the product may be a physical part or component, hardware and/or software)

a specific offence for removing, reducing the effectiveness of, or rendering inoperative a system, part or component for a vehicle/NRMM and advertising such services

a specific offence for allowing for use or providing a vehicle or NRMM that has had the operations described in the previous 2 points performed on it

a new power to require economic operators to provide information, where a service/product they have supplied amounts to or enables ‘tampering’ with a vehicle or NRMM – this would apply in any of the above senses and include requirements to provide relevant information on the quantities of products sold or modified

Whilst full of jargon it does state that the principle purpose of the change would be to reduce the effectiveness of, bypass etc a system. I think with the best will in the world changing the wheels couldn’t reasonably be described as doing that in most circumstances. Ditto non OEM brakes etc as there are already standards to be met. Also with motability if anything it’s enhancing systems for the driver who will be using it by making it easier to operate.

To put it another way if they intended to ban all modifications it would be a lot simpler than the tampering section they have produced currently.

As I have said I’m not arguing for the proposals or trying to be awkward, merely interested that objections made in the consultation are relevant, otherwise it may as well become law tomorrow for all the chance of it being altered or stopped

Thanks. That does put it in a different light. In my defense, I did start reading the links but obvious got bored before I got to the juicy bits!

[KTMsm]

Dingu said:

I think you may be debating the wrong person, I haven’t said I’m in favour of the proposals, just keen to try and keep opposition in line with the proposals.

If we all fill in the survey with objections to areas not covered (e.g. what about motability alterations or having spare wheels with winter tyres etc) then it will slide unhindered into law. If we respond making strong points like you raise there about whether it would cause businesses to fail and the parts industry to become an effective monopoly (OEM only) that is a direct argument against them which should hopefully carry weight.

I was just pointing out that whilst many may say it's ok they just want to ban the noisy aftermarket, the proposals would effectively ban the entire aftermarket

We've seen it all before with speed limits, no one objected because the Police generally enforced them with common sense, hardly anyone had points.

Then they bought in speed cameras and everyone had points

If they want to specifically ban DPF removal and advertising of the service - fine, make it a specific offence

If they want to ban cat removal fine - but the Police need to catch the fkers stealing them because otherwise it's writing off cars if they need an OEM replacement - not very green

To agree to let them have the power to ban anything not OEM - no thanks

[KTMsm]

tomic said:

I can honestly say that I’ve never bought anything on your list. My Lexus LS has every possible option including cameras and sensors and is dealer serviced. Got a specialist to fit a Tyre Pressure Sensor once, but that’s it. My E30 BMW is so standard it even still has it’s original dealer fitted Blaupunkt tape player. Never bought winter tyres or been stuck without them, never bought an idiot gauge, or an aftermarket filter, and all my tyres are decent brands. Bet I’m not in a minority either.

I have no problem with you doing that, I question why you're on a car forum but if you want to be dull, fair enough

But I've taken the engine from an LS and stuck it in a IS200 - it's now carrying less weight and with a manual box, it's greener - but that would be illegal.

I've been driving similar modified cars for 30 years, never had a crash, all without ABS or stability control, they need to teach people to drive rather than teaching them to rely on tech

[anonymous-user]

Anyone got a link to the proposed legislation?

[crofty1984]

bigothunter said:

Many customised vans have wheels rated below the van's load capacity. Many modified cars and vans have wheels of incorrect offset which compromises dynamics. Loud exhausts. Pop and bang calibration. Catalyst deletion. Perhaps stricter controls in Germany is part of the reason for unlimited autobahns whilst we crawl along at 70mph or less

And all of those things can be dealt with by proper enforcement of existing legislation.

[B235r]

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.

So much this

[NMNeil]

HazzaT said:

That makes it sound like it's specifically aimed at stuff like O2 Sensor spoofers for decats and OPF deletes and that sort of thing. I don't think it makes remaps etc illegal but it would put tuning boxes and pedal boxes (as well as exhaust valve removal/always open settings) in a pickle.

Note the magic word 'software'
"a specific offence for supplying, installing and/or advertising, a ‘tampering product’ for a vehicle or NRMM – this would apply where a principal effect of the product is to bypass, defeat, reduce the effectiveness of or render inoperative a system, part or component (the product may be a physical part or component, hardware and/or software)"

[DaveE87]

There's no need to change any legislation, it's fine as it is. If mods were banned there would be very little left of my car - pretty much all of the mechanical bits have been replaced with upgraded parts with the exception of the engine and the catalytic converters.

[2gins]

ChocolateFrog said:

Court_S said:

2gins said:

Dunno if this has been posted yet, but this looks like a very effective way of shutting off the supply of parts to keep your ICE car on the road in 10 years time, so you have to go and buy a new ... electric vehicle.

If they're keen on 'right to repair', then that is not compatible with outlawing modifications.

You cynical bugger. They’d never do anything like that to push a certain agenda….

They don't need to.

Ever see a first gen Mondeo on the road? Or a Vectra? Anything made by SAAB?

99.99% of cars disappear off the roads after 20 years anyway.

... says the guy whose previous cars list is mostly pre-2000 and not much newer than 2005!

Yes I do see a fair bit of vanilla older stuff day to day, and plenty of the same from the last 5 years that you'd reasonably expect to still be serviceable in 2040, and by the way lots of Saabs. I've owned 2 myself. As this is a petrolheads forum though, spare a thought for all the interesting stuff from the 80s and 90s for which manufacturers don't keep a full parts inventory. End of the road for those cars, if this is what it's being presented as.

Edited by 2gins on Thursday 21st October 21:24

Edited by 2gins on Thursday 21st October 21:24