Government could be looking at banning modification of cars

[sootyjared]

The government is looking at "Tackling tampering" of cars and have a consultation open currently (28 September to 22 November) with the aim of creating new offences for "tampering" or selling items that help tampering. It's unclear on what this means, it could just mean stopping people from removing pollution controls or whatever or could mean that even changing some wheels on a car is illegal, its to board and does not go into detail on what will be effected and what would not be effected.

I have not found anybody talking or discussing aside from bike news sites and talking about illegal exhausts, but this will effect cars to and likely gut the classic/retro car scene or at least make it harder to have a car that you cannot get bits for anymore. This will kill the VW scene and old American stuff for sure (beetles and type 2's wont be popular as much as they are now), it will likely even make older cars impossible to convert to electric.

This will make millions unemployed, destroy hobbies and make many vehicles impossible to own or keep running.  

Here is the link to the consultation, it ends 22 November. I will be filling mine out but is suspect that it won't change anything.

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-of-transport-regulatory-review-modernising-vehicle-standards/future-of-transport-regulatory-review-modernising-vehicle-standards#tackling-tampering
 
 
The full text is below, sorry if this is rambling but i am just shook up and feel pretty sick at this news, this is probably going to end my already dwindling interest in cars completely as they will no longer be fun or even see a point in owning one anymore. It will ruin the community and culture anyway. 

Sorry for this being in a wrong place, being discussed before, etc i am just so alarmed and concerned especially as nobody seems to be talking about it, 

"We will create new offences for tampering with a system, part or component of a vehicle intended or adapted to be used on a road. This will enable us to address existing gaps in the legislation, ensuring cleaner and safer vehicles. We will also create new offences for tampering with non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) and for advertising ‘tampering’ services or products.



This will strengthen our ability to enforce compliance in this area.



We are aware that the Law Commissions in both their first and third consultations on automated vehicles have considered tampering. We await their final recommendations and would welcome views on our proposals, as follows.



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"

[xbl]

It'll never happen, manufacturers chop and change suppliers and specifications all the time, tyre manufacturers constantly upgrade compounds and materials.

[legend]

don#t underestimate the current evil mob in charge. they voted to privatise the NHS this week, so maybe we will have to stop working on cars as any mishaps will see you homeless. They won't think anything of throwing the car mod industry under a bus, just look at fishing for an example of them not giving a poo

[carledo]

This sounds very like the legislation that has existed unenforced in the US for many years. Just lately, they've started enforcing it to the extreme consternation of modders and tuners. It's mainly related to emission control equipment but strays into the fields of remapping ECUs and the like too. It's not really aimed, nor does it largely apply to classics that don't have either emission control equipment or ECUs to mess (tamper) with. But in the states (not all of them) where it HAS been enforced, it's led to a number of tuning shops being fined large sums for selling aftermarket ECUs and other tuning parts.

There is, however, a large and growing backlash movement to have the regs removed or reformed as the effect on businesses there is also HUGE.

I think we should ALL be at least concerned about this, but it's not time to panic - YET!  Since we don't have any such enenforced laws on British statute books, I have a feeling that anything they bring in will not be in any way retrospective and these new rules, if they ever come into force, will only apply to vehicles built after they are introduced, so from say 2024 models onwards - and I really couldn't care less about those! The only reason the American regs are being applied "retrospectively" is because they've been laying in the statute books unenforced for decades, so the Govt can say "well the rules were there, and you broke them"

Steve

PS, i've just read all the proposals THOROUGHLY. It's certainly all about NEW vehicles particulaly automated ones. I think, reading between the lines, the "tampering" thing is mainly to stop things like the VW-gate emission fraud ever happening again. It's all about emissions and environmental performance. The British government really doesn't care what a couple of hundred thousand classic owners and an even smaller number of tuners and modders is doing with old tin. The exemption from LEZs granted to historic registered cars is proof of that. Plus the value to the economy of the whole classic movement is too big to give away. Think of it like smoking, the government COULD ban it entirely and save billions on the NHS bill, but they'd lose all the tax revenue and have to pay out billions more in pensions as people live longer! So they leave it alone and just tax smokers to the hilt! Somebody somewhere has done the sums on this too, you can bet on that that! I just hope it wasn't Dianne Abbott!

I've little doubt that the endgame here is to wipe privately owned  powered transportation out entirely. And probably the idea of human controlled vehicles as well. But I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, so I refuse to worry about it. It's an Orwellian nightmare that i'll be glad to miss out on!

[Dez]

In reference to carledo s post above, we’ve had similar rules for years- removing cats and DPFs has always been illegal in one way or another, but everyone’s always kept on doing it cos it falls down to MOT testers to enforce it, who rightly say it’s above their pay grade to do so.

I agree the rules will sort of not apply to ‘us’, I think they will be retrospective in that if a car came with it as OEM equipment it’ll be meant to have it, but only the very latest of retro cars will have a cat (and let’s face it cats really aren’t an issue) and DPFs didn’t exist then.

The idea that software modifications will become ‘illegal’ is laughable though, and shows a total lack of understanding of what that actually means by whoever threw those words together.

[gtidreamer]

It sounds to me that it is intented to bring into line those who blatantly disregard emissions regs e.g smoky remaps and removal of specific parts / systems. It is also possible that the use of 'mileage correction' and blocker devices would become offences. As a potential used modern car buyer I'd support tightening consumer protection. However, as with many things there may be unintended consequences but I doubt that properly modified retros and classics are the target for this. Those of us who have a retro or classic car are very much in the minority and it would not be worth the effort to legislate or consider enforcement.

[carledo]

It was whole (IMO unbelievably stupid) business of "Rolling Coal" that triggered the US clampdown on modded ECUs etc. Before that, nobody realy cared enough to enforce the laws. While folk were only tuning for performance it wasn't worth the bother. Rolling coal is a blatant "UP YOURS" to the powers that be and is ONLY done for effect. It's DELIBERATE pollution and as such, merits being outlawed. It's just unfortunate that the rules aren't selective enough and a lot of innocent people have been caught in the crossfire.

Yes it's true that CAT and DPF deletes have long been illegal here and it's down to MOT testers to enforce this. But I don't agree that it's "above their pay grade" as Dez said above. If it doesn't meet the cat regs on MOT it will FAIL that MOT. Of course a smart person with a car that needs a cat will replace it for the MOT, then rip it off again afterwards, that's not the tester's problem then. Other thing like EGR bypass modules and delete kits are also illegal in the UK but I had no trouble getting one from eastern Europe via ebay! Cars fitted with such may well still pass an MOT, then it probably is a "paygrade" matter. In my case, the car the EGR equipped engine was fitted to was pre 75 so didn't need any emission control equipment at all, MY EGR delete was perfectly acceptable.

I also agree that the idea of makng software mods illegal is a bad joke. No one will ever stop computer geeks from messing with computers, they've been trying since computers were invented with zero success so far!

Steve

[etypephil]

While I accept everything  Carledo, Dez, and Gtidreamer have said above, Legend also has a point;- government reaction to events since the beginning of 2020 show that they are intolerent of independent thinkers and non conformists, therefore we must be vigilant to ensure that our hobby and already limited freedom is not legislated out of existence.

Today's production cars are tomorrow's retros and classics so we should be concerned for the next generation of enthusiasts, not just for ourselves and our vehicles, We now have just three weeks in which to register our comments via the link highlighted by OP Sootyjared:

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-of-transport-regulatory-review-modernising-vehicle-standards/future-of-transport-regulatory-review-modernising-vehicle-standards#tackling-tampering

We should also email our MPs now asking them to intervene, as many powers are now delegated to government departments who make up their own rules without having to get legislation through Parliament.

[tofufi]

Oct 31, 2021 22:04:26 GMT carledo said:

Steve

PS, i've just read all the proposals THOROUGHLY. It's certainly all about NEW vehicles particulaly automated ones. I think, reading between the lines, the "tampering" thing is mainly to stop things like the VW-gate emission fraud ever happening again. It's all about emissions and environmental performance. The British government really doesn't care what a couple of hundred thousand classic owners and an even smaller number of tuners and modders is doing with old tin. The exemption from LEZs granted to historic registered cars is proof of that. Plus the value to the economy of the whole classic movement is too big to give away. T

I'd agree with this ^^ - it seems the intention is to make it tough for that idiot down the pub to get his DPF gutted or EGR removed rather than banning people from doing big mods.

I work with vehicle legislation for a living and the wording involved is very emissions and cyber-security focused.

If anyone plans to respond to this, I'd recommend making sure you read the proposals and understand them first. Then focus on suggesting what you want to be still possible, rather than just ranting and telling them you don't want modifying cars to be banned - as this doesn't seem to be the intention.

If they are intending to stop DPF removals etc, telling them you want the proposals axed will probably be ignored. If you want to be able to continue to do tuning, suggest that they include wording to exempt pre 2000 vehicles, or those used for motorsport, or whatever.

[tofufi]

Just as a quick follow-up, I went to provide my views...

The first line after putting my name in states

providing a modern framework for modern vehicles – regulating safety, security and environmental performance

[HoTWire]

Hey remember when the EU was going to ban all motorsport ever and it was 100% going to happen.

Same people on social media seem to be pushing this as definitely outlawing all modified cars. Which is a sure sign this isn't relevant, just a thing so people get the visceral thrill of feeling like a victim, so they can be angry about something.

[comfortablynumb]

This has been mooted before, and then the aftermarket industry got involved, and it was realised how much revenue and how many jobs are involved in this market, and it was quietly dropped
Not saying it won't happen, and you only have to look at the antipodean market to see the levels of control some authorities will stoop to, but probably the only thing we can do currently is keep an eye on it

[ironmighty07]

The proposed ruling seems to focus on the introduction of autonomous cars in particular - and it that respect I can totally understand the drive towards tightly controlling the alterations to software(Backyard £40 re-chip to manually intervene with the parameters anyone?). As the control systems become more and more integrated and no longer just a engine management system then the risk of interference creating a genuine safety risk increases from the perspective of the less diligent who wish to interfere). Having reviewed some projects in public transport the cyber security aspect is a real unknown, and again third party amendments "could" leave such technology vulnerable which again begins to create a fascinating landscape of who becomes liable in the event of an incident relating to a modified system and who is at fault for a cyber breach?

However such legislation once in situ becomes far easier to update and revise(with far lower profile public consultation) and that's where the risk to those who modify cars starts to become riskier of draconian restrictions start to kick in. Place this against a backdrop where the mainstream media is increasing happy to paint the ICE powered car as the root of all climate evil(despite over consumption being the greatest risk in that respect), then the public support for and apathy towards resisting change increases and such legislation glides through parliament.

[biturbo228]

While it does definitely seem that this law isn't going to have an effect on what we generally do, it is well worth paying attention to these sorts of things. Every now and again an otherwise innocuous proposal does have an unintended negative effect on a large number of people. The key example in recent times has been the proposed changes to the IVA rules, which some keen eyes spotted that they required engines to meet the emissions standards of the year the test was taking place, rather than the year the engine was made.

This was probably put in there by a well-meaning person trying to improve the environmental impact of their work (I expect they're generally asked to consider environmental improvements in each of the changes they do). I expect they were mainly considering the commercial users of the IVA where this wouldn't be a life-or-death issue (things like conversions into ambulances, limos, mobility vehicles etc., as well as low-volume manufacturers like Caterham). Unfortunately, it would have killed the radically modified car scene stone dead.

There was a petition, and lots of submissions to the consultation, and that particular bit of the law was removed (likely from a combination of that and manufacturers of converted vehicles not wanted to be restricted).

It might not feel like it, but government really does listen to what people say in these consultations. We certainly do in my particular bit of the NHS, but I can't necessarily vouch for the corporate culture in other areas (although every area of local government I've worked with has also cared deeply about what the public say about their proposals). Generally we get lots of conflicting information and opinions that we need to work through, and we need to weigh that up against whether what the public wants is actually feasible, but if people really do vehemently disagree with something there's a real ability to change proposals.

Personally, I don't think there's any harm in submitting feedback saying something like 'while I think that these proposals are fine as they appear to be tailored specifically towards regulating autonomous vehicles, I would not agree with similar constraints being expanded to vehicles built before this proposal in enacted. That would have a severe detrimental effect on the car modification and repair industry, and make a significant number of businesses unviable and make their employees and supply chain unemployed'.

[blackpopracing]

Oct 31, 2021 21:54:13 GMT legend said:

don#t underestimate the current evil mob in charge. they voted to privatise the NHS this week, so maybe we will have to stop working on cars as any mishaps will see you homeless. They won't think anything of throwing the car mod industry under a bus, just look at fishing for an example of them not giving a poo

I'ts a bit off topic, but would you care to elucidate on quite where the govt voted to privatise the NHS?

[slater]

Ffs can people stop sharing this curse word and actually go research what it's actually all about! Its clickbait bull.

[legend]

Nov 2, 2021 13:15:23 GMT blackpopracing said:

Oct 31, 2021 21:54:13 GMT legend said:

don#t underestimate the current evil mob in charge. they voted to privatise the NHS this week, so maybe we will have to stop working on cars as any mishaps will see you homeless. They won't think anything of throwing the car mod industry under a bus, just look at fishing for an example of them not giving a poo

I'ts a bit off topic, but would you care to elucidate on quite where the govt voted to privatise the NHS?

Have you been living under a rock


the prime minister has started 2021 by voting to allow the NHS to be open to privatisation on the international market. Yesterday, Tory MPs voted against amendments to protect our NHS in international trade deals. They voted down both a democracy amendment (aka the “scrutiny amendment”) which gives MPs the chance to view and vote on trade deals before they are agreed, and an “NHS amendment” that would see health services protected in trade deals.


Privatisation by stealth


Not quite cut and dried yet and the Lords stopped some of their fun recently, but they voted to "not prevent" the privatisation again last week

It's only a matter of time. And look at the utter state of every privatised industry in the UK, energy, sewage, rail. All still get government subsidies despite taking out all of the profit and being utterly rubbish


the press convinced the voters that Corbyn was a threat...only to the super rich, whereas these guys seem hell bent on the destruction of the poor and everyone on less that 300k pa

[HoTWire]

Let's not.





There are very suitable places to discuss politics (I'm often in those places), here is not one of them.

[legend]

Ok, noted, let's hope they leave the cars alone

[blackpopracing]

I agree with it being poor reporting, it does specifically say it's legislation to cover the next generation of cars - which are/will be completely alien to the ones currently in production.

The 'tampering' will be aimed at software defeats of GPS (to avoid road tolling) speed sensors (so you can drive faster than the speed limit) and anything that will impact on emissions/safety.

It's not aimed at us lot at all - that's not to say we should not make them aware that a broad brush can have unintended consequences - IE accidentally wiping out the classic car industry.