Government proposed modernising vehicle standards petition.

[clansman]

Think we should all sign this! 

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/600954

[Blatman]

I suspect the individual starting the petition either hasn't read the bill or has just decided that it's all bad, irrespective of what it actually says.

It does say things like:

 

Quote

We would like to emphasise that our policy intention is to prevent modifications that have a negative impact on road safety, vehicle security and the environment.

We do not intend our proposals to:

prevent legitimate motorsport activities

prevent restoration, repairs or legitimate improvements to vehicles, such as classic cars or motorbikes

negatively impact businesses involved in these activities

 

Frome here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-of-transport-regulatory-review-modernising-vehicle-standards/future-of-transport-regulatory-review-modernising-vehicle-standards?fbclid=IwAR0E7baymfJuJ-8XCcIcuFZsjLPByC0MmD_SIIa3WqrP9hH5qKfkWonFsyM#tackling-tampering

 

So no ad-blue defeat, no tampering with airbags or seat belts or pedestrian safety features, things like that. MAYBE, not adding "tuning chips" BUT if the vehicle emissions stay within the requirements that'll be tricky. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I may well have it completely wrong, but I have at least taken the time to have a read through some of it.

A thread got started on this a little while ago. Might be time to resurrect it to see if more people join in.

 

 

[jeff oakley]

My problem with things like this is the intention is good but gets hijacked. Take S172 originally it was designed to stop loud stereos and antisocial acts by enabling the authorities to seize cars off repeat offenders.

 

That has been used by police on car exhaust noise and has dragged much more in as the law has been used for what it was not designed for. The Police in one area deciding that they would enforce a level lower than IVA allows, without specifying how they would measure accuratly, drive by or static.

 

Another by product was blanket bans in areas where cruising takes place of car gatherings. Again, no one want the type of driving that leads to accidents but this has again dragged in classic car clubs being warned.

 

I have read the full statements and yes the intention is to stop decatting, deleting DPF and any future electronics that might be in place for speed limiters etc. I suspect as in the states laws set there for green issues are being used to stop any modifications by going after the manufacturer of the performance chips etc, all under the green banner. 

 

Badly worded and in acted laws can be manipulated by others and once in place hard to row back from. We have a transport minister who has said we must change car ownership to public transport, already there are less young coming to driving let alone enthusiasts so we who love cars are dwindling. There has been a commitment to keep E5 fuel available for just 5 years, yes we can get around that but it is a slippery slope as increasing costs, increasing legislation will harm what we love if we are not careful

[Blatman]

Completely agree with all of that.

S172 has definitely been used in South Ken, Chelsea and one or two other Central London areas to curb anti-social car behavior. BUT, having witnessed first hand what was actually happening (Chelsea Cruise still happens on occasion), the cops aren't going after everyone. They are targetting those who rev their cars with their pop/bang, flame throwing systems who sit kerbside for long periods setting fire to their money or doing burnouts/launches where there is a real danger to bystanders. There's a time and a place, and in the past I have been just as guilty