Petition about historic vehicles

[bash]

This could have far reaching consequences.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/600954
If this is enabled it could cripple the classic car industry and our hobby where no modification would be allowed and may stop reproduction parts. Whilst I appreciate that mentioning politics is a big no no on here perhaps we should make an exception here. Its up to the moderators I suppose.
Bash

[Pete Boole]

Thanks Bash! Signed.

Pete

[Lotus-e-Clan]

It looks like it meant to stop harmful mods (diesel particulate filters, de-cats, software chipping etc). The gov response seems to say it doesn't want to stop ALL mods, just the unsafe ones.

For the Excel, easy to prove the mods are safe. I suppose a crazy engine swap might be outlawed, but in-period swaps like a Rover V8 should be OK, surely?

The impact on my Clan would be zero. Even though it's modified, it has in-period factory applied mods, plus modern mods (e.g. mapped ignition) which I don't think would be seen as unsafe. And it's already covered by the rules governing historic tax class and allowable mods (with which it complies).

I think they are targeting Barry Boys, with sawn-off road springs, cat deletes, DIY electric motor conversion and the likes?

All depends on the precise detail (there's no real detail at this point) and, how it's policed.

What do you think?

[bash]

Thats the problem, its down to interpretation, yes its aimed at keeping emmisions in line but any component that "may" effect that could be seen as illegal. Does that include air filters, electronic ignition, non manufacturer exhausts, etc etc. Its a very slippery slope and I can see money behind this, manufacturers making money as sole suppliers at the expense of aftermarket. The great british industry of tuning cars, fettling cars and being an individual in our choices could be at stake. This legislation originated in europe and some of thier legislation is already a bit draconian compared to here.
Just my opinion and I respect anyone else having thiers.
Bash

[rbgosling]

"Our proposals are not intended to hinder activities such as motorsports, restoration, repairs, or legitimate improvements and alterations to vehicles, or indeed do any damage to the businesses involved in these activities." Maybe, but the problem is that the regulations may still hinder these activities even if that is not the main intention. And frankly I do not trust anyone not to use the regulations to restrict things far beyond the intention, as long as it can still be so defined within the wording of the law.

Signed.

[TrevorK]

Its a very slippery slope and I can see money behind this, manufacturers making money as sole suppliers at the expense of aftermarket.
Bash

Wasn't some legislation passed recently to open up the market to allow others to supply parts rather than just the OEM supplier?

[richardw]

I wouldn’t class this as political - it affects the future of our hobby.

Also there is no need for us - at this stage - to reach a collective position; the petition only allows individual responses.

I agree that the danger lies in how this measure will be interpreted as time goes on, and will be supporting the petition.

Thanks for flagging it Bash.

Cheers, Richard

[bash]

Initial debate has taken place heres the ministers initial response.
Opening the debate, Nick Fletcher set out petitioners' concerns, and called on the Government to make sure the proposed new laws are clear about what is meant by 'tampering'. He also said the Government must take steps to ensure the motorsport and classic car sectors are not harmed by these proposals.

Responding to the debate, Transport Minister Trudy Harrison sought to reassure petitioners that the Government does not intend its proposals to prevent legitimate motorsport activities, restoration, repairs or legitimate improvements to vehicles such as classic cars and motorbikes. The Minister said more detail on its plans would be set out in the Government's formal response to its consultation on the Future of Transport, which she said will be published "in the summer".

Apparently the full debate is on utube, but thousands of motorsport and classic car and bike enthusiasts have had thier concerns listened to. The interpretation of "legitimate improvements" could still be an issue though, hopefully common sense will prevail.

Bash

[Lotus-e-Clan]

I think loud exhausts and low riders will be the first targets and easy to police.

My Clan has a fruity carbon bike can, and revving to 9000 rpm makes it a target I guess. My Excel has 4 inch tail pipes which boom a bit, and could be a target too.

Clan can be set to ride very low with lots of negative camber which was great combined with my flat floor modification on track days, and on the motorway when I used to commute in it to Durham, but I raised it recently to cope better with the Dales roads, where it mainly gets driven these days.

All legitimate targets, I guess.

[DavidOliver]

Vehicles in Spain have no approval for modifying except to carry out an inspection by the Ministry of Industry, which would take so long that nobody carries out modifications and registers them.
Many years ago I modified a Range Rover V8 by installing a Turbo Technics turbo, ......... off a shovel....... until the gearbox bust.
The owner was wealthy and probably bought his way through the MOT (ITV).
The regulation in Spain severely stifles interest in modifications, even when the improvement enhances safety.

For Historic registered cars no modification from original at all is approved, otherwise the car loses the Historic category. Not even changeing RHD to LHD.

In the UK I imagine the existing control by Insurance Company inspectors provides an efective means to restrict unsafe modifications, and therefore the proposed limiting regulation is not really necessary.

Dave the cog.