5th April 2022
84% of classic owners oppose new ‘anti-tampering’ proposals
We recently polled our audience which showed that 84% of classic owners are against the Department for Transport's anti-tampering proposals that would outlaw tampering with a system, part or component of a vehicle intended or adapted to be used on the road.
84% of the 4,500 respondents are opposed to this proposal, which, if implemented could have a detrimental impact on the UK classic car, motorsport and custom aftermarket industry.
Nearly six months after the planned legislation announcement, the classic car industry is still not clear on what the future has in store for their cars, should they be adapted, updated or ‘tampered with’ as the regulations state. Said Government consultation report entitled, ‘Future of transport regulatory review: modernising vehicle standards’ was published on 12 November 2021 and it has had the classic vehicle community worried ever since. The goals that the Government describes have the best of intentions, however, it is when you read deeper into the ‘Tackling Tampering’ section that each paragraph and future “offence” could easily be applied to the classic vehicle industry.
These offences include:
- Supplying, installing, or advertising a ‘tampering product’ for a vehicle or Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM)
- Removing, reducing the effectiveness of, or rendering inoperative a system, part or component for a vehicle/NRMM and advertising such services
- Allowing for use or providing a vehicle or NRMM that has had the operations described in the previous two points performed on it
Managing Director of Footman James, David Bond said: “The proposals by the Government are hopefully in their infancy as they appear somewhat ill-thought-out. The classic vehicle industry not only accounts for less than one per cent of vehicle emissions in the UK but also generates £7.2 billion worth of economic activity every year, which is only increasing. The offences described in this report could be applied to all vehicle restoration, modification, and competition preparation services with potential to jeopardise not only the economic benefits we feel from the classic vehicle scene but the immense cultural and historical record that enthusiasts inadvertently look after and display.”
With only 16 per cent of 4,500 poll respondents - representing a wide cross-section of classic and specialist vehicle owners – agreeing with the Government’s latest anti-tampering regulations, our audience are clearly not reassured by the new proposals.
David Bond continued: “I hope the classic vehicle industry comes together, not to beat the Government down on what appear to be good, future-proofing intentions, but to seek greater clarity on what dispensations classic vehicles could be entitled to. Much like the MOT and road tax exemption for vehicles over 40 years old, it feels that the Government could consider this cut-off age to ‘anti-tampering’ restrictions.”
Garry Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of the HCVA added that the organisation was “pleased to respond to the Department for Transport’s consultation on a proposed vehicle modifications bill that included tampering. This is aimed at new vehicles but had inadvertent ramifications for our sector. We have asked that classic vehicles are exempted from the bill, which is supported by a range of members of parliament we have met. However, the point on secondary legislation could be easily missed, possibly allowing a future Secretary of State to make future changes to the bill that could see any exemptions overridden. The HCVA have requested that any future changes to the bill be returned to Parliament to be reviewed and thus enabling any changes to be investigated. This is the key work that we do for the sector and hence why we need support from the industry and owners alike to join us.”
Alongside the references to road-going vehicles, the report also stipulates these potential offences will apply to the tampering of Non-Road Mobile Machinery. Although the Government says it “does not intend our proposals to prevent legitimate motorsport”, Our audience can’t help but raise concern over the semantics of their terminology.
We will continue to monitor the situation and provide feedback and reassurance to their client base of classic vehicle enthusiasts.
David Bond concluded and said: “As a service provider in the classic vehicle industry, we want to be the first port of call to deliver news and updates to our policyholders. We also see it as our responsibility. The team and I at Footman James have every faith that we will be providing good news to our customers, and we can all breathe a sigh of relief at what we’ll look back on to be a temporary episode of concern.”
What do you think about the proposed legislation? We'd love to hear your thoughts in our comments section below.
1937 car return to its original factory condition. Remove the flashing indicators and stick my hand out in the dark.Reinstate the single dip head light and the one tiny tail light.Sounds about right to me.
John , 27/04/2022
The government policy is to reduce not increase controls and regulations. This proposal is another example of the complete opposite being imposed on our livelihoods. The government needs to justify why this proposal is necessary and produce a compelling case that we could all appreciate. A huge amount of time and money will be wasted when there are so many more pressing matters to be actioned.
Steve, 19/04/2022
I prefer to see "classic" vehicles kept as close to the state in which they left the factory as possible. To me, that's the essence of owning and driving any of my cars. Effectively regarding them as a time warp in the same way as any other historic object. However, I can't see any possible objection to improving the safety factor by fitting seat belts, properly fixing them, or improvements to braking or lighting systems. And making the manufacture and fitting of such improvements illegal is just barmy. What about steering wheel covers or cross-ply tyres? On the other hand Kit cars have to have a thorough examination by a qualified engineer and any vehicle which has been adapted for increased power or performance should, in my opinion, be tested similarly to make sure that the vehicle HAS been modified to safety standards. It's all about safety and reliability.
Richard, 16/04/2022
I'd also oppose this, I want to make my vehicle different from others, and not all modifications are bad, so I'm against this suggested action by the government, also a thing of the millions of people and businesses that would no longer exist, this would be a disaster, also I'm sure the government would also make a financial loss in taxes from all of the modification people make to there vehicles
Jamie des, 12/04/2022
Yes I agree that the anti-tampering laws will have a detrimental effect on classic vehicle ownership and maintenance.
Wizzo, 12/04/2022
This is a really unnecessary and badly thought out proposal. The criteria for what is considered tampering appear to be entirely subjective and likely to lead to over-zealous prosecution and unfair application. It would seem that even very minor changes to a vehicle might be considered tampering with safety / and or emissions used as a blanket justification for prosecution with no regard to the context. For example, if a vehicle leaves the factory fitted with summer tyres designed for high-speed motorway use, but the vehicle is then fitted with chunky tread tyres for use on low-speed roads in northern rural/mountainous areas where grip in wet/icy/snowy conditions is more important, this proposed legislation would seem to make both the seller of the tyres and the owner of the vehicle open to prosecution because the vehicle has been changed from the manufacturer's specification and is now less safe at 70mph, although it might never actually be used on a motorway. It is also worth noting that the motor industry has in the past often adopted popular modifications made by owners of vehicles and aftermarket equipment suppliers. This legislation would stifle this route for the development of improvements in-vehicle technology.
UJ, 11/04/2022
This would be a disaster for the classic car enthusiasts. This could range from uprating a vehicle to improve its reliability and safety to needing to remanufacture components due out of production spares. Further, this proposal seems to cut across recent 'right to repair' legislation.
RobertDaw, 11/04/2022
No way would some of my vehicles be on the road without making or adapting components to fit.
DEP, 11/04/2022
FHBVC has said the following on their website: “The Federation has received a detailed written response from the DfT, who have given assurances that they do not intend their proposals to prevent legitimate motorsport activities, prevent restoration, repairs or legitimate improvements to vehicles, such as classic cars or motorbikes or to negatively impact businesses involved in these activities. These assurances are reflected in the recent issue of an updated consultation paper on the DfT website.” It seems the proposed legislation will apply to current production and future vehicles, which are so complex in their electronics that in my view they should not be tampered with as this could adversely affect their safety.
T, 11/04/2022
Hi. The new measures as they appear would be as history has shown us many times that the "Policing" of these this type of legislation in practice is almost impossible. Mainly due to the funding and training of decision-makers inspecting vehicles that have been deemed as possibly "contravening" these rules. Even with the current MOT inspection arrangement almost no consistency between testers and with a large proportion of them with no background training in automotive engineering training. And the second point is in reference to classic cars. If the older vehicle did not have some form of ignition or carburation modification they would be almost impossible to drive or at worse "Dangerous" Due to the petrol they were designed to run on is no longer available. Rendering a large proposition of all classic cars already in breach of the proposed legislation. If History has proved to us anything is that Hearsay, Scaremongering and comments from people who think they know what they are talking about do the most damage to undermine the classic car industry. The latest example of this is the ethanol fuel situation.
Smiffy, 10/04/2022
The statute book is already overflowing with ill-thought-out ineffectual laws without any more nonsense.
Milinman, 10/04/2022
I do not agree with the proposals. There are options that can improve the fuel consumption of a car so why prevent their use!
Jagman, 10/04/2022
I totally oppose the Dept for transport proposal. The legislation would be disproportionate, offers no community or societal benefit and will gratuitously interfere with the rights of classic and historic as well modern competition cars where modified and remade parts ate the only way of keeping these functional
Richardtechnilk, 09/04/2022
I do hope that the authorities exempt us from these regulations and that this is an innocent oversight that we could get caught up in this. I would hate to discover that this is just another attempt at state control that prevents us from doing what we’ve done all our lives.
Westie, 09/04/2022
As the owner of an MGb which has electronic ignition and an electronic fuel pump plus larger front brake discs for more efficient braking, I would consider these to be deviating away from standard I’m also a great supporter of the kit car industry with people like hawk and Dax, also you have the suppliers to the classic car industry like rimmer bros and the mg owners club to name a few this is a very narrow-minded proposal which if it became law would put thousands of people out of work which I would be totally against. I believe that there has been a lack of thought and consideration going into this proposal
Pops, 09/04/2022
I oppose anything which gives somebody power over me. Most of the policies put forward by Governments, Councils, etc. are nothing to do with safety they are to do with control. I have fitted improved brakes including a servo (improved safety), electronic ignition (improved reliability and engine efficiency), an overdrive and freewheel hubs (greater fuel economy), an unleaded head (less pollution), Halogen headlights (improved safety), etc. Should I go back to single leading shoe brakes and candles in jam jars for headlights, sounds good to me! Go and look for a problem that needs solving.
Series 1, 09/04/2022
I intend to stay with classic vehicles and maybe convert them to electric if viable. I will always be fixing and modifying so am against the anti-tampering proposals.
Biker, 09/04/2022
I had a BMW e24 635 CSI which had good brakes when it came out in 1973 however with a car that has a weight of 35cwt even at legal road speeds this kind of weight takes some stopping. I changed the braking system to the brakes from a later model increasing the braking efficiency by a considerable amount. Modern cars have excellent brakes and could easily have out braked my unmodified one. On busy and crowded roads the ability to stop is more important the how fast it will go. I suppose ill-thought-out legislation would have me prosecuted for TAMPERING with the breaking system the same argument applies to wheels tyres exhausts etc. WHERE NEXT?????
Rob, 09/04/2022
As a classic car owner if you need to do modifications to help the vehicle run better or keep up with modern-day traffic then I can't see a problem like fuel injection conversion or better suspension but when the vehicle is totally modified that it no longer looks or drives like a classic vehicle than I'm not so sure if you can call it a classic or historic vehicle then we need to recategorize some vehicles
gypsie, 09/04/2022
I am utterly against the Department for Transport's anti-tampering proposals that would outlaw tampering with a system, part or component of a vehicle intended or adapted to be used on the road. This would adversely affect the classic car world. We owners do very small mileages so deserve to be exempt from any such proposals much as we are exempt from needing MOTs even though we voluntarily put our vehicles through the testing process purely to stay safe.
Bala, 09/04/2022
I don't agree with the proposed legislation. This would prevent an owner of a classic vehicle from doing work on it which could improve the efficiency of the engine, brakes, fuel lines, etc. and other components using modern materials to cope with alterations in fuel and oil for example.
Minimotor, 09/04/2022
A ridiculous piece of legislation, probably dreamed up by some mechanically inept myopic bureaucrat, which I will be ignored, how are they going to police it, catch me if you can!
wombles nose, 09/04/2022
Tampering is so vague. Would adjustments regarding fuel economy, use of modern fuels, up-dating brakes, suspension, and gear ratios to suit modern road conditions be allowed?
Neil, 09/04/2022
DoT and Government bureaucrats have constantly targeted motorists in the UK on the sheer fact that they can extort millions of pounds a year in absurd taxes and penalties. There are anti-vehicle people nominated in these positions to discourage motorists to enjoy their freedom and use of both new and old cars. Classic cars should be exempt from any ridiculous conditions and the mayor of London Sadiq Khan should be sacked immediately, for imposing stupid ULEZ charges..... These people are not car lovers but, taxation generators........ Try doing this in the USA and the people proposing these stupid rules, would face the wrath of all the motorists. We need to step up and oppose such stupid rules!
SKD Interceptor , 09/04/2022
Not sure what the policy is. Does it mean I should not put electronic ignition on my IMP or try to make it brake better by installing disc brakes at the front? What is the policy .???
Nutty, 09/04/2022
This sounds very much like the 1980’s drive by the government to reintroduce things like “leg protectors” on motorcycles which were in fact widely known to be quite the opposite and would in fact break a leg in a moderate crash situation where were they not fitted the rider would likely have had no or minimal injury. These ideas are generally come up with or supported by individuals with absolutely no knowledge or interest in the subject they are pushing forward and are, at best, advised by people with even less knowledge and further less interest in actual academic fact-finding. MAG fought the good fight on behalf of motorcycles and their riders years back and I believe are still doing so. Power to their elbows. I suspect the only ones in Government who may take a slightly sensible interest in this will be the ones who have or are waiting to inherit a nice old vintage Jag or similar…. Sir Humphrey possibly… God save us all….
Cider Bob, 09/04/2022
I am strongly opposed to any anti-tampering legislation being made applicable to classic vehicles. I am in favour of strong action being taken against the growing menace of noisy exhausts for modern cars and bikes
DD, 09/04/2022
I am totally opposed to this kind of legislation especially if it were to be applied to existing vehicles. I disagree with this type of legislation anyway but if it is inevitable I think any new rules should only apply to new vehicles manufactured after those rules come into force. I do not agree with the idea of a retrospective cut off date as this will penalize owners of post cut off date existing vehicles unfairly. As always a lot depends on what is meant by 'modified' is it a V8 engine in a bubble car or a set of non-factory tyres? it could mean any part no matter how insignificant that was not fitted to the vehicle when it came out of the factory, just think about that for a moment! I would think that virtually every single classic car in existence has been 'modified' from factory specifications in some way. Many, mine included, will have had very large sums of money spent on them and will contain a large number of non-factory parts. If such parts/modifications were to suddenly become illegal what is the owner supposed to do? reverse all of the changes and fit, probably non-existent 'factory' parts at massive cost, scrap the vehicle or turn it into a paperweight? Of course, the irony is that most of these modifications have been done to improve the safety and fuel economy of older vehicles, I am thinking specifically of things like engine management, better brakes, better suspension, better wheels and tyres and a host of other changes that make the vehicle safer, more environmentally friendly and reliable. For example, I can't imagine anybody seriously suggesting that refitting 'factory' cross-ply tires in place of modern radials are going to improve safety or refitting a distributor with points and condenser in place of a modern engine management system is going to improve exhaust emissions. The devastating effect on a harmless hobby that brings pleasure and employment to thousands of people and keeps our cultural heritage alive doesn't bear thinking about and probably hasn't been thought about! It seems to me that this sort of legislation may be well-intentioned, and if applied to the millions of new cars pouring out of the factories, may not necessarily be a bad idea but it would be a very bad idea indeed to apply it to exiting vehicles. As has been highlighted in the past the environmental impact of classic cars is minuscule compared with that of new vehicles and as such existing vehicles should be exempt from this sort of legislation. On a wider point, we should be preserving our existing vehicles as the environmental impact of their manufacture already exists, the CO2 has already been created, the natural resources have already been used and removing that vehicle from the road will not bring them back we should not be creating more CO2 and using more resources by making new cars.
ColinB, 09/04/2022
This is one of the major reasons why I run a classic instead of a modern vehicle. Car owners spend millions replacing perfectly good parts that are attached to a small defective item, and manufacturers make millions from them. It’s a scam. The ludicrous complexity of modern machinery, the sheer volume of unnecessary electronic tat that festoons the average modern car, all is set to grow as the electric car becomes more widely adopted (despite being a sustainability and environmental nightmare in itself). It will soon be impossible to maintain your car beyond dodgy ‘fixes’ that enable you to keep moving despite some minor component failure that you’re not allowed to fix. The government appears not to trust its own people, which I suppose is one of the reasons why we don’t trust them. I am strongly against this legislation. Leave us alone.
Will, 09/04/2022
The word "tampering" tries to block any depth of understanding. It is used by people who habitually do all they can to cover up their real motives. They have tampered with our fuel. They know exactly what alcohol-in-petrol does. When will they own up to their intentional collective ignorance? If we modify our cars so they resist alcohol- is that tampering? Not even the legislators know what they might like to include.
ich repariere, 09/04/2022
Hi everyone I think that a lot of modifications and parts fitted to classic cars and motorcycle’s make them better and more efficient and safer as often better quality parts than original and also helping to keep these precious vehicles on the road and also so the public can see them and enjoy them and save the history and heritage of our vehicle and let’s not forget about all the companies that produce and sell all the parts and the garages that restore and keep them on the road and the list goes on in the grand scale of things it’s a small market and very little carbon footprint is left the government should worry about much bigger and more important things need addressing in the world anyway enjoy your classic vehicle whatever you own best regards, Roland
Roly, 09/04/2022
I'm also against the Department for Transport's anti-tampering proposals.
Sprint7, 09/04/2022
The government proposal is not logical and badly constructed and aims to destroy our 'motoring heritage'' The government fail to understand that the original manufacturers no longer supply parts for our vehicles as they have been sold off/asset-stripped by foreign interests at our expense. So nothing can be termed 'original' - so what is the meaning of 'tampering' which implies some form of 'criminal activity! That is an attack on investment in persona transport over the last 70 odd years. Some of us 'pensioners' never drive 'modern cars' - too expensive on last century's income! I must take this opportunity to bring to your attention a far more dangerous way that the Mayor of London has a 'tampering proposal' about the extended ULEZ area inside the M25 motorway that would be extortionate to drive anything other than a 'modern vehicle' c2015 and scrap all our historic vehicles that we would be unable to drive in Greater London due to his demand of about 12.50GBP or a greater fine of about 166.00GBP. At present in his statement of March last, there seem to be no exemptions in using our types of vehicles! How do people get this sort of power to control our lives and he wants to get TFL to implement it in 2023?
PeterL286, 09/04/2022
I totally oppose these ridiculous new laws. Thousands of classic cars would not be on the road now if their owners had not modified them in some way. Sometimes the old parts are obsolete and there is no alternative but to use newer components from other vehicles. Many of these cars are much safer now with upgraded brakes and suspension etc. Big brother poking its nose in yet again!
Johnboy, 09/04/2022
Age-related exemption is undoubtedly the only logical and universally acceptable compromise.
El Tel, 09/04/2022
I have written to my MP, completed the online survey and added my name to the petition that has now forced these idiots to have a debate on this ill-thought-out rubbish. I have two classic motorcycles (both insured by you) and I oppose this attempt at "type approval through the back door" which will ruin any aftermarket parts suppliers and lots of small engineering firms that manufacture parts to keep old bikes and cars on the road.
teddy bear, 09/04/2022
I believe that the legislation is unnecessary, unenforceable and fundamentally misunderstands the point of modifying motor vehicles. Never in years of ownership of classic and sports cars and membership in a number of motor clubs have I ever known anyone tamper with a car to make it more dangerous, only ever to achieve the exact opposite. Classic cars, in particular, will have been modified decades ago with the intention of improving them either to suit the driving style of the owner or simply to help them keep up with modern road conditions. (Does the government really expect me to remove current fittings and return old poorer quality ones - maybe they can find me some old asbestos filled brake linings to fit and increase my stopping distance by 15 - 20%?) Improvements to tires, wheels and suspension components could theoretically be removed to reduce road holding, degrade handling and further increase braking distances? At the point of manufacture, cars are built to a price and to a specification that the manufacturer believes best fits the 'average' motorist which means for a lot of drivers the car is not set up as they would prefer and some will choose to spend time and money making adaptations that improve the car in one way or another. Making modifications to the engine - fitting an electric fan to speed up warming and reduce time on choke plus not consuming power when not required; this reduces emissions and fuel consumption. Likewise fitting exhaust systems in keeping with modern practice. Sounds like very worthwhile 'tampering' to me? This law becomes unworkable for existing vehicles and can't be made retrospective as many own cars are already legally modified. Current owners may not even be aware of some mods which were made by previous owners and so won't know that the car has been tampered with or be able to advise any prospective new owner. I have 'found' modifications on cars that the previous owners were unaware of only when restoring or repairing involving a fairly significant strip-down. The law change is fundamentally unnecessary for modern vehicles as we have a thing called an MOT. This checks cars for safety and already makes emissions tests that ensure that a vehicle meets the standard required for its type and age. If there is software to 'defeat' emission requirements that can be switched out for an MOT then how will any test facility know if it's fitted? Is it intended that an entire engine strip-down will take place at every MOT to make sure someone hasn't slipped in a set of larger inlet valves?
Dorito Pete, 09/04/2022
Have you recently wondered whether you have successfully insured your car! I’m a father of two and a petrolhead. I take an active interest in ensuring my family drives their cars in the safest condition possible, roadworthy and well maintained. When buying a new secondhand car I try to check all the details of the vehicle in the hope we buy an unmodified standard safe vehicle. The only thing I can’t check is whether it’s been remapped. If it has and the previous owner who did it doesn’t declare it then you're running a somewhat dodgy situation with your insurance and IMO the safety of the car. I don’t want either myself or any of my family near this potential issue. It needs dealing with - now! If you want to drive a racing car buy one or hire one. From personal experience, it’s great fun driving at 125mph on silver stones hanger straight!
Kiljoy, 09/04/2022
FJ are right to focus on their client's classic cars, I am one and have been for years and appreciate that, however, we should all be taking a broader view. This legislation is just building a foundation for future changes. When vehicles self-limit speed (regardless of the rights and wrongs of speed limits), cars will simply not be able to speed, like cruise control but total control. There are many other examples of probably government control over our freedom to use transport. By having a law that stops tampering, in 2035 (guess) you will be unable to buy a car that does not provide the government with a range of controls over how you use it. If you buy one and remove said device, or override it with remaps etc, you will be subject to criminal law. That is incredibly heavy-handed and yet another example of the ever-present and growing nanny state. We need fewer, better laws, not more and more control.
James, 09/04/2022
A ridiculous idea, especially for classic bikes & cars. Some of these vehicles are only running because of the use of aftermarket components - OEM parts in a lot of cases don't exist. The percentage of classic vehicles on the road is obviously small fry to the government (why else would we have historical status) so why are we being lumped in with everyone else? I understand the emissions argument (although agreeing is a different matter) for newer vehicles but for vehicles that were never designed to meet current standards, it all seems a bit Draconian.
John C, 09/04/2022
The Motorcycle Action Group is 100% against this anti-tampering. I urge you to write to your MP, as I have done. Cheers Trev Donaldson Life Member of MAG
rkr.13, 09/04/2022
Can't they get real old cars that don’t need this as don’t do a lot of miles
Frank, 09/04/2022
Yet another example of the extension of government restrictions on personal freedom and interference in every detail of life. The homogenisation of humanity is clearly the goal, and no one is to be allowed to step outside of a very restrictive set of rules. Of course, there are always good reasons put forward to justify such measures, and it's usually the actions of a few irresponsible people that bring about such changes in legislation. However, everyone else ends up paying for it. And what of the jobs created by the aftermarket industry, and the fact that modifications can actually improve vehicles over the manufacturer's original spec if carried out thoughtfully and correctly? There's a lot more that could be said on this subject, but as far as the classic scene is concerned, then this proposed legislation does not appear to bode well. Whatever form any legislation like this takes, it should not be allowed to be applied retrospectively to vehicles already in existence - I hope that the bodies that represent classic vehicle owners make loud enough noises on this issue to protect their members' interests.
Toomanycars, 09/04/2022
Hi, I have a 1973 Alfa Coupe which I have improved by using Alfa components from other cars, such as the ignition system introducing electronic ignition, brake callipers from a 3.0 Alfa 75, and Discs from a GTV 2000. I have also added aftermarket components such as electric cooling fans, gas-filled shock absorbers, springs, bushes, etc that are not Alfa OEM. My car is now more reliable, efficient and safer than the original model. Is this tampering?
Dino, 09/04/2022
"Tampering" What a silly term. Do they mean " Modifying?" What the hell is wrong with that. The modification industry is massive. This pathetic proposal is a killer for anything on wheels. Are these the same IDIOTS that made it law for Pedestrians to cross side roads without stopping, so cars wanting to turn down that road have to stop, and cause a situation or an accident with the vehicles behind? When the hell will these IDIOTS make it an offence. Not indicating at junctions, and Islands correctly. How is it 84%. I don't believe anyone would agree with these stupid proposals.
Bobby b, 09/04/2022
As a classic car owner, I know from experience that long term maintenance can be difficult due to the lack of OE manufactured spare parts. After some time the manufacture of parts is discontinued, often after 10 years. In a lot of cases, aftermarket alternatives have to be substituted for the original parts. In the case of exhaust systems, I fear this could be classed as tampering if they are not exact replicas of the original part.
Ray, 09/04/2022
I am against this, how would classic cars be maintained, and how many people really on this for jobs. How would we continue to run classic ran cars
Lotus mad, 09/04/2022
I've had custom cars with many upgrades to the existing vehicle spec. Now a classic Porsche owner for 30 years the only mods or tampering most of us owners do to our pride n joy is to make them even better than the designers who conceived them. Who, in their right mind is making a car worse by changing outdated components for the modern equivalent? 40-year-old classics legally went require an m o t but how many of us will still insist on getting one for peace of mind, I know I do.
Porscheman, 09/04/2022
Ill thought out proposal. Take the MK1V Triumph Spitfire, l improved mine by replacing the basic braking with power-assisted brakes Electronic ignition An upgraded alternator An aluminium radiator Retractable seat belt None of the above was dangerous, in fact, they made the car much safer. Yet again proves that governments in a bubble, far removed from the working man, let's make more legislation. Why not reduce legislation.
Penrhyn , 09/04/2022
What is the point of this proposed legislation? This was not in any party's election manifesto. There are too many civil servants with too much time on their hands. There are more important legislative issues to get sorted out first: Formulating a sensible energy policy Cost of Care in later life Lease extensions and ground rent. Sp are classic cars a massive road safety issue? As long as the vehicles concerned meet the Construction and Use regulations which were current at the time of manufacture, and any subsequence retrospective amendments, then let well alone. No owner is going to knowingly drive a dangerous vehicle, are they? Many owners enhance their vehicles' safety by retrofitting safety-related items from another era, such as sympathetically fitting flashing indicators on vehicles where none were fitted at the time of manufacture and upgraded brakes. A glimpse of an old (1960s) motoring magazine saw an advert for retrofitting hydraulic brakes to vehicles previously fitted with mechanical linkage brakes. Modifying vehicles for the better has been going on for decades. This is opposed to manufacturers who are quite prepared to put vehicles in the marketplace with design faults and use the recall scheme to sort the issues out. Several examples come to mind: Corvairs with serious design faults, See "Unsafe at Any Speed": The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile is a non-fiction book by consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Vauxhall Zafiras catching fire: Toyotas with faulty accelerator pedals: Toyotas with questionable brakes. Governments (aided and abetted by the motor industry) will not be happy until everyone is either: Riding pedal cycles or Driving a disposable electric car, and there will be no classics in the years to come as everything else will have been forced to be scrapped or become static museum pieces.
Old'en, 09/04/2022
Typical thoughtless bureaucracy. This will put tuning, engineering and accessory businesses out of business. Perhaps a type of approval system as in Germany might be a better option or stop wasting public money on hair-brained schemes like this in very difficult economic times we are experiencing. Money can be better spent on more urgent problems johnny
Johnnybiker, 09/04/2022
The last time that I read this proposal, it was based upon the vehicle's type approval, so by virtue of the type approval not existing prior to 1 April 1986, any vehicle registered prior to this date would be exempted from the regulations. This is the same reasoning that anyone with a vehicle produced prior to 1 April 1986 is legally permitted to fit an LED light source to the headlamp, present it for MOT and providing it does not dazzle (beam pattern is correct) it cannot be failed for an incorrect light source. Post this date it is illegal to tamper with the light source (lamp type) as it was included in and forms part of the whole vehicle type approval.
MDB, 09/04/2022
Ill-conceived. Customisation and safety-enhancing modifications should continue to be permitted for classic vehicles. An exemption should apply. Thank you for carrying out this survey.
Guy, 09/04/2022
TOTALLY against the new proposal.
peebeenotsoduckingfusty, 09/04/2022
I am opposed to a blanket ban on modifying classic vehicles. Many owners of these vehicles value the present freedom to modify them and such modifications typically are aimed at improving the vehicles' fuel efficiency, oil consumption and electrical systems, as well as improving brakes and tyres. Owners are typically knowledgeable and are also keen to do what they can for the environment and recyclability. To ban these changes would create resentment in a well-informed part of the community, and only serve to portray the central government as unnecessarily controlling and wishing for a "nanny state".
Elderly-motorcyclist, 09/04/2022
I see no justification for controlling ‘anti-tampering on classic cars and bikes. I would expect that the majority of classics have been ‘tampered' with since they were new, maintenance, customising etc . would have been carried out by enthusiasts. We have all bought extras for our vehicles to personalise them.
Bald Eagle, 09/04/2022
Anti tampering proposals are not needed and would be very damaging. The classic industry makes an important contribution to the economy and keeps a large number of people employed. Classic owners look after their cars and may make reversible modifications that protect their cars or may make updates, such as unleaded conversions, which are better for the environment as well as increasing the life of their engines. Other modifications might include better brakes, replacement parts to allow the use of E10 etc… I wonder whether these rules would make aftermarket seatbelts and immobilisers illegal as well? Even a well-formulated law would seem unnecessary. The present proposal is ill-thought out and poorly expressed and would not be fit for purpose.
Carkitten, 09/04/2022
I am currently rebuilding a 1967 land Rover. It had an original 2 and a quarter Land Rover diesel that gave 18mpg and produced a lot of emissions. I have just spent £11k on having her rebuilt, including a later 200tdi. Based on the same block this engine along with the overdrive will give me over 40 mpg and having converted to WVO as fuel is massively cleaner on emissions. How can a law preventing such modifications make any sense at all?
MickMack , 09/04/2022
Best of intentions maybe but it needs to be realistically and carefully thought through. If the green sticker at the top of the windscreens of old BMWs with drug dealers and pitbull written on it were tampering the inner cities would be in turmoil!!
Geodal, 09/04/2022
I’m conceived as in the CC Community, many of the changes made/offered are intended to improve safety and usability.
Rettopian, 09/04/2022
Any modifications that improve the safety or efficiency of the car should be viewed positively and allowed by the government.
Griffo , 09/04/2022
I think every car I own would become illegal in the UK. I'd be forced to move to another country.
Pablo, 09/04/2022
What is a 'classic' vehicle? It could be a Concours condition 1930s Bentley, a restored 1950's Ford Anglia or it could be a 1990s registered Subaru Impreza with a modified engine and loud pipes that its proud owner drives annoyingly up and down the high street trying to impress. No particular class of vehicle can be immune from what is a long-overdue restriction on vehicle modifications; what's more important is for the government to accurately define what type of modifications they are referring to. Obviously genuine replacement, non-OEM parts would not illegal, and neither would repairs like chassis/body welding or resprays, but wide wheels, bored out engines, chipped ECUs and racing exhausts should not be allowed on road-going vehicles.
Nick, 09/04/2022
We need to stick together and stop this rogue government from taking away our freedoms, our fun, and also our hard-earned money. The sooner they are voted out the better. Most untrustworthy bunch in decades. Liars, cheats, self-serving thieves.
Kell, 09/04/2022
Where would the new laws leave me - I have a 1959 Maico GS 250, bought as a bare frame & a pair of wheels. I sourced a 1961 engine in Dusseldorf of a 'near identical' model to the original, and have resorted to fitting a lighting set from a 1960s MZ as an original type could not be found. I have constructed successful 'Bitzas' in the past, notably, a JAMES (frame), DMW ('Earles' forks), Honda (Fr wheel), BSA (Bantam engine) with a homemade 'trail style' sidecar sporting a Honda wheel and Suzuki suspension. Fully legal, Registered and MoT'd for the road as a JAMES, it worked a treat and was huge fun on, and off-road. It was dubbed The Fowl Hybrid. Would it be allowed under the new proposals?
Beano, 09/04/2022
There are no stock parts available for our old classics. All systems/parts are upgrades that benefit from later technology (body parts that do not rust, crankshafts with bearings that do not break up after 2,000 miles, pistons that do not disintegrate after 1,500 miles ect) anti-tampering regulations or legislation will be the first step to remove all vehicles 40 years old, or older, from the public highway - this government direction must be opposed at every opportunity
Thanatoid , 09/04/2022
I think we need to oppose anything that the government are trying to change with regards to classic vehicles! We all know that whatever they propose is always going to go against our hobby as in reality I think they want us off the road.
Texaco, 09/04/2022
With everything that is happening in the world, why do we need more stupid ideas that affect our everyday lives? The Dept. of Transport have been spectacularly dumb recently, I mention them telling us all to buy Diesel cars not so long ago? We have the stupid "SMART MOTORWAYS" killing almost on a daily basis and not forgetting the recent Highway Code changes giving Cyclists the rights of way. Also, the massive backlogs at the DVLA are pathetic. I noticed that they have worked out that some motorists not having to pay VED has resulted in a £35 Billion shortfall in income. They are clearly unfit for purpose and should be dismantled.
Jack, 09/04/2022
This is a bad situation for classic car owners. Most garages would not have a clue how to treat or repair classic cars. I do most of my own repairs and maintenance and have to go to a specialist for big jobs.
Allycruick , 09/04/2022
Originally, I read the article, which is quite lengthy and maybe not as easy to understand. In the article above, it is not defined what a "tampering product" means, but from memory, it is a product, which adversely affects the operation of the vehicle. I am not sure if we, as classic car owners in general, have too much to worry about, as we all either like to keep to the original specification or modernise, with improving performance in operation, such as better brakes etc. If of course performance in terms of speed and acceleration without upgrading suspension and brakes, then this would be deemed as an adverse effect
Arnie6359, 09/04/2022
This legislation comes from a proposal originally made by German manufacturers via their MEPs to the European parliament and has much opposition across Europe but it looks like it will be forced over there. As we have left Europe in a political way there is no need to progress with this here. We have laws in place already to ensure the roadworthiness and safety of our vehicles. We all know that even our historic vehicles are only exempt from the MOT if no major alteration has taken place. A further example that thankfully failed to get through in Europe from the same safety body, involved the failure of that body being willing to change any wording when a decimal place was put in the wrong place, is when France proposed that all motorcycle riders MUST WEAR AT LEAST 1 SQUARE METER OF HI-VIS CLOTHING. As usual though once civil servants and lawyers got hold of it quickly scaled out of all common sense. The final legislation put before the EU parliament was for 10.0 sq m. We have no need to follow in these footsteps
Treebeard, 09/04/2022
The government call it tampering we call it customising another classic case of the government tampering with our right to make your vehicle how you like it, maybe they should put it to a vote which they would lose big time.
Sparkie, 09/04/2022
So long as the tax is paid on a vehicle and duty is paid on fuel then stick the law to stop tampering where it belongs, where the sun doesn`t shine, there is enough outdated legislation and rules as it is for example speed limits when breaking systems etc have improved so much, driving categories and age groups changed to make drivers pay more, leave us alone and start taxing the very rich and the companies they own.
Motomania, 09/04/2022
It’s just pointless over-regulation that will spoil the enjoyment of tens of thousands of car owners and lay waste to the aftermarket parts and custom industry. Whichever pencil neck thought this up should have his briefcase confiscated and be sent home to live with his mother like he did for the first 40 years.
Eddthedog, 09/04/2022
Classic car owners don't tamper. They repair and maintain. They often improve the safety and economy of the vehicles in their care. This legislation would be very restrictive for classic car owners. And may force cars off the road but perhaps that's the intention.
Johnnyclanger, 09/04/2022
Another total waste of time. My god, they can't control speeding or mobile phone use. Now you're going to get police looking at cars for what reason and try and fine you for some supposed illegal modification. Are the police and government dipsticks going on a course to spot all differences in every car? Don't think so. I think they should stick to policing the laws on our roads before finding more things they cant manage.
Mick, 09/04/2022
This will be a covert way of driving Cassic Vehicles off the road as many original parts are no longer available and it will prevent bringing older vehicles up to modern standards i.e on my Norton Commando I have upgraded the brakes which may have been acceptable in 1973 but are not good enough in 2022, this is another big brother law being put in place by faceless civil servants and passed by politicians that are totally out of touch with real everyday people.
Tiny, 09/04/2022
Does it mean e.g. that we can not fit a brake servo to a non-servo classic to shorten the braking distance, or change twin carb set up to single to improve the economy, or to swap out petrol engine to electric drive system? DoT has got something wrong-unsurprisingly with this excuse for a government.
Potsie, 09/04/2022
Whereas I wouldn’t disagree that the removal of catalytic converters and dpf devices etc. Should be tackled, I strongly suspect that this proposed legislation will be used to effectively reduce the number of classic cars on the road. I think, looking at the bigger picture, the government's aim is to force the public into going all-electric. The cynic in me says this would play a big part in that aim.
Peacey, 09/04/2022
As an avid classic car enthusiast and owner I am against any government involvement or legislation that is detrimental to our hobby that affects the running and use of hour vehicles, and let’s not forget the amount of money and jobs hour hobby generates each year.
Killray , 09/04/2022
If it goes ahead thousands of people will be out of work, I work at a company that maintains modifies classics through to modern Lotus Elise, Exige, Evora and so on. Half the time can’t get standard parts from Lotus so you have to buy slightly modified parts elsewhere. Does this mean the car is now modified? It can’t happen
Jules, 09/04/2022
They’ve locked the country down basically for two years and now we’re trillions of pounds in debt, fuel prices and the cost of living have gone through the roof to the highest levels in decades. There’s a war going on over in Europe and these clowns are worried about people tampering with their own cars. I presume there will be a cut of point where it will only apply to new vehicles manufactured after a certain date but in the case that it does or might affect the owners of classic vehicles I will be doing what I do every time the out of touch mob in government decide they want to impose on us I will be ignoring it. I’m too bloody old and long in the tooth to give a toss anymore.
AK, 09/04/2022
Against. Classics will never meet he safety standards legislation desires and most owners don’t aim to jeopardise a classic either by modification or use.
Jason, 09/04/2022
We use cookies to improve your experience when using our website. Some cookies have already been set.
To find out more about the cookies we use, view our cookie policy
Having retired now from operating big jets, I can build classic cars and their engines. Returning to Heathrow would usually include an airborne hold at 100kg per minute waiting to approach and land, then ground holding to wait for a ‘gate’ on the terminal. Extra fuel usage could be 2-3 tons per flight. This complies with Government policy. Take a look at the War in Ukraine (or wherever there is a conflict) NATO has jets on patrol as fuel tankers, snoop/electronic surveillance, and fighter cover, that’s ignoring the ground army operations refugees movements, and smoke/pollution caused by shelling and fire. In comparison, the classic car owners consume little fuel and generate little pollution in comparison to the above paragraph activities or M25/M62 commute delays. We could pollute less. I often try to persuade a classic car owner to get their car rolling road set up, not for peak power but for general road performance and reduction of fuel consumption, reduced pollutants. There’s a cost but it’s the right thing to do in my opinion. Fuel injection is tremendous, classic car owners don’t need to set their cars for top-end performance like motorsport cars. We need to re-educate ourselves about how to set up our classic cars, and those who rolling road set up our engines, a paradigm change. With the enormous numbers of different types of classic cars in ownership we need to have them individually set up to optimise their use, I’m not sure the Government way of anti-tampering devices will achieve the goal of carbon and pollution reduction. Classic cars are good for our mental health. I suspect the Government implementation of anti-tampering will fall short and generate more frustrations for owners and less mental health benefits.
Country Boy 777, 23/04/2022