Petition to the government to not implement offences for modifying vehicles

[b0rn2sk8]

@b0rn2sk8
Do you actually trust anyone in power?
I don’t.
No I haven’t taken it out of context it’s vague the way it’s written on purpose.
That would not stand as a legal document.
They can apply that law to any part of the car or vehicle and I am pretty sure this is what will start to happen to help to remove older ICE vehicles.

No, but I can read something and not jump to conclusions that just are not there.

For a start, it’s not a legal document, far from it and it certainly isn’t law. It’s a public consultation with a stated policy aim, that stated policy aim isn’t to outlaw all car modifications, it even states that in the document. Now the consultation has closed they’ll have to publish a response which will cover the outcome and the next steps.

Even if this was the legislation(which is isn’t), the judiciary interpreting any legislation will not only consider what the legislation says, they’ll also consider the spirit and intent of the legislation, particularly if the legislation is open to wide interpretation or it’s vague.

If legislation is ‘sold’ in a particular way in parliament, that tends to be how it’s applied, even where it’s vague. The judiciary often strike down enforcement action that falls outside the sprit or the intended application of legislation even it is fits within the letter.

You’ve yet to come up with a good example of something which is actually detrimental to the car modifying scene that’s actually in scope of what they are proposing. Everything you have come up with so far has been obviously out of scope.

 

[Scooby_WR1]

Video I watched here:

That guy's an absolute pleb, watch this instead.

 

[Hades]

@b0rn2sk8
Do you actually trust anyone in power?
I don’t.
No I haven’t taken it out of context it’s vague the way it’s written on purpose.
That would not stand as a legal document.
They can apply that law to any part of the car or vehicle and I am pretty sure this is what will start to happen to help to remove older ICE vehicles.

This is spot on.

I am very suspicious of this new legistlation for one reason: I don't see evidence of a huge number of vehicles having accidents or endangering people because they are modified. Vehicles are far safer than they used to be. I could maybe see the argument a few decades ago. But I just don't see the evidence now. Can anyone point me in the direction of figures for this? If the "why" doesn't make sense then there is probably an agenda here dressed up as something else and the "how" should be looked upon with suspicion too. I simply don't trust those in power anymore.

 

[Hades]

That guy's an absolute pleb, watch this instead.

I haven't had time to watch all of that video yet. I will try to over the next few days. But in the first 10 mins that I did watch he is talking crap. The two arguments he's put forward so far:

1) If "they" wanted to stop your fun then "they" would put ANPR at every petrol station
- Petrol stations are private property. It's not possible to put ANPR on someone elses property (yet).

2) You could limit the speed of a bike by limiting the size of the gearbox casing so you could only fit a single gear inside it.
- Companies would just make a modified gearbox casing.

If that's the quality of the rest of the video (and as I said I've not had time to watch the rest yet) then it's not much of an argument. I think the guy has an agenda as he seems to refer to Stuart Fillingham at the beginning as "our favourite copper", possibly indicating a bias against ex-police or SF himself (a quick search of his channel shows it's not the first video he appears to have done responding to SF videos). He also mocks SF's choice of motorbike. It leaves me with a strong impression that he doesn't like the guy. So maybe some bias creeping in?

 

[Dalandius]

Would this also stop people other than the manufacturers from repairing cars?

 

[gailjon]

I don't see evidence of a huge number of vehicles having accidents or endangering people because they are modified.

It's not necessarily due to initial road safety that this is being introduced, but more for the pollution elements I believe. Removing/modifying any area of the emissions parts of a car will undoubtedly increase emissions that then kill/injure through disease many people who live in built up areas.

 

[Hades]

It's not necessarily due to initial road safety that this is being introduced, but more for the pollution elements I believe. Removing/modifying any area of the emissions parts of a car will undoubtedly increase emissions that then kill/injure through disease many people who live in built up areas.

That doesn't make sense either. Emissions are tested at an MOT. So an increase could be detected and cause an MOT fail.

A massive cause of emissions is the manufacture of any new vehicle. If the government really wanted to reduce emissions they would introduce regulations around keeping older vehicles on the road rather than causing people to need new vehicles. They will generate local pollution but in the wider global scale an already manufactured car will cause less pollution than causing it to be scrapped and replaced with a new one. They would introduce laws around right to repair and ease of repairability. Emissions at the point of use are only one part of the pollution and emission caused by vehicle use. Or introduce incentives to convert existing old vehicles to electric. Furthermore cars need to get simpler and lighter to reduce energy required to move and stop them.

But it's easier for the government to bring in regulation to stop something than it is to bring in incentives to encourage something. It's a stick without any carrot.

 

[dacads]

Not sure why pops and bangs are been discussed

no mention of that in the proposed legislation nor is it illegal currently

apologies if I have missed it but my understanding is it’s to do with emissions etc and not sure what difference that is going to make anyway

so many recent changes just seem to divide and conquer even subjects where people are supposed to have a shared interest