The era of software changes opens an aftermarket up to men in sheds, without much skin in the game, to make changes to cars with potentially catastrophic effects.
That is your interpretation / opinion. It isn’t how I read the consultation which in read as being specific to updating existing legislation to adequately cover issues arising from new technology in modern vehicles.
1 Like
I read through it a few times and agree with you.
My understanding is this has come about because we have left the EU and the UK wishes to write its “Own” legislation for this subject.
Not sure why the lead thread states “Tampering” as the title is about “Modernising Current and Future Standards/Legislation”.
The UK has always had legislation to “try” and prevent illegal tampering (in the main for safety) with vehicles and hopefully will continue to do so.
I don’t see it having anything to do with servicing or home maintenance.
Just my opinion of course.
Fair point and well made.
I am perhaps a touch paranoid about legal things having seen how the “intended” and the “actual” consequences of new legislation are not always aligned.
There are sections in the discussion document that ask about what exceptions and exclusions should be considered in the legislation. It is there that there is an opportunity to make sure what you (and to a lesser extent I) assume is considered out of scope of the new legislation.
Just as a side note/comparison, under the German legislation only approved parts may be fitted and used on road. And as such everyone’s favourite MeisterCRDs are illegal over there. I would hate laws to pass here that would take years to unpick should the wording have unintentional consequences.
1 Like
I wonder what world we would be driving in of legislation had never evolved from those early red flag days… I recall many vehicle owners fury at the introduction of lead free and cats…
I find it interesting that those who post against this seem to be concerned about how it might impact them individually. Those who are in favour seem to be of the view that it impacts ALL of us…but maybe my own broadly supportive view is colouring my judgement.
Paranoia isn’t always misguided, but it can sometimes slightly poison sincere discussion, debate, and consultation 
My responses included the following
To Q6
‘tampering’ is a very loaded word: many people choose to modify vehicles for a number of reasons (including to improve efficiency, longevity and usability). This new approach should not stop them from doing that
To Q7
My agreement or disagreement would depend on the details of the specific proposals
To Q8
- first part (Important to take forward)
Placing obligations on vehicle manufacturers, particularly on ensuring users can choose independent companies and individuals to provide vehicle maintenance, spares, and support
- second part (could create difficulties)
Some of the proposals could adversely affect the ability of independent comapnies and individuals to continue to repair and maintain vehicles. It should not give vehicle manufacturers and sellers the opportunity to increase their market dominance
I saved the pdf of my responses on the 20th, and reading through it just now, I don’t think I’d change them , even after all the discussion.
Part of my job was specifying, designing and building complex electronic systems and equipment, including the embedded software and its interaction with the outside world and the users. Naturally it all needed to meet safety and emissions standards too, not just UK but international, which added a major chunk of time to the process.
Regulation has only become stricter since I retired, but the vested interests wriggling around it and cutting financial corners are also more adept. Witness the recent Boeing problems.
This is a major reason I would not willingly travel in any of the future “clever” cars, if I was still compos mentis. It’s simply my personal risk assessment while I still have a choice.
However it might be difficult to avoid one when it’s intent on having an accident with another car. Mating game? Eliminating opposition? Who knows?
Technically, aren’t CRDs (and their ilk) illegal for road use here, its just there is no or little enforcement. Its a grey area.
Much is said about “TUV Approval”. The TUV is a safety testing organisation, like the British Standards Institute (BSI, kite marks). The TUV, like the BSI, can also issue European Conformance certificates (the CE mark you see on most things). CE marks are not the ame as safety tested. But they mean a product has been designed, and manufactured in a way that conforms to the requisate Directive. These Directives were generally produced by the UK, France and Germany, who mostly shared similar values on safety etc. The ISO standards reflect these Directives, and these are reflected in the British Standards.
On one level, for a shock absorber, it reduces the likelyhood that of 4 shocks in a box, one is junk, because the company that made them follows a QMS system.
TUV Approval is German specific, and it is like a kite mark. They do look more closely at the part in question, and it only covers replacement and original parts. So a Style Bar for a MX5 Mk1 can never gain TUV approval because Mazda never fitted a style bar to a MK1 in Europe (though they did in Japan). For the consumer, even if TUV approval doesn’t count in the UK, its evidence of the manufacturer putting their money where their mouth is, and standing behind the safety of their product.
Some might dismiss this as pesky bureaucracy, and not needed. I suppose those people would be happy to wear a crash helmet with no markings.
MeisterR has no plans to seek TUV Approval, and the reason is cost. Their products are not CE marked. The Taiwanese manufacturer who does build most of their shocks (Taiwan Bor Chuann, aka BC Racing) does have 9001 certification from TUV (Taiwan Bor-Chuann= BC-racing =), so that is something, I suppose, and it might be applicable to their private brands. Their other source is a bit more murky; a company called LD Auto Parts, which appears to be a newly registered HK company, which was shipping MX5 shocks to the US from Ningpo, which is PRC. I can’t find any further info on this company.
I was always puzzled why MeisterR wouldn’t want to get this.
Racing Beat Europe has copies of Tein’s TUV certification:
https://www.racingbeateurope.com/ekmps/shops/lisad/resources/Other/teilegutachten-flex-z-nanb.pdf
Raceland coilovers:
TA Technics coilovers
MeisterR might be skirting a fine line by referring to some of their shocks as “fast road” as opposed to race, intimating these conform to UK requirements. Tein’s certification shows to me they have a commitment to quality, and hence will be my next choice when my off-road only Protechs finally give up the ghost (thought they’ve laster better than the Meiter ZetaPros).
In a couple of years time, CE marks will have no standing in the UK, and the UKCA comes into play.
What are biker’s views of helmet marks? Bureacratic nonsense, and for that reason, they wear a cheap lid they picked up on holiday in Thailand?
I work with medical devices. Historically, regulation of medical devices is woeful compared to the US. Hence they are bringing in stricter regulations to avoid the hernia mesh tragedy, and the fake breast implants. In a quirk of fate because of COVID-19, the UK is “stuck” with the old medical device regulation. The new regulations were supposed to enter EU law in 2020, and as part of the exit, the UK would have absorbed these regulations into UK law (we wrote them). Covid meant implementation of the new regulation was paused. That pause meant the regulaton was not put into law, and there is no mechanism to do so. What happened next was why a new regulation was needed; the UK was flooded with fake COVID tests (tests that were judged unreliable), and sold online.
We might hate regulations, but most of us will still look for that kite mark on the rare occasion we fit a plug. We don’t really know why it makes that plug safer, but we are reassured by it.
You might complain vested interests will get around regulations, but what of the 17 year old old in his bedroom selling a dongle for your Tesla that promises Plaid-like performance for a little while. Or figuring an ersatz version of Mazda’s new MX5 Vehicle Attitude Stabilization Control, which seems to be a way of applying ABS at selective corners of the car, to affect handling. Is that 17 year old figuring out a way to get around the regulations, or just ignoring them. Or not even knowing they exist, as he designs that bit of code that puts an owner into a ditch.
I suppose you now avoid all air travel not just air travel including a certain 737 variant. Can’t trust the autopilot.
Curiously enough, since Covid, yes.