UK SVA regulations/ban on modified cars

Road-race engines and ancillaries - general discussion

UK SVA regulations/ban on modified cars

Postby Guy Croft » Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:53 am

I have heard recently that there is a proposal to ban modifications to road cars and that is likely to go before Parliament soon. I heard that the Police are all for it. I heard that SVA testing may be involved.
I do not know how correct any of this is.
This - if true - has very serious implications and in usual UK Government style it will be likely be forced through as an unsophisticated, poorly constituted piece of legislation.
I cannot find anything on the internet. Does any member know anything substantiable (not rumour) about this?

GC
Guy Croft
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4531
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:31 am
Location: Lincoln, UK

Postby Evodelta » Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:43 pm

Guy,

PPC mag ran a few articles on it at the end of last year/start of this year, I'll reprint what I think was the final article on it here from back in February/March, I'm sure they won't mind as they are an open minded lot and were poised to fight this.

"Ever since rumours of government legislation to bring a halt to our hobby by enforcing a test similar to the SVA on any modified car started circulating, we've been overwhelmed with feedback from readers who've contacted their MPs to fight these proposals.
So far all we've been able to report is hearsay and as we mentioned last month, trying to get a definitive answer from the DVLA has been like trying to get blood from the proverbial stone - their spokespersons don't seem top be able to, well, speak.
However, thanks to the efforts of PPC reader Phil Bromson we now have news that all is not lost. Phils MP is Dr Steven Ladyman, who's the Minister for Transport and therefore responsible for the DVLA. Phil confronted Ladyman at his Friday night surgery and expressed our fears.
He was told there was nothing to worry about.
Ladyman said: "I assure you that the new procedures are not going to be any stricter than the old ones and that they will have absolutely no effect on people who want to modify their cars" There is nothing in writing yet, but Phil has promised to forward Ladymans written reply when he receives it. We will wait with cautious optimism and will keep you posted."

I know you wanted something substantiable and I'm sorry, but it appears to have come from an MPs mouth so may not qualify :wink:

If you would like to email the Editor of PPC about any developements his address is Will@ppcmag.co.uk
Alternatively they have their own forum too: http://www.ppcmag.co.uk/forum so you could ask there too (maybe there is a thread on it).


Martin.
Evodelta
 

Postby Julian » Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:09 pm

I've seen this discussed repeatedly over the last six months and so far I have yet to see anything firmer than the wispiest of mists. As I've understood it the essence is that they are trying to create a legal framework for the situations where people are doing something particularly stupid. At the moment you can do almost anything to your car and the worst that it is likely to happen (assuming you don't cause a big accident) is that you get a pink ticket for having a car in dangerous condition, 3 points on your license and a ‚£40 fine.

The reverse of this is that they are very much aware that modifying cars is a serious business and brings in a fairly large amount of tax each year and more importantly it brings in business from abroad. Killing the industry off is very much counterproductive - in that respect I do not feel that out trade is actually at that much risk but the subtler sides of the implications from best case to worst case could have significant impact.

While there seems to be no firm source of information on the proposed paper all we can is sit and hope now.
Julian
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:45 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Postby Wallace » Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:43 pm

I must admit - it always struck me as a bit odd - that one week after I passed the MOT, I unbolted the original Fiat/Lancia brake calipers and fitted Wilwood ones.

And yet the insurance guys were happy when I told them, the car was still "legal" and I was happy in myself with the conversion - BUT - it hadn't gone though any testing etc and could have been an accident waiting to happen.
WALLACE
Wallace
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: London & Lincolnshire

Postby Julian » Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:43 am

Not so long ago you had to get a vehicle inspection whenever you started making changes to the car - not because of any law but because the insurance companies wanted to know the car was safe - essentially you got an individual risk assessment. Now they do it all over the phone and base the premium on what you tell them - far from ideal but on the other hand it means they only have to inspect the cars that are being claimed on rather than insured...
Julian
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:45 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Postby SteveNZ » Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:00 am

How is the law currently in regard to modifications? For the the brake example above?

In NZ they are currently cracking down on noisy exhausts :lol: Its a big deal at the moment, if you have a modified exhaust you have to get a noise test, under 95db or its illegal.
SteveNZ
 

Postby Julian » Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:20 am

The british law is a bit on the vague side. Full vehicle type approval has quite strict rules on what can and cannot be done - including exhaust noise. SVA is less strict and basically tests that the vehicle is safe for occupants and pedestrians.

The yearly MOT tests by comparison are barely worth worrying about as they only test the bare essentials for operational safety - like bearings, bushes and hydraulics.

In terms of what you can change there is no real limit - there are ways around the emissions and catalytic converter rules that are 100% legal which are what worries most of the rest of the world when it comes to modifying. Exhaust noise is subjective, you can be stopped for having an exhaust that is too noisy but it is a matter of anti-social behaviour rather than a set legal limit. If you keep the noise down below 100db you are very unlikely to fall foul of the law here. 95db by comparison is positively civilised!

For an MOT the brakes have to work - simple as that... well a bit more than that, they have to work evenly and sufficiently well to meet the test requirements - sadly those limits are quite soft and it is easy to have a car on the road that barely has enough braking power to be worth measuring.

The MOT itself is a strange beast - you are required to have one for a road car in use and they are only valid for a year but they are not a certificate or roadworthiness - as far as the law is concerned the MOT certificate proves nothing once the car is driven away. It is down to the driver of the car to ensure that it is roadworthy (note - not the owner of the car although the owner can be liable for a share of that responsibility). What consititutes roadworthy is a mess but basically if you could take your car to an MOT station and have it pass then it constitutes safe but there are elements not tested in the MOT that are requirements for the car to be safe. If that all sounds like a mess then that is because it is! Even the police here tend to be very vague on what is and what is not legal!
Julian
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:45 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Postby SteveNZ » Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:40 am

I understand the MOT, its the same in NZ. We have an annual warrant of fitness, WOF (every 6 months for cars older than 6 years). This tests the most important safety items (and legal red tape) but it cannot check everything. The driver is ultimately responsible. I think a WOF is much more in depth than a MOT. It sounds like SVA would be part of a WOF too.

WOF also checks that the car meets "manufacturers specifications". Some modifications are allowed, larger wheels etc but it is quite strict what is allowed and what is not. Some modifications (like a roll cage) require a lot of red tape to make legal, even though the quality of the modification is not in question.

When is an SVA done?

Im interested because I read on another forum, someone removed their steering wheel with airbag. It was replaced with an aftermarket item and this was apparently legal. This is totally illegal in NZ, you cannot remove an airbag, its a safety item.
SteveNZ
 

Postby petert » Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:24 pm

They're trying to do a similar thing here in Australia, to get common laws accross all states. They aren't going to stop modifications, but they are trying to limit power/weight ratios, regardless of the year the car was made. For example, it's currently ok to drive around in a pre '76 5.8L V8 Ford Falcon with blower sticking through bonnet, making 1000hp. As it doesn't break any emission rules, it's legal. Whether it's stupid or not is another matter. Post '76 cars start to have emission rules, so they can be pinged, if the authorities wanted to catch them on something.

Under the new rules, a blown engine would be limited to 4.6L, from memory. The authorities have come to realise that the power of turbo engines, currently entirely legal emission wise, is getting out of hand. It's fairly easy to get a GT-R Skyline to 600hp and still idle like a kitten and breathe out clean air. In the past, the authorities have been able to stop high output N/A engines through excessive emissions. They currently have no control over turbos or old cars making huge hp.
petert
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:38 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Julian » Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:23 pm

The problem they are going to face is that as soon as you have turbos with electronic control it is possible to fool those tests with ease. Most modern ECUs come with switchable maps so it is a matter of simplicity itself to flick a hidden switch and the car is instantly within limits.

How much power you want out of the engine is pretty much arbitrary too - the Greek hillclimbers are extracting figures not far short of 1000bhp from the old 2.0l 16v twincam turbo. If you extrapolate that to a larger capacity engine you can see that it isn't hard to push way beyond 1000bhp - what you would do with it is another matter. Bugatti have proven the hurdles you face and expended millions on overcoming them and in many cases inventing completely new solutions in the process.

I know the power:weight ratio limit is good in principle, especially for putting the reins on new drivers (much to the consternation of a friend of mine) but it is a flawed system.

On the subject of SVA (single vehicle approval) the test has to be done before the car can be registered. It isn't particularly hard to pass but there are pitfalls so it pays to be thorough. A lot of people complained about it when it was introduced but the reality is that it makes sure kit-cars or imports are up to standard and as such makes then that little bit safer. It used to be that anyone could bolts 4 wheels on a chassis and call it a car and the results could be lethal.
Julian
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:45 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Postby Kev Rooney » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:46 am

Ok, I can confirm this is true as I'm actually the one co ordinating the fight under the ACE ( Association of Car Enthusiasts )banner ! The information was made available to ALL enthusiasts mags but very few chose to publish anything. It has however been taken upsuccesfully by the aftermarket with CAT magazine and the ADF ( Automotive Distribution Federation ) running with it .

We are still in contact with DVLA on an ongoing basis and the NSRA , NASC and ACE are all on the main consulation list . Pressure is being applied to restart the whole process as the proposal only came about due to a Consulation Document relating to DVLA inspection processes.

Initial document http://www.dvla.gov.uk/public/consult/v ... ummary.htm

Response

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/public/consult/s ... edures.htm

Most worrying recomendation "

29. The Police considered the emphasis should be on vehicle crime and that the current procedures were open to abuse. They agreed that there should be a mechanism for identifying changes e.g. at MoT; that where a vehicle was modified from its original specification, it should be regarded as newly built and SVA etc be required. "

ACE reply document.

http://www.nsra.org.uk/editorial13.htm
Last edited by Kev Rooney on Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kev Rooney
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:29 am
Location: Portsmouth

Postby Kev Rooney » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:51 am

Julian, I regret to tellyou that only a car specifically designed to pass SVA , like a kit car or low volume production , will pass easily . If you are looking at pre 98 designed cars many will require major changes to make them conform to modern safety standards. For many older cars they will fail on being unable to get the correct specification front screen glass without even considering the actual design shape of the vehicle ie bumpers would fail on rear radius and even certain body panels may fail.

As part of ongoing negotiations during talks with VOSA it came to light that they had recently failed , during SVA ,a standard Beetle which was only there because the owner had declared it had been rebodied.
Kev Rooney
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:29 am
Location: Portsmouth

Postby Kev Rooney » Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:00 am

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/regrebil.htm

This lists the current legal requirements re vehicle details. As it stands changing brakes or modifying your engine , alone, would not create a scenario where your vehicle would be forced to go through SVA. However if you alter your monocoque in anyway the vehicle SHOULD be inspected and more than likely put forward for SVA.

The Consultation Document response shows that the Police would like like the MOT inspection to take on the task of identifying cars they feel are modified from OEM spec.

As you can see this could create the situation where the vehicle WOULD have to go forward for SVA where unmodified OEM components could cause it to fail!

We are currently trying to create ,with DVLA , a modified vehicle class where there would be a safety inspection , aimed primarily at the modified parts only with concessions made for pre 98 based vehicles .


We are also working with VOSA examining the reality of SVA applied to older vehicles.
Kev Rooney
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:29 am
Location: Portsmouth

Postby Guy Croft » Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:09 am

Hi Kev

good for you. I read all that with interest and I am shocked how far it has gone, covertly aready. Among many other things I am particularly interested about stage rally cars moving on the highway between stages. I am also concerned because the government has a nasty habit of rolling out unsophisticated and poorly thought-through legislation in order to just stamp on the problem and thus clear it from Parliament's agenda.

There is a danger of their producing - like the use of mobile phones in cars issue, yet another law that is neither respected not enforceable.

And I am alarmed - once again - at the level of Police intervention and influence. And the last thing MOT garage owners need is to have to try and enforce this, predisposing that they have the necessary experience to make those judgements - which most, let's be honest, will not, after a lifetime of working on standard cars.

The SVA (speaking from a recent time-wasting experience of trying to help someone to prove the origin of his Fiat kit car engine) is that they simply are not up to this task, it will be a bureaucratic trainwreck and the upshot will be a lot of cars forced off the road.

As a prime mover, the Hot Rodders Assn should perhaps be engaging legal counsel, broadening their support, and there would be no shortage of support. I shall be writing to my MP Rt Hon Douglas Hogg QC in detail about this shortly but apart from that is there anything I personally can do?

GC
Guy Croft
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4531
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:31 am
Location: Lincoln, UK

Postby Kev Rooney » Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:15 am

Hi Guy, the problem is that the DVLA are a self governing quango and can make any amendments to their rules that they want. The only time we can bring MP pressure to bear is when / if they decide to go ahead with the clause 29 it will require amendments to statutes and that is when the force of car enthusiasts will be felt, but only if they are aware of it.

At the moment the greatest help that anyone can be is to spread the word and send on the above links to prove it's not all ' smoke and mirrors' .

The NASC and NSRA have both set up legislation funds and are placing al evy on people attending their shows so that all who benefit will contribute not just the wise few.

As I said early all the enthusiasts mags were contacted ( 76 in total ) with a very poor response . They were also contacted again to advise of the formation of ACE, asking for clubs wishing to participate to come forward so we could keep all up to date.

As with all things apathy wil be the downfall .


Many aftermarket suppliers were contacted direct with information but it required a follow up phone call to each and everyone to explain the situation . Especially that it could wipe out historic ( pre 98 ) cars overnight if allowed to go through. The attitude that seems to prevail is that "well the kit car boys don't have problems , so why should we ? ". Hence the move to the aftermarket press and major players

If they took the time to find out they'd see why it IS a big problem.
Kev Rooney
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:29 am
Location: Portsmouth

Next

Return to GUY CROFT: General Discussions - Road -

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests