Car Modifications, EU Legislation.

[mondeoman]

A bit of help please, if anyone knows anything.

A couple of years ago, maybe a bit more I read an interesting article in a magazine in the local tyre shop regarding the EU wanting to standardise the law across member states relating to car modifications. It detailed a number of things that would pass into UK law later that year, perhaps 2012 or maybe 13 such as tight restrictions on after market HID upgrades being one I remember, another was to clarify the law on lamp colours providing strict kelvin values for "white" lights to exclude overly blue or polychromatic halogen bulbs.

The basic sentiment was that any modification to a car must not detract from it's condition as manufactured. Aftermarket exhausts for example must achieve the same level of silencing as the original equipment or be classed as illegal, bodykits and styling elements must not detract from the vehicles NCAP pedestrian rating and so on.

I tried finding it on the web recently and, other than the new laws on HID headlamps could find nothing. It wouldn't have any effect on LPG systems so there is no real reason anyone would have taken much notice, I just wondered if anyone had come accross it, or new of a web link?

[Gilbertd]

I think it was dropped. There's lots of things the EU would like to do but individual countries won't let them. At one point, aftermarket HID lamps weren't legal on anything that didn't have them fitted originally but now they are but only if the vehicle they are fitted to has self levelling lamps and headlamp wash/wipe. Most of the other mods would be picked up at an MoT but not as specific as exhaust noise level as the requirements are that "A silencer in such condition, or of such a type, that the noise emitted from the vehicle is clearly unreasonably above the level expected from a similar vehicle with a standard silencer in average condition." is a fail but it is subjective and left to the opinion of the tester. I mean, what is unreasonably above? The same would go for bits of added bodywork that could injure a pedestrian although the actual wording of the failure is "A sharp edge or projection, caused by corrosion or damage, which renders the vehicle dangerous to other road users, including pedestrians." so it could be argued that by sticking Roman style swords to your wheels isn't caused by damage or corrosion so is legal.

The law on mods varies quite a bit from country to country. In France, and a few other European countries, an LPG system must have been installed by a Government approved installer. In Italy all components must come from the same manufacturer (hence the multiple Italian systems that use an AEB controller but badged with the name of the system manufacturer). In Germany, any aftermarket components, including LPG systems, must be TUV approved for that specific vehicle. So, we've got it pretty good really.

[rich r]

This is kind of the point of EU legislation. Each country proposes that what it does should be mandatory across the whole EU, and then that gets debated and modified to find something they all agree on, or it gets rejected if it's unworkable. Most of the original EU legislation on vehicles for example appears to be sourced from the UK Road Vehicle Act and related Acts with some bits from the German and French regulations. Then as new legislation needs to be introduced (eg to regulate new technology such as HID or LED headlights), it goes first into the EU legislation, then each country chooses how to implement that in their local legislation, and how vaguely or specifically to word it.

And in this case, countries with more free reign over vehicle alterations (including the UK) downvoted the proposal and so it didn't pass. Woohoo, democracy in action

[mondeoman]

I don't think it was dropped, in fact IIRC the piece detailed two different sets of regs that were already passed into EU law, but which would come into effect at different times. One of the things that the article highlighted is that rather than being the basis for most EU Vehicle Type directives, the UK is actually very much out of step with it. That deals with the design of new cars as well as after market modifications. For example, prior to the act being passed all HID / Xenon lamps were illegal under UK law, but legal in the EU. The UK is obliged to license vehicles which pass EU standards and so the UK law is effectively redundant. A lot of the article detailed how UK law would change to fit the existing EU standards, rather than deciding what standards would be.

What I was trying to establish was the second date. The first date was early in 2012 from what I can see, the point at which most after market HID's became illegal. The second date I had in my head was 2016. It also IIRC detailed changes to pollution filters such as Cats. I was trying to establish if it is legal to remove a cat if your car still meets the models emission standards without it.

[Gilbertd]

I was trying to establish if it is legal to remove a cat if your car still meets the models emission standards without it.

No, not if it was fitted with one when manufactured. From 1 January 2012 there were a number of changes to the MoT test, which is where any modifications would be noted, and one of these changes specifically deals with cats. The MoT testers manual can be found here http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual/contents.htm and Reason for Rejection 7.1(3) is "A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard". However, this can be interpreted differently by different testers. Most will take they view that it had one when it was new so it should have one now whereas some, and I know of one in my area, takes the view that as a cat isn't needed on an LPG converted vehicle then the removal of the cat could be considered part of the conversion. Personally, while I don't have a problem with his view, I think he could be challenged unless a vehicle has been converted to only run on LPG. If it has the capability of running on petrol then it should still be there.

[mondeoman]

Thanks Gilbert, that would have been the same round of changes that saw the headlight changes, or so I'm guessing.

[Morat]

I was trying to establish if it is legal to remove a cat if your car still meets the models emission standards without it.

No, not if it was fitted with one when manufactured. From 1 January 2012 there were a number of changes to the MoT test, which is where any modifications would be noted, and one of these changes specifically deals with cats. The MoT testers manual can be found here http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual/contents.htm and Reason for Rejection 7.1(3) is "A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard". However, this can be interpreted differently by different testers. Most will take they view that it had one when it was new so it should have one now whereas some, and I know of one in my area, takes the view that as a cat isn't needed on an LPG converted vehicle then the removal of the cat could be considered part of the conversion. Personally, while I don't have a problem with his view, I think he could be challenged unless a vehicle has been converted to only run on LPG. If it has the capability of running on petrol then it should still be there.

That's a very enlightened tester! I wonder what the difference is between the time it takes to "light" a cat and the time it takes to switch to LPG from cold? I'd like to think there's only a small window where the cat-enabled petrol vehicle is running cleaner but that might just be pure optimism.

[Brian_H]

That's a very enlightened tester! I wonder what the difference is between the time it takes to "light" a cat and the time it takes to switch to LPG from cold? I'd like to think there's only a small window where the cat-enabled petrol vehicle is running cleaner but that might just be pure optimism.

I doubt it would even light it as the cat needs to be relatively warm to work anyway (you only have to see how much difficulty some testers have trying to get a new pattern cat hot enough to do anything when doing a mot to see this).

[tomas]

In lithuania
Hid ligths not originals not alloud at..or all your headligths must have some code that they are ok for xenon ligths..
Exhaust noise they use some device to see what noise it creates..iff to much no mot..
lpg systems fitted only by approved garage..iff not no mot..
And by the new law from last year..
Bold 2 tyres or iligal xenon ligths. Massive loud exhaust Front tinted windows.3 burn bulbs at nigth time.or bad emissions.. any off these faults
your mot its canceled on the spot when police man stops you.. you need get new mot..
Thats bad

[Brian_H]

Similar exists here they can serve you with a prohibition notice for certain faults which requires you to fix it and get a new mot to show its been fixed before you can get it cancelled. Someone I knew got given one for having something wrong with his rear suspension. Ended up having to get the car recovered as he then couldn't drive it. Think the fault has to be deemed dangerous to do it though.

[rich r]

I've got a set of H7 halogen bulbs in my glove box should I be stopped about the aftermarket HIDs on my new Subaru Outback (new to me obviously, it's 10 years old). The headlight units are the same part number as those used for models with HIDs in Japan, so the lens system should give a beam pattern that's correct. HIDs with no washers or self levelling are allowed in the MOT, but it's still a grey area for use on the road. One traffic policeman I've spoken to said that as long as they're not excessively bright, dazzling due incorrect pattern or too blue there's no reason to stop you for having them.

[mondeoman]

HIDs with no washers or self levelling are allowed in the MOT

I thought it was the opposite, that an mot test should check that HIDs including aftermarket are only fitted:

i) In EU approved and type approved enclosures with the valid CE mark for HIDs
ii) In vehicles with either self levelling suspension or self levelling headlamp units
iii) In vehicles with headlamp washers or wipers.

I can't actually find anything to say that they are illegal for use on the road, unless as suggested above they can be deemed dangerous (and some aftermarket HIDs are bloody dangerous, you can't see a thing while they are aimed at you) in which case a prohibition notice could be issued. Obviously if that were to happedn swapping the bulbs back at the roadside would not solve the problem as you would still need the vehicle to be MOT'd again before being road legal.

[Gilbertd]

HIDs with no washers or self levelling are allowed in the MOT

No they aren't. Reason for failure 1.7.2 (http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_170.htm) and incorrect headlamp aim is also a fail (1.8.1) if it doesn't meet one of 3 beam patterns (http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_180.htm).

[rich r]

Section 1.7 says 'on vehicles with HID lights washer and self levelling systems may be fitted' and 'where fitted such systems must work' - not that they must be fitted. Yes, if fitted and not working then that is a reason for failure (1.7.2). But if not fitted, that in itself is not a reason for failure. In the same way as having loose rear seats is a failure but having no rear seats is not.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about this subject as it's been done to death on many car forums. And the opinion of MOT testers who participate on those forums is similar to the police position - if they're not excessively bright or the pattern is clearly wrong, then they are acceptable. On cars where the same headlight unit is used with halogen or HID, the beam pattern will be the same as long as the bulbs used have the centre of the light emitting part of the bulb at the same point. If the headlights were not designed for HID bulbs then that may or may not be the case depending on the exact design.

I'm perfectly happy to change the car back to halogens, but the HIDs were already present when I bought it, and there's a receipt for them having been fitted in 2009. So it's gone through 5 MOTs and driven around 90,000 miles with no problems before I got it.

[Gilbertd]

You are absolutely correct, it does say they may be fitted. Interestingly though, the IVA test manual says that HID lights must be E marked, have washers fitted, be self levelling and dipped beam must stay on when main beam is on. So that effectively allows aftermarket HID lights for the MoT even if not when a car is new or imported. The bit about dip staying on all the time makes sense as HIDs take a couple of seconds to come up to full brightness so you'd want them to stay on or you'd dip your lights and they'd almost go out momentarily. Could make for some interesting wiring......

[rossko]

Interestingly though, the IVA test manual says that HID lights must be E marked, have washers fitted, be self levelling ...

This is the "type approval" chestnut.
Manufacturers must do those things to get EU Type Approval for a car fitted with HID.
IVA, as alternative/substitute for Type Approval, will parallel that.
But you only need Type Approval (or IVA) for first registration.

DfT have declared that there is for them no concept of 'invalidating' a type approval, either it had it at first registration or it didn't, they are not interested afterwards.

Regardless of that, UK vehicles do have to meet Construction & Use Regulations at all times on the road. Those regs are much less detailed than the TA specifications, there would be no point parroting those I suppose. C&U must also be relevant for older vehicles, not just new product.

The MoT has never / will never look in as much depth as Type Approval - crash testing etc. - and will take its cue from C&U regs. By definition MoT is about older vehicles.
Which adds up to - MoT allows modifications from the original, and does not require that they meet TA standards, only their own manual based on the (lesser) C&U.

Insurers will take a different view, and will regard any change from the type-approved spec as a 'modification' that might be of interest to them.

[mondeoman]

raising the insurance issue is a very interesting point. the UK motor industry believes / estimtes that 92% of modifications are unrecorded, a frightening statistic considering that a single unrecorded modification can have serious consequences should you need to make a claim. When "The Mondeo ... " was written off the insurance assessor checked the car for modifications before he even started looking at the damage. Headlights, air intake, exhaust, ICE, wheels were all checked for originality. Only then did the assessor take photos of the damage which were sent to the underwriter for confirmation of the write off.

when I was involved in the industry it was remarkable some of the vehicles that claims were made against which had no recorded modifications. Even down to a Ford Focus once, with full WRC replica bodykit, 22 inch rims under extended arches, Sparco race seats with five point harnesses, full roll cage, sports induction kit, lowered suspension, polychromatic paint job and larege bore twin exhaust conversion.

The owner must have been gutted having driven it in to a stone wall to get a letter from me saying we would not be accepting his claim and that his policy was terminatd with immediate effect.

[rich r]

I declared the HIDs as a modification (as well as the towbar) to my insurance company and they just wanted to know the type of bulb fitted (35W 5000K H7). I guess if I'd have said it had 55W 8000K ones they may have declined to cover it. They didn't ask any questions about the towbar - which could potentially be a danger if it broke due to being badly designed or fitted.

They're very well fitted, with the ballasts being tucked away neatly so unless a buyer knew that this model shouldn't have HIDs from the factory, they could quite easily never pick up on it. The dealer selling it never mentioned them either - it's only when I turned them on during the test drive that I noticed the flash and settling of the light output that I realised it had HIDs.

[mondeoman]

In truth I never used to worry about an individual mod like bulbs, alloys or even a K&N filter but that was just me, others were more picky and that was some years ago. The industry tends to be more picky now.

[Brian_H]

I declared the HIDs as a modification (as well as the towbar) to my insurance company and they just wanted to know the type of bulb fitted (35W 5000K H7). I guess if I'd have said it had 55W 8000K ones they may have declined to cover it. They didn't ask any questions about the towbar - which could potentially be a danger if it broke due to being badly designed or fitted.

They're very well fitted, with the ballasts being tucked away neatly so unless a buyer knew that this model shouldn't have HIDs from the factory, they could quite easily never pick up on it. The dealer selling it never mentioned them either - it's only when I turned them on during the test drive that I noticed the flash and settling of the light output that I realised it had HIDs.

You'd think the towbar would have the most effect as if its there you'd have the added risk associated with trailers etc. I found the same with mine told them and they said they didn't even count it as a mod anymore.