Ban on "boy racer" cars

Archeron

Just heard about this on the radio this morning. Apparently Ivor Callelly is introducing a law that cars with tinted windows, loud exhausts or double exhausts will all fail the NCT. Does anyone know where we can see more details about this? It sounds like a major pain in the ass for anyone who likes their cars. Ivor Callellys website says nothing about this. Sounds like another bit of baiting on certain members of society to suit those who disapprove of young people in nice cars.

Bartonprince

Thats stupid. Some people think cars shouldn't be changed. boring old mammy cars. Like mine. But if someone is an enthusiast then let them alter their car. it doesn't hurt anyone. just makes anyone driving them look like assholes to non enthusiasts. thats their problem.

Thats kinda like banning people from painting their sitting room because it's to boring looking.

alias no.9

There are already regulations regarding the noiuse levels from exhausts. This is a photo op, a kind of 'hey look at me, I'm doing trying to do something', nothing more. As to the 'nice cars', a sports exhaust is can be more commonly found on a ****box covered in stickers than on a nice car, but of course that's very subjective.

seamus

I don't Ivor Callelly has the authority to introduce laws. He's probably just going to recommend it to the Dail.

Tbh, certain things like tinted windows, overly loud exhausts, extra bright halogens and other non-necessary lighting need to be banned, but other than that people should be free to modify their vehicles if they wish.

ambro25

(re. exhaust), I guess that's put me off putting the scooby on IE plates for a while further then, until the situation is ascertained

maidhc

People who make their 1.0L cars sound like 3.5HP Briggs & Stratton engines for no reason should fail. Those with big blocks and genuinely loud nice sounding exhausts shouldnt.

seriously though, its a pointless suggestion if ever there was one unless:
a) dark tinted windows are shown to be a safety hazard
b) Bigger exhausts causes the car to fail emissions (i.e. no cat), and/or they are so loud as to be an unjustifiable nuisance

Archeron

seamus wrote:

I don't Ivor Callelly has the authority to introduce laws. He's probably just going to recommend it to the Dail.

Tbh, certain things like tinted windows, overly loud exhausts, extra bright halogens and other non-necessary lighting need to be banned, but other than that people should be free to modify their vehicles if they wish.

Good point,People should be free to drive what they want, be it laughable to everyone else or not. If a man wants to drive a luminous green Micra with 24 inch wheels, then what harm will it do? If Callelly wants to do a public service, then why not ban the bull bars on 4x4s as many many people have suggested. on 90% they are pointless and deadly to pedestrians when in urban environments. Surely this is more important than tinted windows on small cars?

chicken_food

So then the 'normal' cars like the Fords ST220, its got the dual exhausts(not too loud tho)- extra bright halogen lights (standard) and a light to medium tint as standard. I can think of a handful of other cars that will fall into that category. Its a complete joke. If it was a ban on AFTERMARKET tints,exhausts etc then i would be the first to agree.

Ag marbh

Banning tinted windows is a bit much but i'm all for the other crap.

aw

chicken_food wrote:

If it was a ban on AFTERMARKET tints,exhausts etc then i would be the first to agree.

I got the impression that this was what he meant.
If it's done by the manufacturer it might be ok.
But modifications done by the owners themselves aren't allowable.

That's what I thought he meant.

seamus

Ag marbh wrote:

Banning tinted windows is a bit much but i'm all for the other crap.

Banning tinted windows is one of the main ones. Tinted windows are a safety hazard for all other road users, not just the driver, because they reduce visibility. For example - if I'm driving behind you, and you have tinted windows, I can't see what's in front of you. That's a case of you affecting my ability to drive safely, forcing me to take extra care.

jhegarty

the decision is whats going to banned will be made by SIMI and guards....

also , its going to start on 01/06....

Seanie M

Bartonprince wrote:

Thats kinda like banning people from painting their sitting room because it's to boring looking.

Wow, must have taken you a while to use the ole noggin to come up with that comparison!

Alun

Well, there's "tinted" and there's "tinted" isn't there? I don't think anyone here would disagree that there comes a point when too much tinting can be classed as dangerous, i.e. if I can't see you through them what are the chances of you seeing a pedestrian or a cyclist, say, on a dark, rainy morning in November? In the UK, the police have been issued with meters that can objectively measure light transmission, but here it's still entirely subjective.

Same goes for exhausts. There's some tw@t in a "modified" 1.0 Starlet who lives down my road whose exhaust is so loud, I can hear it above the telly when he drives past, and at 3am on a Saturday morning it's been known to wake me up!

MercMad

I think the deals is that he wants to see existing regulations enforced. there are strict laws about tinted glass, degree of shading etc. and there are alsoi strict EU laws about noise emmisions.

If these are enforced it should be a good thing ! IMO it shouldn't spoil anyones fun though!

bmoferrall

seamus wrote:

Banning tinted windows is one of the main ones. Tinted windows are a safety hazard for all other road users, not just the driver, because they reduce visibility. For example - if I'm driving behind you, and you have tinted windows, I can't see what's in front of you. That's a case of you affecting my ability to drive safely, forcing me to take extra care.

Let them ban SUVs and Jeeps so. I can't see through those fecking things for their height.

Callely is just trying to justify his existence...nothing will come of all this.

Seanie M

seamus wrote:

Tbh, certain things like tinted windows, overly loud exhausts, extra bright halogens and other non-necessary lighting need to be banned, but other than that people should be free to modify their vehicles if they wish.

I agree. The whole thing with some prat with an OTT exhaust just so that people will rubberneck is really, REALLY stupid. Its very annoying for their neighbours, and the 'boy racers' somehow must be deaf, or at least have ripped up their living room carpet to insulate the car from the damned noise those exhausts produce.

I wonder do they realise that the 1.6i engine under the bonnet still sounds like a 1.6i engine under a bonnet, and that the stupid exhaust noise can be seperated (back of the car) from the engine noise (front of the car)... Its doesn't make their car sound beefier, it makes it sound NOISIER!!

Seanie.

dahooligan

There are laws for all of these things already - there is a legal restriction on the severity of the tint (40% I think?!) and there are already regulations on the noise outputs for exhausts and engines.. so, there are laws and regulations controlling the situation, but no one is enforcing the law so an all out ban on everything is best?! Me arse.

When I started out I was pulled by one guard on a number of things - too loud a sound system, too dark tint, too noisy exhaust etc. So I changed it all (lighter tint, lowered the sound and changed the exhaust) and the guard was happy and so was I, a compromise was reached! He knew that I wasn't a danger cos I'd poured €20,000 into me car and I wasn't likely to go racing around and risk crashing it... its all about compromise.

seamus

bmoferrall wrote:

Let them ban SUVs and Jeeps so. I can't see through those fecking things for their height.

That's how they come as stock. Their very nature requires other vehicles to be cautious because they limit visibility - the same goes for vans, trucks and busses. Modifying your vehicle to actually make it more dangerous for other road users though is just moronic.

Soupi

i couldn't believe it when i heard about this on the radio. it's always the same with the government, they stereotype because of their own ignorance and greediness.

i used to go to all the cruises when i first started to drive as i have a huge passion for cars and motorbikes and the one thing i noticed was that although to people who drive standard mammy wagons these "boy racers" look like **j*ts they have a passion for motors too and the only reason why they do things to their 1.0 - 1.3 cars is because they can't get insured on any decent cars. i'll admit that there are some who take the p*ss when it comes to mods,ie: neons, spin back hubs, go fast strips, etc, but there are also alot that have their motors tastefully done and take great care of them.

at the end of the day i'd rather see young fellas saving up to get their own car when they turn 17 and spending all their money and time on them because it keeps them away from bigger problems, ie: drugs, binge drinking, etc.

who are the government to say that tinted windows etc make people drive faster when they don't understand the type of people who are stereotyped "boy racers". there's always gonna be people that drive fast whether they have mods or not.

also alot of the executive cars have tinted windows and alot of the TDs cars have tinted windows. i'm getting a Lexus in the new year and am worried because they usually come with tinted windows and i don't want to compromise the look of my car because of their ignorance! :mad:

flanzer

Don't think this'll happen. Sure Bertie's son-in-law and all his bandmates have tarted up, windows tinted, cars and SUVs :rolleyes:

LegacyUser

I heard something briefly about this on RTE Radio 1 this morning, but to be honest I didn’t listen to the whole article.

I think what needs to be addressed is why some of these cars are being “modded”. I was talking to a guy I know who is an accident investigator last week about where the line lies between having a hobby of modding your car for visual reasons, and for speed reasons.

I personally can’t understand why someone would spend ten of fifteen thousand Euro on doing a car up, when in actuality is can only legally perform as well on Irish roads as your bog-standard 1.1L Nissan Micra. I have no problem with the fact that people have their cars as a hobby, much the same as I would have sports, or electronics. But I don’t see the reasoning behind souping a car up to the point of a Harrier jump-jet, when you still can only travel at 50 km/h on the local roads.

Some car enthusiasts will argue that they have a hobby with their cars much like some people have with modding their PCs. Granted a fair point, but also a facile argument.

Lets say for example that Paddy is a car enthusiast, and he buys a 2000 Audi with the intention of adding bit and pieces to it. It’s not uncommon for some people to sink €10k into a car. Now if he is modding his car because he enjoys driving it and he enjoys working on it and adding the various features, and “pimping” it, then that’s all well and good. He's a safe driver who abides by the rules of the road. If he does it because he like to show the car off and meet other like-minded drivers, then fair play to him. He’s investing his time and money in his hobby.

Then you have John, who enjoys building his computers, and has the specs on his boards.ie sig. Just like Paddy, he enjoys tinkering with computers, working on them, adding the various features etc, and talking about his hobby with like-minded people. Once again, that’s completely acceptable. He is investing his time and money in his hobby, and he is doing it for his personal satisfaction because he enjoys it, and it doesn’t affect anyone else.

On the other hand lets say Paddy does his car up because he likes to show the boys and girls how cool he is, and he likes to head to the car-park, or main road every week to meet and race against other drivers; He drives in a way that’s both dangerous and illegal, and he is a danger in this car to both himself and other road users. That’s what we need to get rid of. It would be the same situation if John was modding his computer to make is faster so he could start a spamming operation or running an illegal child-porn website from his house. Modding the object because you enjoy it and it’s your hobby is no problem. But modding it because you want to use it to break the law, is not on.

Just my 2 c

LegacyUser

Here's an article from the IT a few months ago which is worth a look...

A speeding car culture in the Inishowen area is a major factor in the high level of road deaths there, writes Kathy Sheridan in Co Donegal

After 18 months of multiple tragedies and indescribable trauma for the people of the Inishowen peninsula, the battle-lines are drawn. The Garda is not doing enough, say the people. The people will not stand up and be counted, insists the Garda.

Co Donegal is second only to the Louth-Meath area in the road death league. Twenty-six people have died on the county's roads in 2005 and Inishowen has had more than its share. Over the past 18 months, 25 people have died on the peninsula's roads, 20 of them aged under 30. This year alone, Inishowen gardaí, headquartered at Buncrana, have documented 47 collisions involving serious injury, another 46 involving minor injuries and 131 involving material damage. A look at the panel reveals a pattern: late nights, weekends, speed and youth are among the linking factors. Sometimes alcohol is in the mix, although rarely among the under-40s.

The senior garda in Buncrana, Supt Vincent O'Brien, talks knowledgably, sometimes wearily, about the car rallying "culture" endemic in the region - a spin-off from the Donegal International Car Rally, the Circuit of Ireland and the vibrant tradition just across the Border - and the huge pride the "boy racers" take in their cars.

This is an area with the highest percentage of early school-leavers in the country, where the boys traditionally head for the building industry at 15 or 16. "They go to Dublin, work there from Monday to Friday, and earn vast sums of up to €1,500 a week, so they can afford their fast cars", says Supt O'Brien.

Rear-wheel drives such as the BMW 320S, Subaru Impreza and Toyota Corolla twin cams, are particularly coveted for "doughnuts" stunts, ie burning a circle in rubber with the rear wheels. For enhanced performance, modifications such as the welding of the split differential in the rear wheels of old Sierra Saphires, are common.

The weekend meets advertised through websites such as jon44W.com are on public roads. Last year, Buncrana gardaí were called out 13 times over one weekend to deal with road racing. In one case, up to 50 cars were racing on the N13. Two of them crashed while speeding away from patrol cars.

Last weekend in Letterkenny, only hours after the loss of five young lives in a two-car collision near Muff, up to 500 boy racers were in the Aldi car park in Letterkenny showing off their cars and stunts.

As well as primping, modifying and showing off cars, the practice of four or five young fellows clubbing together to buy "end-of-life" cars for as little as €30 and driving them till the engine goes or they crash is also common.

Late-night quad racing on public roads is another Co Donegal phenomenon. These quads, according to Supt O'Brien who describes them as "lethal weapons", cost up to €5,000 and are often given as birthday presents to children aged 10 to 15 by their parents.

WHAT BAFFLES HIM and other senior gardaí in the area is a perceived lack of co-operation from parents and adults generally in accident prevention strategies. "Locals see those young fellows on the road with the end-of-life cars but they say nothing . . . Or they will report it anonymously and won't get involved in subsequent court cases. They're not prepared to stand up and be counted. Guards go to warn parents about their children racing quads and get no co-operation whatever. It's an Inishowen culture."

He says wearily that gardaí are well aware of the widespread trauma caused by the death of young people on the roads and have been personally affected by it.

"Last weekend, as a manager in charge of Inishowen, I found it most distressing that these incidents were happening on my patch - and I take it personally. We too have children and you'd be acutely aware of the risks they face as a driver or passenger on the roads."

After the triple tragedy in July last year, in which 16-year-old Áine O'Leary, the niece of a local sergeant, was killed, "a boyracers target group" was set up by Chief Supt Noel V White. In three months, 200 cars were seized for being dangerously defective or being modified without notifying insurance companies.

"But despite what we were finding, the general attitude of parents was that their sons were being harassed," recalls Supt O'Brien.

It is believed that in a significant number of fatal accident cases, the young drivers had already come to the attention of gardaí and been cautioned.

A STRING OF strategies has included an educational video, compiled and presented by gardaí to transition year and Leaving Cert students throughout Co Donegal, featuring fatal accident survivors such as Liz Anne O'Keeffe and parents of deceased young victims. "Most of the teachers and pupils were stunned into silence - and that lasted for a while. It lasted until the students started driving themselves," said Supt O'Brien.

As well as participating in ongoing initiatives from the multi-disciplinary Donegal Road Safety working group, the Garda here is also running a Driver Improvement Programme - a day of classroom and driving work - in conjunction with the District Court, designed to focus young drivers on the limitations of their own experience. The offender pays €225 for the course and if he can satisfy the judge that he has learned from it, may escape disqualification.

But the depth of the challenge is reflected in the behaviour of one young man last year, who drove through the same static Garda check point three times on the same night, each time without a seat belt, knowing it was costing him two penalty points a time.

"Society in general must accept ownership for the carnage on our roads today", says Supt O'Brien. "I am acutely aware of the trauma these tragedies bring to families. But we can only work with the community to prevent more of them."

testicle

seamus wrote:

Banning tinted windows is one of the main ones. Tinted windows are a safety hazard for all other road users, not just the driver, because they reduce visibility. For example - if I'm driving behind you, and you have tinted windows, I can't see what's in front of you. That's a case of you affecting my ability to drive safely, forcing me to take extra care.

Never driven behind a Bus, Truck or Van then?

Corben Dallas

"I got the impression that this was what he meant.
If it's done by the manufacturer it might be ok.
But modifications done by the owners themselves aren't allowable"

so by this rational....if u can afford to go out and buy a new car from a dealer, Ford ST150 or whatever(paying €30K+) with halogen lights, tints etc fitted as standard thats ok, but if u buy a cheaper car and decide to fit them yourself(lets say the exact same parts) thats not?

What yur suggesting is wealth based law, so rich kids can have these mods but less well off ppl cant......
SNOB!

LegacyUser

Corben Dallas wrote:

"I got the impression that this was what he meant.
If it's done by the manufacturer it might be ok.
But modifications done by the owners themselves aren't allowable"

so by this rational....if u can afford to go out and buy a new from a dealer Ford ST150 or whatever(paying €30K+) with halogen tints etc fitted as standard thats ok, but if u buy a cheaper car and decide to fit them yourself(lets say the exact same parts) thats not?

What yur suggesting is wealth based law, so rich kids can have these mods but less well off ppl cant......
SNOB!

What he's suggesting that modifications that are done incorrectly and that affect other road users safety and the safety of the driver themselves should be outlawed. Its nothing to do with class distinction, so come up with a tangible arguement. The primary function of a vehicle is to take passengers from point A to point B in a safe and efficient manner.

Ernie Ball

This is just political grandstanding by Callely. You want to crack down on boy racers? How about enforcing existing laws?

Frankly, more annoying (and often dangerous) than some tw*t in a car with an exhaust are the morons who drive around with their fog lights on all the time. Most of them are not boy racers. So how about a law on that?

blastman

bruachain wrote:

What he's suggesting that modifications that are done incorrectly and that affect other road users safety and the safety of the driver themselves should be outlawed. Its nothing to do with class distinction, so come up with a tangible arguement. The primary function of a vehicle is to take passengers from point A to point B in a safe and efficient manner.

The change in the law doesn't mention whether the mods are done incorrectly or not, it just says they will not be allowed. The argument is a valid one (without the class part).

Borzoi

Ernie Ball wrote:

This is just political grandstanding by Callely. You want to crack down on boy racers? How about enforcing existing laws?

?

Totally agree - enforcement of existing laws is the first thing.

@Corben Dallas - watch it there sunshine, no need for it.

LegacyUser

blastman wrote:

The change in the law doesn't mention whether the mods are done incorrectly or not, it just says they will not be allowed. The argument is a valid one (without the class part).

Granted, my bad.

I'm sure you'll agree that there are modifications that are solely designed for performance and speed purposes as opposed to purely aesthetical changes.

It is these former issue that is a problem

Soupi

bruachain wrote:

On the other hand lets say Paddy does his car up because he likes to show the boys and girls how cool he is, and he likes to head to the car-park, or main road every week to meet and race against other drivers; He drives in a way that’s both dangerous and illegal, and he is a danger in this car to both himself and other road users. That’s what we need to get rid of. It would be the same situation if John was modding his computer to make is faster so he could start a spamming operation or running an illegal child-porn website from his house. Modding the object because you enjoy it and it’s your hobby is no problem. But modding it because you want to use it to break the law, is not on.

i don't agree, i think that if a "boy racer" wants to drive fast he's going to whether he has modded his car or not. there are fellas who do it to look cool but they wouldn't dare risk crashing their car because of the time and money they've put into it. i see fellas flying aroung in clapped out corsas, micras, starlets,etc with no modds on them.

i just don't see why people stereotype drivers because of what their car looks like. it'd be like me saying that every man that's between the ages of 50-65 haven't got a clue how to drive because of the amount of experiences i've had with them but i'm not gonna say that because i know that they are a minority and that people can't be judged by their age alone!

theShire

bruachain wrote:

What he's suggesting that modifications that are done incorrectly and that affect other road users safety and the safety of the driver themselves should be outlawed. Its nothing to do with class distinction, so come up with a tangible arguement. The primary function of a vehicle is to take passengers from point A to point B in a safe and efficient manner.

I agree with your previous post re hobby vs showing-off, and as for 'incorrect modifications' - the way I see it is that we should be allowed to mod our cars, let me rephrase that, TASTEFULLY modify our cars and then have them tested to ensure that these mods do not cause any problems to the safety of our vehicles. And, if the car passes, then it is road legal.

This is pretty much what the NCT is supposed to do but, as we all know by now, it doesn't. Since getting my newest car in June I have only been pulled over once, on my way home from work at 8pm on a Sat nite driving through town, the Guarda pulled passed all the traffic on the wrong side of the road and shouted at me to pull over immediately. Having done absolutley nothing wrong, sitting in traffic, I was fairly confused by this. He told me my exhaust was illegal because he deemed it to be too loud and that he wanted all my details presented and the exhaust changed. I said that my car had just undergone the NCT days previously to which he said that it doesn't matter and that the NCT sticker means nothing.

I now have my own dB meter and can test my exhaust, so if and when I am next stopped I will be asking what the legal noise limit is. The way I see it is that if the guardai don't know what the Law is, then why are they allowed to enforce it.

If they are educated with the Law and using the proper equipment, can prove that someone is breaking the law then, fair is fair, you're done. What I hate is those Guardai who just say, X&Y are illegal without knowing why.

Sorry for my rant, and I accept any and all criticisms given

Archeron

Ernie Ball wrote:

This is just political grandstanding by Callely. You want to crack down on boy racers? How about enforcing existing laws?

Frankly, more annoying (and often dangerous) than some tw*t in a car with an exhaust are the morons who drive around with their fog lights on all the time. Most of them are not boy racers. So how about a law on that?

100% right Ernie Ball. I think Mr Callelly might be sorry he opened this particular issue. If they crack down on existing laws, then they'd take an awful lot of danger off the roads. For example, how many people have seen:
50+ year old business men in high class Merc/Saabs driving people off the road as if they own it? clapped out 80's escorts undertaking in hard shoulders? Young women in Nissan Micras stopping in the most unbelievable places possible? Cars double parked outside schools cutting off visibility to footpaths? 40 foot trucks tailgating at high speed? And so on and so on. This is just another cheap PR shot by this dumb goverment. Cop on Ivor, modding cars is MOST of the time a fairly innocent pastime. Just because some people dont like it doesnt mean everyone should suffer. I personally think Big massive jeeps are pointless and dangerous and unnessecary, but I dont go complaining they should be banned. This is a free country after all. Isnt it?

Interceptor

Archeron wrote:

100% right Ernie Ball. I think Mr Callelly might be sorry he opened this particular issue. If they crack down on existing laws, then they'd take an awful lot of danger off the roads. For example, how many people have seen:
50+ year old business men in high class Merc/Saabs driving people off the road as if they own it? clapped out 80's escorts undertaking in hard shoulders? Young women in Nissan Micras stopping in the most unbelievable places possible? Cars double parked outside schools cutting off visibility to footpaths? 40 foot trucks tailgating at high speed? And so on and so on. This is just another cheap PR shot by this dumb goverment. Cop on Ivor, modding cars is MOST of the time a fairly innocent pastime. Just because some people dont like it doesnt mean everyone should suffer. I personally think Big massive jeeps are pointless and dangerous and unnessecary, but I dont go complaining they should be banned. This is a free country after all. Isnt it?

**Rapturous applause** ^^^ What he said^^^

'c

drdre

i think that the new law is ridiculous, i was pulled by a guard yesterday and told me my tints were illegal, and i know its not for defo and i told him and he said stop arguing, i think they are just idiots as they donot know the law that well. also i know afew people that have been pulled for loud exhausts and they are sure its in the legal limit.

so my point is that the cops are just thick.

seamus

testicle wrote:

Never driven behind a Bus, Truck or Van then?

Read all the replies before replying yourself, thanks.

theShire

drdre wrote:

so my point is that the cops are just thick.

pretty blunt, but to the point

So I agree

ambro25

bruachain wrote:

Here's an article from the IT a few months ago which is worth a look...

Rear-wheel drives such as the BMW 320S, Subaru Impreza and Toyota Corolla twin cams (...)

How very well researched. Subarus are all 4WD. You'll have a job making a donut in one, unless you're talking about 'real world' rally car mods - and that would clock at well in excess of €10k. Anyhow, pedantic nitpicking aside...

As posted by chicken_food, how is this proposal going to take into account OEM mods, e.g. Ford or M-Tech sports exhausts or Xeon kits, etc. usually known as 'options' (bought at time of car purchase or later on from dealer as after-market parts)? How is this proposal going to take into account manufacturers' 'limited edition' models incorporating such mods when delivered with delivery miles on clock? For instance a Scoob STi (with a loud exhaust )? Absurd, to say the least. Knee-jerk, pointless political gesturing if ever I saw any...:rolleyes:

(Note to Corben Dallas - no, what he meant was that, since (i) there are cars which are factory-fitted with the kind of mods which are being discussed, (ii) out-lawing after-market mods will create a clash of have's (manufacturer/OEM mods, expensive) and have not's (after-market mods, cheaper but not necessarily worse than OEM), which is absurd).

And as posted by bruachain, mods are not the problem (and are already amply legistlated upon, as referred to earlier also), some modders are. In that latter respect, there is no difference between a modder souping-up his car for *dangerous* performance antics, and a non-modder driving the b*ll*cks out of his €250 'disposable' 1.0L Micra, that's failed the NCT 10 times, has no clear record of ownership anymore, and in all probability is not insured either (whereas I'd expect the modder to have insurance).

I know which problem, if I were a politician, would warrant tackling in priority - only it's so much easier to finger-point 'easily-identifiable' targets, such as modded cars, versus anynomous crapped-out bangers, ain't it? :mad:

As a final note, some food for thought: I have an after-market exhaust on my Impreza. It's louder than the OEM exhaust (though not deafening). I am not a boy-racer (or any other such denomination), but a respectable person with a family. The exhaust, though not OEM, was installed on the recommendation of the Subary main dealer (!), by whose own admission OEM exhausts on Subarus don't tend to last very long at all (of the order of 30k miles on 2L models). Why should I not be angered at this proposal, by the application of which I would rightly feel victimized?

bmoferrall

drdre wrote:

so my point is that the cops are just thick.

lol. You should join them and raise the average IQ so :v:
I reckon you're a piston short of a straight six drdre

theShire

ambro25 wrote:

As a final note, some food for thought: I have an after-market exhaust on my Impreza. It's louder than the OEM exhaust (though not deafening). I am not a boy-racer (or any other such denomination), but a respectable person with a family. The exhaust, though not OEM, was installed on the recommendation of the Subary main dealer (!), by whose own admission OEM exhausts on Subarus don't tend to last very long at all (of the order of 30k miles on 2L models). Why should I not be angered at this proposal, by the application of which I would rightly feel victimized?

Well said..

I'm in the same boat with my exhaust, not a backbox, but a cat-back system, an original Toyota system will cost me over 650euro and what I have on at the mo is a Japanese stainless steel system which i believe will last alot longer.

elexes

i havent seen anyone quote the exact laws yet to window tinting just spout out figures .

as for the other issue . tho it dose have some merrit i like the uk system on this . all after market exhaust's can be used once they are estamped .

drdre

"I reckon you're a piston short of a straight six drdre"
What do you mean

Seth Brundle

The AA have come out against it:-
www.breakingnews.ie/2005/11/17/story230662.html

AA criticises Govt plan to outlaw modified cars
17/11/2005 - 11:30:19

The AA has criticised government plans to outlaw car modifications loved by so-called "boy racers".

The Government is planning to ban the modifications as part of reforms to the National Car Test.

From next January, all cars containing unauthorised modifications will fail the test, as will those whose engine noise exceeds new limits.

AA spokesman Conor Faughnan said he agreed that dangerous modifications should be banned, but it was wrong to automatically fail cars due to their appearance.

"I think it's a mistake to draw a direct link between the way a car looks and the way a driver behaves," he said.

ambro25

:rolleyes:

The Government is planning to ban the modifications as part of reforms to the National Car Test.

NCT reform what might this be, then? That it's going to be State-run? That a mandatory fail will be issued for any first NCT test? ... the mind boggles...

From next January, all cars containing unauthorised modifications will fail the test, as will those whose engine noise exceeds new limits.

unauthorised So what will be authorised? Will there be a list compiled? By whom? Will bull-bars and roof-mounted projectors be 'unauthorised' I wonder? So many questions, so little information

whose engine noise exceeds new limits and what might those 'new limits' be, then? And measured how? @ idle? @ 1,000 rpm? @ 4,000 rpm?

AA spokesman Conor Faughnan said he agreed that dangerous modifications should be banned, but it was wrong to automatically fail cars due to their appearance.

Well, that's an interesting dichotomy: 'dangerous' mods (please define... roof-mounted 75mm howitzer? NOS? DTM-style wing mirrors? Pfff...) and 'appearance'. Where it transpires very clearly that modders are the target, and no-one else, and are *currently* all tarred with the same brush...

Talk about Nanny State, FFS - and she drives a 1.0L Micra, btw

gurramok

seamus wrote:

Banning tinted windows is one of the main ones. Tinted windows are a safety hazard for all other road users, not just the driver, because they reduce visibility. For example - if I'm driving behind you, and you have tinted windows, I can't see what's in front of you. That's a case of you affecting my ability to drive safely, forcing me to take extra care.

Then you might as well ban buses, trucks vans, they will all block your visibility!
Have you ever been in a car with tinted windows, you'll be surprised that with tints there is hardly an affect on the limits of driver visibilty, they are crystal clear.

If you are talking about darkened windows where the driver can barely see outside, then i agree with you. Not all tints are the same imho.

maidhc

Welcome to Communist Russia!

My car is bog standard, and I dont get the whole boy racer thing at all. But what is an "authorised mod".

Can we put on genuine ford alloys, but not BBS?
Are you allowed use spurious parts for your car instead of genuine ones? Are Fram oil filters banned (that might be a good thing )
Can the radio be changed?
What about side skirts? Is it ok to modify your can by taking them off a crashed "GTi" model, but not if you buy them new.
Spoilers?
Front fogs?
Go Faster stripes?

Soupi

i know seamus has been getting alot of stick over saying that he can't see in front of peolpe with tinted windows and i thought that i might as well through in my tupence worth.

it is actually illegal to tint your windscreen or your rear window so unless you're trying to look through the car from the side than you shouldn't have a problem seeing in front of them.

i won't mention the buses,trucks,vans,etc ha ha

egan007

Archeron wrote:

young people in nice cars.

This is rare....

gurramok

Soupi wrote:

i know seamus has been getting alot of stick over saying that he can't see in front of peolpe with tinted windows and i thought that i might as well through in my tupence worth.

it is actually illegal to tint your windscreen or your rear window so unless you're trying to look through the car from the side than you shouldn't have a problem seeing in front of them.

i won't mention the buses,trucks,vans,etc ha ha

AFAIK, its illegal to tint only the windscreen, a top upper bar is allowed. Back windows tint ok. I was quoted this by the tint installer as the legal status by law(last year)

PaulieC

"In what is seen as a massive clampdown on boy racer cars, the new rules would fail cars with excessively noisy engines and certain models with double exhaust pipes.

Under current legislation cars are allowed to have blacked-out windows as long as the driver's window is clear glass. But under the new criteria, cars with any of the windows blacked-out would fail the test.
"

what a crock...are the government going to refund the price of a car (e.g. Seat Alhambra) that you bought in 2003 with privacy glass ?

I thought at the time of the smoking ban introduction that the government had waaay to easy a time getting that through (I know most people are anti-smoking), but it just goes to show that if they think they can get away with it, they will try it.

Dangerous times...

kdevitt

No problem with this if its done sensibly. Get rid of limo tints - leave the rest as they are unless they're over a set legal limit. Fail cars where the springs have been chopped rather than replaced with proper uprated items. Fail anyone who sprayed their rear lights black rendering their brake lights and indicators virtually useless. Get rid of the cherry bomb exhausts and other crap that does nothing but create a nuisance.

Speaking of exhausts though, I presume this change will force the likes of Advance Pistop to stop fitting exhaust as they're not OEM items? :rolleyes:

Also, I thought that a new law couldn't be applied retrospectively, hence cars older than 92 not needing the CAT, and cars older than 87 not having to comply with the reg plate formats, surely this would be the same?