Aftermarket exhausts

[Mississippi Bullfrog]

Something I spotted via the Bobber forum, several companies making aftermarket exhausts have currently withdrawn them from sale. When customers who have ordered systems have asked where their new exhaust is they get an email saying that from now on anyone buying an exhaust system that is either louder than the oem or involves a decat will need to sign a declaration that the bike is for track or off road use only.

 

The reason given is that new legislation is making anyone who sells or installs a none compliant exhaust liable to prosecution. 

 

 

[Ian Frog]

There have been a few videos on you tube about this in the states, mainly Harley dealers saying they are no longer prepared to deal with certain aftermarket suppliers.

I wasn`t expecting it this side of the atlantic quite so quick.

Cheers

Ian

[Phil1]

Surely if they're BS/kitemarked etc and designed for road use (with a baffle etc) then there shouldn't be any issues I wouldn't have thought?

 

I can only assume it will apply to those that are making ones that are actually only intended for off road use that are subject to more intense scrutiny. 

[Ian Frog]

Not sure if you are right @Phil1 as I have just found that most Vance and Hines exhausts for example have been updated or revised recently (obviously prices haven`t dropped lol) and some suppliers holding the old model reference numbers are all of a sudden withdrawing them.

Cheers

Ian

[S-Westerly]

Disheartening.  The dead hand of bureaucracy falling onto motorbikes. 

[Stu]

This is due to a car tuner in the UK getting done for removing emissions related stuff and the courts not being satisfied that they was doing enough to ensure they are for track use only. 

 

The court was saying that they should have made sure the cars wasn't driven away from their premises and instead they should have been on the back of a transporter 

[S-Westerly]

I hear enough cars racketing around my neck of the woods with obviously illegal exhausts. Plod seem to completely ignore them. By definition they aren't exactly stealthy. Apart from one Subaru WRX I see (and hear) they are mostly small Fords and Vauxhalls and usually quite sluggish performance wise.

[Phil1]

6 hours ago, Stu said:

This is due to a car tuner in the UK getting done for removing emissions related stuff and the courts not being satisfied that they was doing enough to ensure they are for track use only. 

 

The court was saying that they should have made sure the cars wasn't driven away from their premises and instead they should have been on the back of a transporter 

The onus should always be on the driver of the car/vehicle. 

 

The garage should have just set up a disclaimer form that the driver has to sign to say he understands the car isnt road legal and the garage doesn't accept any responsibility for it once it's left the premises.

 

I'm constantly bombarded with ads these days on Facebook about adblue removal, decat systems, mileage "correction" etc etc. Most of which is irresponsible at best and illegal at worst. It's not the garages fault though, it's the drivers that don't give a toss. 

[bonio]

1 hour ago, Phil1 said:

 

I'm constantly bombarded with ads these days on Facebook about adblue removal, decat systems, mileage "correction" etc etc. Most of which is irresponsible at best and illegal at worst. It's not the garages fault though, it's the drivers that don't give a toss. 

CPS should be bringing Meta to court. Completely irresponsible to make money by dealing with people whose business is to flout the law.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Phil1 said:

The onus should always be on the driver of the car/vehicle. 

 

The garage should have just set up a disclaimer form that the driver has to sign to say he understands the car isnt road legal and the garage doesn't accept any responsibility for it once it's left the premises.

 

I'm constantly bombarded with ads these days on Facebook about adblue removal, decat systems, mileage "correction" etc etc. Most of which is irresponsible at best and illegal at worst. It's not the garages fault though, it's the drivers that don't give a toss. 

 

I totally agree but the court says they should have done more 

[Stu]

https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/motoring-issues/illegal-exhaust-modifications/#:~:text=A second car tuning company,rendered pop bang remaps illegal

 

There's been another one done! 

[Stu]

And here is the original case 

 

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/consumer-news/361602/uk-firm-fitting-pop-bang-aftermarket-exhausts-fined-landmark-court-case

[Phil1]

Reading those reports, it seems they're liable as they've not taken reasonable steps to warn the customer about the legalities of it. 

 

I think had they made a disclaimer that the customer had to sign and agree to before the work was carried out, then they wouldn't have had any issues. As far as making the customer take the car away on a trailer is a bit far and out of the remit of the garages involved. 

 

In terms of the MOT test, they now state that if the car/vehicle has a dangerous fault found on the MOT test, then it can't/shouldn't be driven away from the MOT station. How does the MOT centre prevent that from happening though? They can't hold the keys or forcefully prevent them from doing so, they can only tell them it shouldn't be driven away. If they ignore that advice then it's down to the driver again, and they're liable for prosecution should they do so, not the MOT station.

 

The MOT station could further cover themselves, by ringing the police and explain the situation, but it can't be them held responsible if they've taken reasonable steps. 

Edited April 7, 2024 by Phil1

[S-Westerly]

Good luck getting plod to attend for noisy exhausts.

[Mississippi Bullfrog]

2 hours ago, S-Westerly said:

Good luck getting plod to attend for noisy exhausts.

And thereon lies part of the issue. Since the police can't / won't  tackle wannabe Lewis Hamiltons in their Ford Fiestas the politicians shove the problem back up the chain to make all modifications illegal. 

 

It's a lazy / cheap way to tackle the obnoxious minority at the expense of the underrepresented majority of enthusiasts. 

[S-Westerly]

Too true. Right now I'm kind of scratching my head to find out what the police actually do. Chase killers maybe which is a good thing but all the stuff that affects ordinary people - burglaries, mugging, anti social behaviour generally just gets ignored. 

[Mississippi Bullfrog]

18 minutes ago, S-Westerly said:

Too true. Right now I'm kind of scratching my head to find out what the police actually do. Chase killers maybe which is a good thing but all the stuff that affects ordinary people - burglaries, mugging, anti social behaviour generally just gets ignored. 

I can answer that question.

 

Two of them rolled up this morning just as we were serving bacon butties and pastries for breakfast. They ate the bacon butties, and the pastries, then drank a cup of coffee each.

 

And then went for a wee. 

[Joe85]

Of all the problems facing the UK today, noisy exhausts on 0.1% of the vehicles on the roads doesn’t seem like a priority to me.

 

I’d rather they focused on stopping the ***** stealing bikes, first.

 

 

[Joe85]

16 hours ago, S-Westerly said:

Too true. Right now I'm kind of scratching my head to find out what the police actually do. Chase killers maybe which is a good thing but all the stuff that affects ordinary people - burglaries, mugging, anti social behaviour generally just gets ignored. 

Yeh… but your exhaust is a bit noisy, mate. Piss taker.

Too right that they dispatch a meat wagon with 15 rozzers inside to pull you over and fine you.

[Capt Sisko]

20 hours ago, S-Westerly said:

Good luck getting plod to attend for noisy exhausts.

True, but what plod don't like is no insurance. If a vehicle has failed it's MOT with the testing station saying there are sufficient grounds to say it can't be driven away, then an insurance company is very likely to say that your insurance is invalid if you do and almost certainly will in the event of a claim. We all know insurance companies will look for the tiniest of small print clauses to avoid paying out.

[mealexme]

I'm struggling to get my head around this.

 

The garage thing I kind of get. Sort of. 

They've installed a non-road legal part and not told the owners. Fine.

 

But companies withdrawing exhausts from the market all together seems like an over-reaction.

 

Surely a simple disclaimer on the website, and another on the invoice in the box that simply says "not for road use" is sufficient? 

 

Plus, this:

On 06/04/2024 at 08:34, Phil1 said:

Surely if they're BS/kitemarked etc and designed for road use (with a baffle etc) then there shouldn't be any issues I wouldn't have thought?

Isn't that the whole point of the BS/kitemark? To show it conforms everything needed to be road legal?

[Mississippi Bullfrog]

1 hour ago, mealexme said:

I'm struggling to get my head around this.

 

The garage thing I kind of get. Sort of. 

They've installed a non-road legal part and not told the owners. Fine.

 

But companies withdrawing exhausts from the market all together seems like an over-reaction.

 

Surely a simple disclaimer on the website, and another on the invoice in the box that simply says "not for road use" is sufficient? 

 

Plus, this:

Isn't that the whole point of the BS/kitemark? To show it conforms everything needed to be road legal?

I suspect the issue is that manufacturers and workshops are making and fitting non-legal exhausts knowing full well that 99% of them are going to be used on the public roads. So the legislation is being tightened to make them more responsible for the products they manufacture and install. 

 

Adding a disclaimer on their sales website hasn't proved to work for years. 

[curlylegend]

On 07/04/2024 at 14:41, S-Westerly said:

Good luck getting plod to attend for noisy exhausts.

Good luck getting them to attend for anything nowadays.

[Phil1]

On 10/04/2024 at 20:35, Mississippi Bullfrog said:

I suspect the issue is that manufacturers and workshops are making and fitting non-legal exhausts knowing full well that 99% of them are going to be used on the public roads. So the legislation is being tightened to make them more responsible for the products they manufacture and install. 

 

Adding a disclaimer on their sales website hasn't proved to work for years. 

It wouldn't take much to go one step further though and have a form the customer is required to sign when they purchase/have fitted a non road legal item. That goes a long way to show the customer has been forewarned, and still actively continued regardless. 

 

It's too easy for a customer to say "Oh well I wasn't fully aware that it wasn't road legal" at the moment. 

 

Unfortunately the people who are making, fitting and selling these non compliant items are going to lose some business because of this action, but they're just going to have to diversify and start making more things that are road legal, that appeal to people still. 

Edited April 14, 2024 by Phil1