Yes that's true George. But most of those things are changing too in the near future. Very soon airbag cut off dates will be enforced. The industry is changing to address the most common problems in safety. It's been noted more a more airbags on older cars don't go off. It's going to be addressed with easy to recognise cut off dates for owners who will be able to check the airbag dates themselves. The industry will also respond to make airbags last longer. All good. But at the moment, it's emissions, emissions, emissions! Rightly so too. 

 

Ian

Edited 20 June, 201411 yr by Estate Man

...So lots of cars over 15 years old in the UK have Air Bags that may not deploy, or deploy safely...

In the US, VW/Audi (and most other manufacturers) have extended the service life to 20 years and it is likely to be extended again shortly.

Mercedes estimated a 10 year life when they were first introduced and now have stated a service life of 30 years (except in extreme low humidity environments).

NTSB/NHTSA continue to monitor accidents where airbag have/should have deployed.

Estate Man. The link that has been posted is explicitly clear in saying that it MAYBE ILLEGAL. It does not categorically say it is illegal. The legislation it links predates DPFs and does not explicitly mention DPF technology, it does however various EU instruments which I haven't followed, but the fact that the information published by the government uses very specific language suggests that there is sufficient ambiguity in the EU stuff to.

Do you have a link to published epidemiological evidence relating to this explosion in disease (rather than political hyperbole)?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Hi George, 

 

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but I haven't as yet seen or heard of a vehicle with a dpf removed pass an MOT since Feb this year. All my ex-colleagues (I took early retirement in January) are failing them. So if some testers are passing them they can lose their operators licence to test. The only thing that may be happening George, is the testers may believe the dpf is present and working, but the guts of it have been removed and the tester at the moment cannot check the output properly until the new equipment arrives. Otherwise, if they knowingly pass a dpf removed or tampered with car, they are committing an offence for which the tester is criminally liable. The owners too are committing an offence by using the vehicle on public roads punishable by a fine of several thousands of pounds. The law is very very clear, as is the MOT test rules. 

 

For clarification, look here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263018/diesel-particulate-filters-guidance.pdf

 

NOTE the section on 'Legal requirements and the MOT test on the first page.

 

It's also worth noting why this is all happening. There is an absolute explosion (epidemic it's been called) of lung and brain disease being caused by diesel particulates. Those are the words of G'ment ministers in the health service.  Amongst the explosion in diesel engined cars over the last few years, the removal of dpf's by the less responsible part of the fraternity has increased exponentially. One car with the dpf removed can put out more particulates than 12 diesel cars with the dpf installed, and many many times more (around 18 times as much) nox and other nasty substances than a dpf equipped car. That's because the dpf contains the CAT which is also removed by removal of the dpf. But the particulates hang about in the air unseen for hours and are breathed in by us all as we drive and as we relax in our homes. They drift for miles. That's how bad it is. The EU and g'ment is doing what it has to do. The law is there to protect us all.

 

PS: Just notices Huskoda posted the same link earlier, but everyone do please read it. It's as clear as can be and all Testing Stations know this plus a load more actually! They all received their notifications by official channels way back. These rules also affect petrol cars whose owners remove the CAT.

 

Hate to day it but I believe there have been posts on here about vehicles passing MOT's since Feb 2014 with the DPF removed - so you appear somewhat misinformed.

 

As to the link you posted it is quite clear that your interpretationof the wording is incorrect.  You are implying explicit legal meanings when the wording does not state this.  The wording is that it is an offence to use a vehicle that has been mkodified such that it no longer meets the air quality emissions standards it was designed to meet.  However, until such time as some form of equipment and test is introduced that allows that particular compliance to be measured and tested for individual vehicles within the uk fleet the compliance for such a vehcile cannot be checked and hence the letter of the law cannot be determined and enforced.

 

It is also worth noting that the data upon which the argument is based indicates a 6 month increase in loife expectancy upon removal of ALL PM2.5's from the atmosphere.  The latter is not, unfortunately, possible as PM2.5's are produced from a variety of sources, some of which are natural  (so it is not just diesel vehicles producing them) but either way the reference clearly states that the UNCERTAINTIES of the ESTIMATES with regard to life expectancy have a vast variance, from 1 month to 1 year.  There are therefore far more influencial risks to life expectancy that shoudl be addressed first in my humble opnion.

trundlenut, the link is not to a legal document, but one advising of the situation. But to use your words, the document is "explicitly clear" that it is illegal to use a dpf removed vehicle on the roads here, or actually anywhere in the European Union. 

 

The wording you mention "may be illegal" refers to emissions in the test. This is to cover the fact that a brand new engine or very low mileage engine could conceivably emit low particulates with no load on at high revs during the test. This COULD mean an illegal vehecle passing the test. This is a situation that would not continue for that engine under load (as driven on the road) or as the miles go on. And, older engines will not pass for sure. To prevent "illegal engines" which do not comply with legislation from getting through the test the check for conformity is switched to physical presence of the dpf. If one is not present the laws says it cannot pass the MOT. New equipment soon to be introduced will be able to tell straight away if the vehicle has it's dpf intact. 

 

I posted links to several damning reports about the damaging effects of PM'S on health sometime ago. I'm not going there again as everyone shouts you down and tells you the tests are wrong. So search yourself, it's all public knowledge and has been widely reported on tv with special news and other reports all about it from the NHS, Sheffield Uni, and loads of other reseach institutes. Search for the latest reports from late last year and this year. I also have medical reports which have been sent to me at the beginning of the year which I cannot publish as I do not have copyright.  It was confirmed scientifically late last year that PM's actually cause cancer of the brain, and tumours in other parts of the body including the lungs, also heart disease. There is no safe exposure limit to PM's it has been determined. Environmental air pollution studies have shown diesel particulates pose one of the most major threats to health in recent times, not dissimilar to white asbestos. 

 

Skomaz, I'm pretty sure I'm not misinformed and until January I worked in the industry as a master tech, and designing and developing diesel engines (amongst other things). This was my area. I still have my finger on the pulse. The MOT rules are explicitly clear that no vehicle with a dpf removed or tampered with will be allowed to pass the MOT. One of my earlier posts on that subject covers why some vehicles may still be passing the test even if the dpf has been tampered with. If there are some other reasons legal or otherwise, I haven't yet heard of them.  My now ex-colleagues have failed some dpf removed vehicles if the dpf is not present in accordance with the law, so I'm told. The problem is as you suggest, not being able at present, to test for nox and pm's. So that's why the government has told testers to fail on lack of dpf or signs of tampered with dpf. But you cannot always tell of course. But as said, that's temporary until the new equipment comes in. 

 

It should be noted that diesel engine particulate of the most damaging size are almost unique in the damage they do to our bodies. They are the most prevalent man made particulate in our towns and cities and on main roads. As you say Skomaz, other pm's exist at even lower levels in size, but are not as or harmful, or harmful at all to our bodies as diesel pm's are. This is due to the very damaging quantities of impurities and toxins in diesel pm's which are not found in other types of pm's in such a common way. Most impurities in diesel pm's are carcinogenic and diesel pm levels are rising at an alarming rate in many parts of the country.

 

 

Hallo

I ou4chased my monte tdi 105 to do some.big motorway miles a year ago and now due to job changes I do local miles with the odd blast down the dual carriageway or b roads at the weekend. Im worried ill get dpf problems now my situ has changed. Other than sell the car and get something petrol - can I get away with going for a dpf delete? Uk mot guides say that its a pass as long as theres no evidence of dpf or cat removal ... and darkside do an exhaust that looks standard but removes the dpf.

Thoughts?

 

 

Hi again ferris, and others. Here are some of the links I published previously but these are just reports within the media, not the scientific data which is available but go find it yourself. 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2158574/Diesel-engine-exhaust-fumes-major-cancer-risk.html

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532   World Health Organisation

 

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/world-health-organisation-diesel-engine-exhaust-causes-lung-cancer.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust

Just done a spot of googling re diesel exhaust and cancer. Its categorisation as a group 1 carcinogen, along with tobacco, asbestos, sawdust and being a painter. One of the key studies which led to the classification found a three fold increase in lifetime cancer risk to miners exposed to high concentrations of diesel exhaust. I.e. 3 in 100,000 compared to 1 in 100,000 for miners not exposed. With a lag of at least 15 years between exposure and developing cancer. So to suggest that there is an epidemic is somewhat daily mail. I also found some studies from the university of Sheffield regarding physiological effects of diesel exhaust exposure in people with COPD which concluded that exposure did have an adverse impact on such people but there are plenty of other factors which would similarly impact on the life expectancy and severity of illness in such people.

I have tried searching but couldn't find any of your earlier links, so if you do gave a chance to repost them it would be useful.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

But cars are passing MOT's since February 2014, with DPF's Removed.    

So the Examiner is passing them as Roadworthy since it is a visual check.

 

They have the same Notes & Guidance.

So not quite so Simple really.

I agree, at the moment if you have had the '' guts '' removed but the outer metalwork is in tact then no, the mot test does not know..... but when the testing equpt comes in, it will fail. All the discussion on what is or is not legal is just odd, cars with dpf's removed WILL fail an mot in the future, i just don't want to be the owner of that car when it does, it effectively becomes worthless overnight, or at best worth a bit in parts !! The age of it will determine if it would of been written off in an insurance claim type calculation.

Edited 20 June, 201411 yr by Hudson1

LOL, Good change of heart. Very Environmental friendly.

 

a year ago you were saying

'as soon as i can its gone'.  I think that was you on about the DPF after you had remapped.

I was looking at garages online this afternoon and came across a garage that is offering DPF removal. Can't imagine a VAT reg company would be offering it if it were illegal?

Removal isn't illegal.  Using on a public road thereafter is.  Probably one of those "loopholes"...with a disclaimer to be signed?

Yawn, yet another thread to add to the long list where we are presented with different interpretations of several different links, documents and publications.

 

Cars are passing MOT's today with their DPF's removed - FACT.

 

Cars will continue to pass MOT's without DPF's fitted - FACT.

 

I continue to wait for the thread where a car fails it's MOT for an absent DPF or someone's tail of woe for being towed away by the Police.

 

Something tells me I'll be waiting for a long time, certainly long enough to read more scaremongering.

 

...I continue to wait for the thread where a car fails it's MOT for an absent DPF or someone's tail of woe for being towed away by the Police...

I know of one that failed, but the owner took it elsewhere and it passed.

The amount of Octavia vRS PD170 owners on Briskoda with DPF issues (I was one of them) that have had their DPF's removed and mapped out by Shark (and other reputable garages) is huge, yet still no posts of an actual MOT failure.

 

This is despite an almost daily posting of a "my DPF has packed up" thread.

 

One thing is for sure, they aren't asking Skoda to fit a new DPF at £1,200 on their £5,000 car.

 

And strangely Shark continue to do a roaring trade

Hi trundlenut, the links I posted above your last post at the top of the page are some of the media reports about the now proven link with cancer and diesel pm's. Sorry I can't post the actual somewhat scary medical research I have which came to me earlier in the year. It's copyrighted and cost over £300 to get. I don't own it.

 

People have asked why I have to use medical research when I'm an engine design engineer? The reason is it's one of a raft of informative subject matter that we have to use so we know what targets to aim for when designing new engines. When have to know latest EU regs, proposed regs and air pollution criteria. The end game is to minimise impact on health and environment whilst developing a good engine that is nice to drive and gives us what we expect of a modern motor. However, the effects we are seeing now with the 'massive' number of brain cancers and other cancers which are proven to be linked to diesel pm's is alarming. And this is cumalative from the earliest cr engines and pd engine days where cats were not being fitted. Remember, these engine have been out for 13 to 14 years or more. It's only been mainstream to fit dpfs in any big quantity to diesels in the car market for around 6 years.  It's possible to say definitively in many cases what has caused the cancer because the tumours are examined in detail. This is not in every case, but governments around the world are worried about diesel particulates and much research has been going on and still is. It wasn't long ago that you could walk down the street in many cities and be exposed to asbestos from brakes and clutches on car at the rate of 17-18ppms. The dedicated safe limit at that time in asbestos factories was 4ppms. Now, it's zero in factories where asbestos is used or worked with and now asbestos is not used in cars the level is almost zero in the street. But, we are experiencing rising asbestos related deaths each year from the legacy of asbesto in cars. Sadly, it's going to be the same with diesel pm's, it's already starting. Of course, there are other sources of asbesto too such as in your plaster board at home if your house was built between 1950 and 2010 (the first year any house is guaranteed not to have asbestos in it). This is not scaremongering but actual fact. So the last thing we need is loonies taking off their dpf's. There is no excuse or reason even if you want to tune. If you cannot afford to run a car with a dpf then get a petrol car. Simples. 

Edited 21 June, 201411 yr by Estate Man

Saying that some people are passing MOTs without DPFs is irrelevant. The question here was is it legal. The answer to that is clear and backed up twice by different legislation. Firstly the MOT requirements state the DPF must be present. MUST. Secondly the act that states it is a criminal offence to modify the exhaust system to no longer meet the emissions requirements for the vehicle. That garages still advertise the service and do it doesn't mean a thing. They're not committing any offences (yet) as it falls on the driver for using the vehicle in that state afterwards.

To say its legal because some people are getting away with it is as absurd as saying shoplifting is legal as people get away with that too.

I'm going to start wearing one of those SOCO suits and a gas mask 24/7 in future

You can't be too careful with all these particulates flying around

You will note often when its Quoted concerning EU Legislation, Type Approval, Construction & Use, etc,

 

That there are often DfT / VOSA Statements about Law,

that is England & Wales Law, Scottish Law, Traffic Law, Statute Law, Enforceable Law, the Laws in UK Courts.

 

They just forget to mention they intend to change the 'Statute Law', in the UK,

only, they have not yet done it, the Acts of Parliament are not yet in Place.

They are still with Civil Servants sorting out the complexities of taking cases to the Law Courts.

Because we are in the EU, & EU Drivers are in the UK, 

& UK Drivers take vehicles to Mainland Europe & other Countries.

 

Often it is just Quoted Draft Reports & Papers and various guff that they will get in place sometime in the Future.

 

Like sometime in the Future they will get their MOT Testing Station properly sorted out Online,

They will Get plug into the OBD, Web Cams on the Test Station Bays, cars on Scales, VIN Numbers giving the Manufacturers Details on the car, Bike, Van or what ever.

Read the Engines Output and Emissions, Maintenance & Service Records, or Mods to the ECU.

Then it will tell if the Insurance is Valid to the vehicle, Standard or Modified.

 

So DPF Removal is Illegal as people read stuff, and as MOT Qualified & Current MOT Testers are saying.

Well dont have your DPF removed if you know all that.

I am sure Others will continue to do as they decide.

Huskoda, yes the act of removing a dpf is going to be a criminal offence soon too. The firms that take them off will then of course be forced to stop this dangerous and absurd practice. 

Huskoda, yes the act of removing a dpf is going to be a criminal offence soon too. The firms that take them off will then of course be forced to stop this dangerous and absurd practice. 

 

It's probably technically going to be a 'motoring offence' as opposed to a 'criminal offence' if we're being precise..........I doubt it would appear on a PNC record

Hi trundlenut, the links I posted above your last post at the top of the page are some of the media reports about the now proven link with cancer and diesel pm's. Sorry I can't post the actual somewhat scary medical research I have which came to me earlier in the year. It's copyrighted and cost over £300 to get. I don't own it.

People have asked why I have to use medical research when I'm an engine design engineer? The reason is it's one of a raft of informative subject matter that we have to use so we know what targets to aim for when designing new engines. When have to know latest EU regs, proposed regs and air pollution criteria. The end game is to minimise impact on health and environment whilst developing a good engine that is nice to drive and gives us what we expect of a modern motor. However, the effects we are seeing now with the 'massive' number of brain cancers and other cancers which are proven to be linked to diesel pm's is alarming. And this is cumalative from the earliest cr engines and pd engine days where cats were not being fitted. Remember, these engine have been out for 13 to 14 years or more. It's only been mainstream to fit dpfs in any big quantity to diesels in the car market for around 6 years. It's possible to say definitively in many cases what has caused the cancer because the tumours are examined in detail. This is not in every case, but governments around the world are worried about diesel particulates and much research has been going on and still is. It wasn't long ago that you could walk down the street in many cities and be exposed to asbestos from brakes and clutches on car at the rate of 17-18ppms. The dedicated safe limit at that time in asbestos factories was 4ppms. Now, it's zero in factories where asbestos is used or worked with and now asbestos is not used in cars the level is almost zero in the street. But, we are experiencing rising asbestos related deaths each year from the legacy of asbesto in cars. Sadly, it's going to be the same with diesel pm's, it's already starting. Of course, there are other sources of asbesto too such as in your plaster board at home if your house was built between 1950 and 2010 (the first year any house is guaranteed not to have asbestos in it). This is not scaremongering but actual fact. So the last thing we need is loonies taking off their dpf's. There is no excuse or reason even if you want to tune. If you cannot afford to run a car with a dpf then get a petrol car. Simples.

I'm not sure where you got your information on asbestos wrong but based on the training and hundreds of pages guidance etc I have waded through in the last 6-9 months it is almost entirely facially incorrect.

Asbestos in air is measured in fibres/ml. Achieving a zero detection limit for any kind of asbestos air monitoring is basically impossible.

The levels of cancer (mesothelioma) caused by asbestos are as a direct result of exposure primarily in the 70s and 80s and we have not as yet seen the peak in cases. Currently the biggest risk group are plumbers and electricians who may come in contact with asbestos during their work.

This is based on HSE and PHE etc information. The public are not at a statistically important elevated level of risk from asbestos compared to other risk factors in the environment.

I can also find no information to support you assertion that that diesel fumes have caused an epidemic of brain disease.

Whilst I am not an epidemiologist or toxicologist I have had to spend a lot of time looking at this as part of my work, which involves assessing risk to humans from anthropogenic contamination.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

The companies who produce DPFs which break down after a few years (probably just outside any warranty period) and need replacing at a cost of £x thousand pounds a time must be rubbing their hands together with glee

 

And who picks up the tab...........yep, us mugs, the consumer

 

:(

Oh and Estate Man. I assume that information you have is some kind of peer reviewed paper, if this has been published then you are perfectly within your rights to provide where the paper is available. As it is copyrighted I assume that it is published in a recognised scientific publication. I can get access to them through work.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Brimma, it's going to be a criminal offence for third party firms to remove or tamper with dpf's. The papers are going through the eu now. But won't get introduced for a while yet as I understand. Nothing to do with a motoring offence. I was at the meeting in Brussels discussing this very thing as a back up expert witness last year. 

 

Trundle, the nhs has said there is an epidemic of brain tumours. Not all of them caused by pm's. But, it's come to light that more than expected are being caused by diesel pm's and the number is growing a lot each year. Do more research and you'll see what I mean. Change your search parameters.  It's been in the press repeatedly and in all aspects of the media, over and over again. I'm surprised you haven't heard. You can read about it in many medical journals too. Can't help you with the medical research data reports as it belongs to my ex-firm, costs loads of money and contains engineering research data which is secret. It's for our eyes only. It's the sort of thing that cannot fall into competitors hands. It's format would prohibit me from any form of copying or sharing as the data is so intermixed for our purposes. It's been specially prepared for us. It's 240 odd pages long! That's even though the research regarding the medical facts are from public sources gathered from WHO and the NHS to name but two. That part is available to you or anyone. There is often a cost if you are requesting the whole report though. I cannot direct you on that one. Regarding asbestos, now it's measured in ppm's and fibres/l depending who you talk to. HSE are fine with either. I have an air quality report from 2 years ago stating ppm's but that's all semantics as the reason I brought up asbestos was to illustrate the issues we face from the motor car, past and present. PPM's are going the same way as asbestos in terms of health, and yes I'm asbestos trained too and hold just about every certificate in asbestos safety you can think of.  Also taught H&S regarding asbestos handling and disposal for ECC some years back. Asbestos deaths are increasing each year, as you say, from the asbestos put into the environment years ago, it's a legacy and it's now known that the general public, that's us, have all received a bigger dose of asbestos from cars than we every thought possible. Mostly from the 70's, 80's and early 90's. It's surprisingly no longer just plumbers and heating engineers dying from asbestos poisoning of different kinds. Incidentally, I lost a mate who was a heating engineer. He was aged 42 and died from asbestos poisoning. Should anyone worry, not really. Very little brown or blue was used in vehicle and that's the quickest acting and kills in 1-2 years for blue and 2-4 years for brown (yes I know the proper names for it). Brown used in commercials in small quantities only. None now. Diesel pm's are going to be a much bigger problem than asbestos because we are all being exposed, even in many of our home to them. But this is well off topic. I'm out of this one!

Deaths from mesothelioma are increasing, asbestosis on the other hand is not an issue for the general public as it I'd purely dose related, yes it can kill quickly but you have to be exposed to a lot of it, doing jobs such as lagging pipes with loose asbestos or actually producing the stuff. It will not ever be an issue for the general public.

I will try searching more but I spent half an hour the other day and could find nothing concrete relating to an epidemic of brain tumours. Spanish flu was an epidemic.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk