Future of transport regulatory review: modernising vehicle standards
Introduction 
 
Thank you for responding to our consultation, your views will assist in developing a national framework allowing us to adapt the regulation of vehicles.
The closing date is 22 November 2021.
View all the questions
This survey provides questions based on user choice, a full copy of the questions is available (opens in a new window).
Print or save a copy of your response
When you get to the end of this questionnaire, you will be offered the chance to either print or save a copy of your response for your records. This option appears after you press 'Submit your response'.
Save and continue option
You have an option to 'save and continue' your response at any time. If you do that you will be sent a link via email to allow you to continue your response where you left off.

It's very important that you enter your correct email address if you choose to save and continue. If you make a mistake in the email address you won't receive the link you need to complete your response.
Accessibility statement
Read our accessibility statement for SmartSurvey forms (opens in a new window).
Confidentiality and data protection
This consultation by the Department for Transport is about gathering views to assist in developing a national framework allowing us to adapt the regulation of vehicles.
 
We are asking for:
•	your name and email address, in case we need to ask you follow-up questions about your responses (you do not have to give us this personal information, but if you do provide it, we will use it only for the purpose of asking follow-up questions)	
•	whether you are representing an organisation or yourself	
•	the total number of employees in your organisation, to weigh your response accordingly 	
•	the region your organisation is based in, to understand the bearing your regional location may have on your response	
•	the type of work of your organisation in order to better understand your relationship with the issue	
Your consultation response and the processing of personal data that it entails is necessary for the exercise of our functions as a government department. DfT will, under data protection law, be the controller for this information. DfT's privacy policy (open in new window) has more information about your rights in relation to your personal data, how to complain and how to contact the Data Protection Officer. 

Your personal data is processed on behalf of DfT by Smartsurvey, with respect that they run the survey collection software only, your personal data will not be shared with any other third parties, even those employed for the purpose of analysis.

We will not use your name or other personal details that could identify you when we report the results of the consultation. Any information you provide through the online questionnaire will be moved to our internal systems within 2 months of the consultation end date. The information will be kept securely and destroyed within 12 months of the closing date, with the exception of information and evidence of the Public Sector Equality Duty.

You 
1. Your (used for contact purposes only): 

name?  	 	

email?  	 	

 
2. Are you responding: *

  	as an individual? (Go to ‘Modernising vehicle standards’)	
  	on behalf of an organisation?	

Organisation details 
 
3. What is the name of your organisation? 

 
4. Your organisation is in: 

  	academia?	
  	industry?	
  	the public sector?	
  	a non-governmental organisation?	
  	a charity?	
  	another type of organisation?

	
 
5. How many people does your organisation represent? 

  	0 people	
  	1 to 10 people	
  	11 to 50 people	
  	51 to 100 people	
  	101 to 1,000 people	
  	Above 1,000 people	
Modernising vehicle standards 
 
We intend to develop a national framework allowing us to adapt the regulation of vehicles. This is essential for the safe deployment of automated and other innovative vehicles. We will also implement improved environmental standards and enforcement to better meet current and future challenges.

There are 4 areas where we are proposing to make changes. We are seeking views on: 
•	providing a modern framework for modern vehicles – regulating safety, security and environmental performance	
•	establishing a flexible, proportionate, and responsive approach to regulating safety, security and environmental performance of vehicles	
•	tackling tampering	
•	improving compliance, safety and security	

6. Do you agree or disagree with our overall intention relating to modernising vehicle standards? 

  	Strongly agree	
  	Agree	
  	Neither agree nor disagree	
  	Disagree	
  	Strongly disagree	
  	Don't know?	

Overall, what are your comments on our intention?  

	
A modern framework for tomorrow’s vehicles – regulating safety, security and environmental performance 
 
We are seeking powers to amend (or repeal and replace) retained relevant sections of EU law. This would allow such legislation to be updated to reflect technological changes and ensure GB law continues to be fit for purpose. This would enable us to make regulations on the approval of the design, construction, marking and labelling of: 
•	vehicles	
•	vehicle parts and equipment	
•	engines for non-road mobile machinery	
In this context, the term ‘vehicle’ includes not only passenger and goods vehicles but trailers, 2 and 3 wheeled vehicles and quadricycles, agricultural and forestry tractors and their equipment.

We need the requirements and powers to be wider than those in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (opens in a new window) to reflect the rapidly developing technological landscape which was not envisaged when the legislation was enacted

We want to ensure we have powers to introduce provisions to permit the safe introduction of new technologies and new vehicle categories that do not meet existing approval requirements.

We also want to develop consumer information schemes such as tyre labelling.

We propose to create: 
•	an approval scheme for automated vehicles to set requirements for safety, security and in-use monitoring – this will cover systems, sub-systems and manufacturers’ processes across the vehicle lifecycle (design, development, manufacturing and in-use operation)	
•	new technical regulations for road vehicles, such as approval and in-use obligations for software and cyber-security requirements over vehicle life – this will include the ability to direct vehicle manufacturers and suppliers of replacement parts to act where needed	
•	powers to ensure the correct maintenance and use requirements, most notably for connected and automated vehicles	
•	improved powers for monitoring and enforcement of in-use compliance and market surveillance activities – this will include requirements for manufacturers to provide information (such as technical specifications, performance data and access to embedded software)	
•	powers for the Secretary of State for Transport to amend, by statutory instrument, retained EU legislation on the type-approval of vehicles and non-road mobile machinery – for example, the EU type-approval framework regulations and regulations covering engine pollutants and emissions	

7. Overall, do you agree or disagree with the package of proposals stated? 

  	Strongly agree	
  	Agree	
  	Neither agree nor disagree	
  	Disagree	
  	Strongly disagree	
  	Don't know?	

Why and what are your comments on any of the specific proposals?  

	
 
8. What aspects or potential applications of the proposed powers do you think: 

are particularly important for us to take forward and why?  	 	

could create difficulties and why?  	 	

could be excessively costly for industry to meet and why?  	 	

 
9. What data or evidence can you provide, or direct us to, that would allow us to assess the potential costs and benefits of the proposals put forward? 

[Attach any evidence to your response] 

Comments:  

	
 
10. Are any of the proposed requirements expected to: 

give rise to challenges and why?  	 	

be excessively costly to comply with and why?  	 	

A flexible, proportionate, and responsive approach to regulating safety, security, and environmental performance of vehicles 
 
We anticipate a greater range of new and innovative road vehicle designs and associated technologies.

We propose a flexible, proportionate and responsive approach to allow safe, secure and environmentally friendly vehicles to come to market. These vehicles need to be registered for use on our roads without undue delay.

At the same time, we want to ensure that we can respond quickly to address any new and emerging security threats and safety risks. Flexibility will enable us to be responsive to developments and learn from the deployment of new technologies such as vehicle automation. This may be important for maintaining safety where new and previously unforeseen risks arise.

We propose to: 
•	revise the existing provisions around prototype vehicles and vehicle orders to better accommodate the registration and use of innovative vehicle designs	
•	create a power for the Secretary of State for Transport to issue guidance covering matters which may not be suitable for secondary legislation	
Proposed revisions regarding vehicle orders include: 
•	enabling orders to apply to vehicles operated on behalf of specified persons	
•	applying order-making powers to retained EU approval legislation	
•	extending order-making powers to allow the registration and use of small volumes/small series innovative vehicles that do not comply with all type approval requirements subject to alternative safety/environmental/security measures being included	
Such provisions should allow manufacturers and system suppliers to easily place new vehicles and technologies produced in limited numbers on the market. This will be subject to controls and conditions which maintain safety, security and environmental performance.

We propose giving power to the Secretary of State for Transport to issue guidance, supplementing vehicle approval regulations. This power is considered necessary to enable the regulator to respond appropriately and in a timely manner to: 
•	emerging technologies undergoing rapid advancements	
•	the latest knowledge and best-practice	
•	the latest methodologies for assessing vehicle safety and security	
Example applications of this power could include: 
•	interpreting existing technical requirements and test procedures to enable application to new technologies	
•	best-practice for the use of virtual testing (for example, the validation of simulation-based testing)	
•	ensuring consistent and safe behaviours of automated vehicles under certain scenarios  	
We anticipate establishing appropriate consultation procedures to ensure the measures are proportionate and balanced.

11. Overall, do you agree or disagree with the package of proposals stated? 

  	Strongly agree	
  	Agree	
  	Neither agree nor disagree	
  	Disagree	
  	Strongly disagree	
  	Don't know?	

Why and what are your comments on any of the specific proposals?  

	
 
12. What further provisions, beyond those proposed, relating to prototype vehicles or vehicle orders would better-enable the registration and use of innovative vehicles? 

	
 
13. Are there any areas of type approval where you think it may be appropriate to issue technical guidance in place of, or to supplement, secondary legislation? 

  	Yes	
  	No	
  	Don't know?	

What type approvals and why?  

	
 
14. What data or evidence can you provide, or direct us to, that would allow us to assess the potential costs and benefits of the proposals put forward? 

[Attach any evidence to your response] 

Comments:  

	

15. Are any of the proposed requirements expected to: 

give rise to challenges and why?  	 	

be excessively costly to comply with and why?  	 	

Tackling tampering 
 
We will create new offences for tampering with a system, part or component of a vehicle intended or adapted to be used on a road. This will enable us to address existing gaps in the legislation, ensuring cleaner and safer vehicles.  We will also create new offences for tampering with non-road mobile machinery (NRMM), and for advertising ‘tampering’ services or products.

This will strengthen our ability to enforce compliance in this area.

Specifically, we would look to create: 
•	a specific offence for supplying, installing and/or advertising, a ‘tampering product’ for a vehicle or NRMM – this would apply where a principal effect of the product is to bypass, defeat, reduce the effectiveness of or render inoperative a system, part or component (the product may be physical part or component, hardware and/or software)	
•	a specific offence for removing, reducing the effectiveness of, or rendering inoperative a system, part or component for a vehicle, NRMM and advertising such services	
•	a specific offence for using, allowing for use or providing a vehicle or NRMM that has had the operations described in the previous 2 points performed on it	
•	a new power to require economic operators to provide information, where a service/product they have supplied amounts to or enables ‘tampering’ with a vehicle or NRMM – this would apply in any of the above senses and include requirements to provide relevant information on the quantities of products sold or modified	

We would like to emphasise that our policy intention is to prevent modifications that have a negative impact on road safety, vehicle security and the environment. 

We do not intend our proposals to: 

•	prevent legitimate motorsport activities
•	prevent restoration, repairs or legitimate improvements to vehicles, such as classic cars or motorbikes
•	negatively impact businesses involved in these activities 

16. Overall do you agree or disagree with the package of proposals stated? 

  	Strongly agree	
  	Agree	
  	Neither agree nor disagree	
  	Disagree	
  	Strongly disagree	
  	Don't know?	

Why and what are your comments on any of the specific proposals?  

	
Tackling tampering 
 
We define a system, part or component as:

"software and/or hardware that impacts on: 
•	the environment;	
•	road safety; or	
•	security"	
This would include examples such as those which assist or fulfil the driving task, control power, speed or emissions, protects road users or protects the vehicle from tampering.

17. Do you agree or disagree with this definition? 

  	Strongly agree (Go to ‘Tackling tampering’)	
  	Agree (Go to ‘Tackling tampering’)	
  	Neither agree nor disagree (Go to ‘Tackling tampering’)	
  	Disagree	
  	Strongly disagree	

Disagree with tampering definition 
 
18. Why and how would you define it? 

	
Tackling tampering 
 
For our purposes the scope of the measure is tampering with a system, part or component of a vehicle or NRMM.

19. Provide any information on how widespread tampering is. 

[Attach any evidence to your response]  

Comments:  

	
 
20. What, if any, other: 

services could be inadvertently affected by the proposals on tampering?  	 	

products could be inadvertently affected by the proposals on tampering?  	 	

exemptions should we consider on tampering?  	 	

 
21. What data or evidence can you provide, or direct us to, that would allow us to assess the potential costs and benefits of the proposals put forward? 

[Attach any evidence to your response] 

Comments:  

	

22. Are any of the proposed requirements expected to: 

give rise to challenges and why?  	 	

be excessively costly to comply with and why?  	 	

Improving compliance, safety and security 
 
We are seeking powers to enable the Secretary of State for Transport to set out in secondary legislation a new automotive recall regime.

This will mean we can require a manufacturer or supplier to recall and/or remove from sale, vehicles and other automotive products.

This will apply when the vehicle or product is found not to comply with type approval, safety or security standards.

The regime will require manufacturers to identify and report any vehicles that do not meet safety or cyber-security standards. The Secretary of State for Transport would have the power to issue a recall notice.

The manufacturer would be required to achieve a minimum recall rate in respect of any unsafe vehicles or components. They might also be required to compensate vehicle owners.

Failure to comply with such a notice, including a failure to achieve the minimum recall rate, would be enforced through civil penalties.

We propose a power for the Secretary of State for Transport to direct vehicle manufacturers and system suppliers to address urgent safety, security, or environmental issues.

23. Overall do you agree or disagree with the package of proposals stated? 

  	Strongly agree	
  	Agree	
  	Neither agree nor disagree	
  	Disagree	
  	Strongly disagree	
  	Don't know?	

Why and what are your comments on any of the specific proposals?  

	

24. What, if any, barriers or reasons exist which prevent manufacturers from recalling certain vehicles and which we should consider when setting minimum recall rates? 

	
 
25. What data or evidence can you provide, or direct us to, that would allow us to assess the potential costs and benefits of the proposals put forward? 

[Attach any evidence to your response] 

Comments:  

	
 
26. Are any of the proposed requirements expected to: 

give rise to challenges and why?  	 	

be excessively costly to comply with and why?  	 	

Public Sector Equality Duty 
 
The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) (opens in a new window) requires public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different people when carrying out their activities.

As a part of this duty we are asking for any evidence on the potential impacts of these proposals on individuals or groups within society. The Equality Act (opens in a new window) lists the protected characteristics of: 
•	age	
•	disability	
•	gender reassignment	
•	marriage and civil partnership	
•	pregnancy and maternity	
•	race	
•	religion or belief	
•	sex	
•	sexual orientation	
This evidence will be anonymised and retained after the retention period of this consultation information.

27. Supply any data or evidence you have about any of the proposals discussed that you think would positively or negatively impact on individuals with protected characteristics. 

[Attach any evidence to your response] 

Comments:  

	
Final comments 
 
28. Any other comments?