It appears that NOx is responsible for causing smog, someone already mentioned a comparison between new and recently modern trucks 14% difference. Hell I read yesterday they were worried about the ozone layer and the holes repairing themselves too quickly. And they are now blaming log burners for London smog. My lead lined house is great apart from I have knowhere to keep my fridge magnets
how is fitting an adblue emulator illegal
All I can find in law is the construction and use regulations part 61, which basically says
UK requirements on vehicle emissions are mainly concerned with vehicles in use rather than at the point of manufacture — when the Euro standards apply. Regulation 61 (as amended) of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 states that “every vehicle shall be constructed so as not to emit any avoidable smoke or avoidable visible vapour”.
It makes it an offence to use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road any vehicle which emits any avoidable:
smoke
visible vapour
oily substance
“if that emission causes, or is likely to cause, damage to any property or injury or danger to any person who is, or who may reasonably be expected to be, on the road”.
Emissions are routinely tested during the vehicle’s annual test. Petrol-engined vehicles are tested for CO and hydrocarbon and diesel engines vehicles are tested for particulates with a smoke test.
The above text was shamelessly pulled from a UK lawyer / advice website and is a summary of the actual regulations as written (without the legal speak lawyers use )
No mention is made of invisible gasses such as NOX or CO2 etc. etc.
Not using ablue may or may not increase NOX emissions but there does not appear to be anything in UK law to say this is not allowed.
There are lots of regulations concerning the vehicle manufacturers at time of type approval and first registration but not that I can find for the users of the vehicles other than the MOT
You can read the law anyway you like, the top and bottom of it is if you get a pull and the vehicle is not drawing adblue from the tank then you are fined £300 and given 10 days to repair it ( or in other words"remove the device") your details are also passed to the traffic commisioner to see if further action is necessary, thats not hearsay its from the rather friendly and seemingly well educated Dvsa man at Beattock check site yesterday
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep, article on commercial motor a few days ago.
8% of british trucks have em fitted
20% of northern irish have em.
chaversdad:
You can read the law anyway you like, the top and bottom of it is if you get a pull and the vehicle is not drawing adblue from the tank then you are fined £300 and given 10 days to repair it ( or in other words"remove the device") your details are also passed to the traffic commisioner to see if further action is necessary, thats not hearsay its from the rather friendly and seemingly well educated Dvsa man at Beattock check site yesterday
I hear what you are saying and I know this happens.
I was just trying to find out what if any actual law applied to using these devices as I could not find any in my research.
Seems that this could be a policy decision by DVSA and others rather than an actual black and white law.
If that was the case then in theroy at least this could be challenged in the courts.
Would obviously take someone much braver than me with deeper pockets.
We heard the same kind of thing with removing DPF filters from cars. To stop this they had to make the presence of a DPF an MOT requirement as they did not appear to be able to stop people doing this in any other way regardless of legal threats that were spread around at the time.
Just putting it out there to see what responses came back.
Some will keep the adblu tank full and all the relevent pump/heater and pipework . A switchable emulator aka resistor hard wired into the loom and activated somewhere hidden is the way most who get pulled for testing get away with it. The ones who have an empty tank / pipework/wiring/heater removed and a permanently live emulator are the easy targets…
gov.uk/government/news/lorr … e-roadside
Link above to DVSA. As already said they`re looking for and acting against “cheat devices”.
The problem comes when you need to start using the adblue system again, after a lengthy period of not being used you will get problems with it when you tried to to get it working again, crystalization in the system being the main problem
How about the amount of pollution that is caused by the manufacture and distribution of Ad-blu. The tanker that delivers the stuff has to burn diesel and use Ad-blu on all of its pointless journeys.
What about all the diesel pollution caused by the tanker that comes to empty my septic tank?
And I have to pay for it!
Why can’t I just let my ■■■■■ flow down the valley and into the stream…it wouldn’t be my problem
Why not, its what they do on the Ganges?
alamcculloch:
Why not, its what they do on the Ganges?
Yeah, then wash in the river along with the dead cattle floating by…
alamcculloch:
Why not, its what they do on the Ganges?
They will be Euro VI-equivalent in India by 2020…the drains may take a little longer to sort out 
Did people see this from ITV news?
itv.com/news/2018-01-12/hund … crackdown/
British trucks doing this more than EU trucks. Maybe not what people on here think before DVSA start looking everyone blame this on Eastern European trucker
How can they stop people with software delete of Adblue? There is no evidence in cab
All these reports of drivers breaking the law with adblue devices say just that, i.e that they are breaking the law but no mention of which, if any actual law is being broken
Not one report I have found or anything from DVSA etc. etc. actually says which particular law is being broken.
After several hours searching around with google I can find no mention of an actual law appliciable to these devices for the oweners / drivers.
There are loads of laws and regulation about the vehicle manufacturers for first vehicle type approval etc but I cannot find anything applying to the driver other than the MOT test, which under current rules a vehicle would still pass even if it did have one of these boxes fitted
I do really wonder if this is an actual law breaking action or if it just contravenes various on the hoof policies that the DVSA and other have just made up.
It’s only a delayed prohibition if you’re caught, a fine doesn’t get issued unless the prohibition isn’t lifted in time. We’ve had 2 trucks caught with them fitted but that was only because we weren’t aware DVSA were checking them. Got them wired to a switch nowadays so just a matter of switching the emulators off when getting stopped.
I’d have thought it would be an offence under C&U Act 1986 as amended.
But you won’t find any reference to SCR/AdBlue in said act, as the technology had not been introduced then.
However, this is the instrument that is used to prosecute drivers with performance exhausts that are louder than standard…passing an MoT with such a system installed is no indication of its legality.
The same argument can be applied to exhaust emissions…and the max fine is £3500…which makes the fixed pen of £300 seem reasonable!
GasGas:
I’d have thought it would be an offence under C&U Act 1986 as amended.But you won’t find any reference to SCR/AdBlue in said act, as the technology had not been introduced then.
However, this is the instrument that is used to prosecute drivers with performance exhausts that are louder than standard…passing an MoT with such a system installed is no indication of its legality.
The same argument can be applied to exhaust emissions…and the max fine is £3500…which makes the fixed pen of £300 seem reasonable!
but the C&U regs just basically say
UK requirements on vehicle emissions are mainly concerned with vehicles in use rather than at the point of manufacture — when the Euro standards apply. Regulation 61 (as amended) of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 states that “every vehicle shall be constructed so as not to emit any avoidable smoke or avoidable visible vapour”.
It makes it an offence to use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road any vehicle which emits any avoidable:
smoke
visible vapour
oily substance
“if that emission causes, or is likely to cause, damage to any property or injury or danger to any person who is, or who may reasonably be expected to be, on the road”.
No mention of any gas or invisible emissions.
Nox and other exhaust gasses are typically invisible, most do not smell either.
If they updated C&U to take account of gasses then maybe I could understand. Obviously no reference to adblue etc as it had not been invented but gasses as such have been known about for more than 100 years. So if they intended these rgulations to cover invisible gases then they could have done in one of the many ammendments that have since been published over the last decade or so.
If this is what they are using then there is a pretty good chance that somebody who was stopped could take it to court and win as the regulations do not appear to cover either adblue or any form of invisible gas.
Misterbu is there any particular reason why this subject is winding you up so much? You have gone to the trouble of checking relevant law so theres obviously more to it
Friend of mine got stopped
He told me about it and we were discussing and then I thought I would just look into it when I had a few spare minutes to see what law he had actually broken.
I thought I would be able to simply tell him yes you broke XYZ law but after looking around could not actually fine any obvious laws being broken so got to wondering was I just being stupid or maybe is there more to this than first meets the eye ?