In the UK, and across Europe, we are looking at consultation documents that are leading to anti-tampering legislation. Whilst this is chiefly aimed at emissions, there are wider concerns with the wording such as:
"The Government’s specific proposals on vehicle tampering are as follows:
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 a 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 allowing for use or providing a vehicle or NRMM that has
had the operations described in the previous 2 points performed on it"
What reputable supplier would want to supply a roo bar in such a market where they were banned under this legislation?
Even without the legislation, there's potential civil liability; and where such risks can't be quantified or the financial/reputational consequences are high, they may just decide to pass on the sale.
I think the argument that the buyer is solely responsible has not ended well for a number of gun manufacturers in the US.
