This guide covers the countries UK drivers most often drive through on a continental trip. Every figure below was checked against 2026 sources on 1 October 2026. Fines change often, so check again before you travel. This is general information, not legal advice.

Will a camera fine follow you home?

Possibly, and the odds are rising. Do not plan a trip around the idea that it won’t.

Until the end of 2020 the UK was part of the EU’s cross-border enforcement scheme, which let any member state look up a UK car’s keeper and post the fine. Since 1 January 2021 that has not applied, so camera fines have mostly not reached UK addresses (Auto Express). Some still did: French fines have kept turning up in UK post, even though the DVLA had released no keeper data to France under the old rules by mid-2025 (Connexion).

Three things close that gap:

• Roadside stops. Brexit never changed these. If police pull you over, you pay there and then.
• Hire cars. The rental firm hands over your details and usually adds an admin fee on top of the fine.
• Data sharing is coming back. The May 2025 UK–EU summit agreed to finish setting up automated vehicle-registration data exchange. In mid-2026 UK police gained number-plate lookups through the EU’s Prüm system, with EU police able to request DVLA data in return (GOV.UK announcement). That system is framed around serious crime; whether it will be used for camera fines had not been announced when this was written.

Separately, the EU has tightened its own cross-border rules (Directive 2024/3237, in force across member states by 20 July 2027), adding cross-border help with collecting unpaid fines (European Parliament summary). That covers EU-registered cars, not UK ones, but it shows the direction of travel.

A foreign speeding fine does not normally put points on a UK licence. An unpaid one can still be demanded the next time you are stopped in that country.

Country by country

Germany and Spain are among the cheapest places to get a ticket; Norway and Switzerland are the dearest. Each row is one speed limit. It shows the fine at 20 km/h over, then the speed at which you risk your licence, then the speed at which it becomes a criminal case. All speeds are km/h, after the police measuring margin.

• A dash means no fixed threshold.
• Germany treats speeding as a crime only under its illegal-racing law.
• Spain uses penalty points rather than a set ban speed; bans come with a criminal conviction.
• The Netherlands has the “criminal” column is where the prosecutor, not a fixed tariff, sets the penalty.
• Norway’s jail thresholds were not verified for this guide.

Two caveats. Fines are in local currency and euro figures drift with inflation; the Netherlands has already published higher 2027 rates. And police subtract a measuring margin before working out the fine, 3 km/h below 100 km/h and 3% above it in Germany and the Netherlands, and 5 km/h or 5% in France and Italy, so the speed on the radar will be a little higher than the figures above.

Where it stops being a fine

In several countries, a big enough number means a criminal record, a court date or losing the car itself, and that applies to foreign drivers and to cars they don’t own.

• France, 50 km/h or more over (since 29 December 2025). Now a criminal offence on a first offence. Usually settled by a €300 fixed penalty (€250 if paid quickly, €600 if late), but a court can impose up to €3,750, three months in prison, a suspension of up to three years and confiscation of the vehicle (Beedriver).
• Austria, 60 over in town or 70 over outside (since 1 March 2024). Police can seize the car on the spot. At 80 over in town or 90 outside, or for repeat offenders, it can be confiscated for good and auctioned, even if it is hired or leased. Fines go up to €7,500 (Maut1). By the end of 2025, 438 cars had been provisionally seized (Vienna.at).
• Switzerland, 50 over in town, 60 outside or 80 on a motorway. Classed as reckless “Raser” driving, with prison of one to four years and very large fines (ch.ch).
• Spain, 60 over in town or 80 over elsewhere. Can be prosecuted as a crime under the Penal Code (Motorpasión).
• Denmark. Its “insane driving” rules allow the car to be confiscated for extreme speeding, including driving at more than double the limit (FDM).

If you get pulled over

Expect to pay before you drive away. Police in much of Europe ask non-resident drivers to pay the fine on the spot or leave a cash or card deposit, and can hold the car until you do.

• Carry a card that works abroad and some cash in local currency (francs in Switzerland, kroner in Norway).
• Ask for an official receipt or ticket for anything you pay.
• Paying quickly is often cheaper: Spain halves the fine if paid within 20 days, and France has a reduced rate for prompt payment.
• In a hire car, assume the fine will reach you through the rental company, with their admin charge added.

Radar detectors and camera apps

Leave the radar detector at home. A device that is legal in the UK is illegal to use in France and Germany (Confused.com), and in France and Switzerland one can be confiscated even if it is switched off (Tyremap). In Germany, a driver using a detector or a camera-warning app faces a €75 fine and a point (McParking).

Phone apps are a grey area that changes country by country. The simplest safe setup is to turn off camera alerts and keep the speed-limit display on.

Before you go

• Check the limits for every country on your route; Dutch motorways drop to 100 km/h by day, and much of Brussels is 30.
• Remove or switch off any radar detector, and turn off camera alerts in your sat-nav or phone.
• Pack a card that works abroad and some local cash for roadside fines.
• If you get a fine in the post, check it is genuine with the issuing authority before paying.

Figures were checked against the linked 2026 sources on 1 October 2026. Fine levels change, often every January, so treat anything older than a few months with caution.

The post Speeding in Europe 2026: What UK Drivers Actually Risk first appeared on BlownByTwins.

The post Speeding in Europe 2026: What UK Drivers Actually Risk appeared first on BlownByTwins.

I have read the whole thing and responded. What follows is what it actually says, rather than what the internet has decided it says, because the two are some distance apart.

What is actually being proposed

At the moment there is a gap. New vehicles have to meet the Euro standard in force when they are built and registered. Once they are on the road, the rules that keep them at that standard, in regulation 61A of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, were only ever updated as far as Euro 4 and Euro V. Anything built to Euro 5, Euro 6 or Euro VI has no ongoing legal requirement to keep its emissions control system working.

DfT wants to close that gap by requiring vehicles to keep meeting the standard they were built to, for life. Enforcement would run through existing sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 42 for using a non compliant vehicle, section 75 for alterations to vehicles, and section 76 for fitting or supplying unsuitable parts. Penalties on conviction in the magistrates’ court run from £1,000 to unlimited fines. DVSA would enforce.

The evidence base is worth reading rather than dismissing. A roadside remote sensing study of over 94,000 vehicles across several UK cities found that fewer than one in ten passenger cars met the official nitrogen oxide limits, and that roughly two thirds of Euro 5 and Euro 6 diesel cars were emitting more than three times the level allowed. DVSA’s market surveillance unit logged 331 intelligence reports relating to emissions modifications in 2024, and DfT suspects that is a small fraction of the actual activity.

Which vehicles it applies to

This is the part most people have got wrong, and it matters.

Regulation 61A applies to vehicles first used on or after 1 January 2001. The proposal extends the standards it covers, up to Euro 6 and Euro VI, rather than extending the date backwards. On the most natural reading, a 1997 Supra, a 1999 R34 or anything else registered before 2001 sits outside this entirely. My R35 is squarely inside it. So is every 2001 onwards project.

I say most natural reading because the operative sentence in the consultation refers to all road vehicles in-use in GB from 1 January 2001, which is not the same test as first used on or after that date. Those two phrasings produce very different scopes, and the second would pull pre 2001 cars into the regime for the first time. That is one of the things I have asked DfT to nail down.

Motorcycles are a separate issue. Regulation 61A has never applied to category L vehicles. DfT proposes to include them, while stating in the same section that it has limited analytical evidence specific to in-use emissions from motorcycles and could not identify a clear reason to exclude them. Extending a criminal prohibition to a whole vehicle category because no argument against it was found is the wrong way round.

The four modifications DfT says are always illegal

• Removal or deletion of diesel particulate filters, or gasoline particulate filters on petrol vehicles
• Removal of three way catalysts, often accompanied by alteration or removal of sensors and sometimes ECU remapping
• Manipulation of SCR and diesel exhaust fluid systems, the AdBlue delete
• Manipulation of EGR systems, whether physically or by remapping

DfT is explicit that it is not trying to ban modification generally. The document says vehicle alteration is a legitimate practice embraced by tuners, repairers and enthusiasts worldwide, and that it is not seeking to stop people fitting generic rather than OEM parts. It also says that the legality of a modification, hardware or software, depends primarily on how it affects the standard the vehicle was legally built to.

That is an outcome based test, and I have no argument with it. If the car meets its limits, it meets its limits.

Where the drafting contradicts itself

The consultation asks whether a modification should be unlawful where it is a known and proven fact that it will always result in illegal levels of emissions. The word doing the work there is always.

Three of the four items survive that test. SCR, DEF and EGR systems are manipulated in order to defeat them, not to replace them. Delete a DPF and you have deleted a DPF.

The catalyst item does not survive it. Removal of three way catalysts describes a physical act, not an emissions outcome. It catches deleting a cat and running nothing, which should absolutely be illegal. It equally catches replacing a failed or obsolete original cat with a modern aftermarket one, which is ordinary repair, and which on a properly calibrated closed loop setup routinely meets or beats the original. That is not a case where illegal emissions always result. It is a case where they do not result at all.

The fix costs DfT nothing. Describe the harm rather than the component: removal of a three way catalyst without replacement by a catalytic converter that maintains the emissions limits applicable to the vehicle. Deletion stays illegal. Repair stays legal. The same wording change applies to the DPF and GPF item.

The durability problem

This one is on the face of the consultation, and I think it is the strongest objection available.

Manufacturers have to demonstrate that their emissions technology performs as expected for 100,000 km or five years, whichever comes sooner. Separate pollution control devices, catalytic converters among them, have to last 160,000 km.

The proposal puts an obligation on owners with no durability ceiling at all. An owner would carry indefinitely a standard the manufacturer only ever had to guarantee to a defined limit. A 2003 car on 180,000 miles with an original catalyst that has simply aged is not a vehicle anybody modified. It is a vehicle that got old, which is what vehicles do.

What the consultation does not answer

• There is no mechanism by which you can establish that you are compliant. No certificate, no list of authorised testing bodies, no independent appeals route. The proposal creates an offence without creating a way to prove you are not committing it.
• Alternative fuels are not mentioned anywhere. If a car is converted to E85, is compliance demonstrated on E85 or on the fuel it originally ran? How is a flex fuel car assessed when ethanol content changes between fills? Nothing.
• The legal weight of an MOT emissions pass is not addressed. DfT acknowledges the annual roadworthiness check is limited in what it can assess, which leaves owners relying on a test that may not be the test.
• Burden of proof is not stated. Does DVSA have to establish the standard applicable to your specific vehicle and then prove it exceeds that, or is the presence of aftermarket parts enough to start the argument?

This lands on the industry before it lands on owners

DfT says enforcement will likely focus upstream, on the practices behind illegal modifications, because roadside and annual testing can only assess so much. Read that properly. The people most exposed are not individual owners with modified cars. They are mapping outfits, exhaust fabricators, remap resellers and workshops, who under section 76 can be prosecuted for fitting or supplying unsuitable parts.

Which is exactly why the missing compliance mechanism matters. If a business is expected to know whether a configuration is legal before it hands the keys back, somebody has to define the test it applies.

How to respond

The quickest route is the online response form, which lets you save and come back to it. You can also email your response to ivs.consult@dft.gov.uk. The full consultation document is here. It closes at 11:59pm on Sunday 6 September 2026.

If you do respond, answer the questions they actually asked. The consultation has a defined question set and responses get coded against it. A long free text essay that does not map to those questions is much easier to summarise into nothing. I know this because I sent the essay first.

The points I would make, if you want somewhere to start:

• Agree that a modification which always produces illegal emissions should be unlawful, then object that catalyst replacement does not meet that test and the wording should describe the outcome rather than the component
• Ask for the durability obligation on owners to be reconciled with the 100,000 km and 160,000 km limits placed on manufacturers
• Ask for a compliance certification route and an appeals process to exist before enforcement begins
• Ask for the 1 January 2001 scope to be stated unambiguously on the face of the instrument
• Say the six month lead-in should be longer, and should start from publication of final technical guidance rather than from the date the legislation passes

Where I have landed

I am not against this. Deleting a cat or a DPF to make a car louder or cheaper to run puts pollution into air that other people breathe, and I do not have a defence for it. The remote sensing numbers are not invented.

My problem is narrower than that. As drafted, one line of this treats replacing a worn out component with a better one exactly the same as removing it and running nothing. That is not an emissions policy, it is a parts policy, and it will not clean up a single mile of air.

I would like to hear from anyone who runs a business doing this work, because you are the ones who need certainty out of it and you are the ones the enforcement is pointed at. Comments are open.

The post The DfT in-use emissions consultation, what it actually proposes first appeared on BlownByTwins.

The post The DfT in-use emissions consultation, what it actually proposes appeared first on BlownByTwins.

I was lucky enough to win my R34 GTR from 7 Days Performance, in October, 2022 and it was a dream come true, because in my youth, I went down the Toyota Supra route, not down the Skyline route. Winning the car was incredible, and the team from 7 Days were awesome from start to finish. But, after 18 months of ownership and reflection, would I have taken the money? Yes. And here’s why.

Thankfully, I’m in a very fortunate position. I have a very good job, good salary, and that affords me the ability to modify my cars properly. The R34 was done to a price, not a standard – not how I do things. Let’s take things in turn.

History

The car came with no history, no service record, no mileage validation, just a couple of receipts for some minor work, an ECU installation (which we’ll cover later) and the alarm codes.

Engine / Drivetrain

The engine itself was solid, but the sensors in it were not. Stock oil pressure sender was reading extremely low. Thankfully, a mechanical gauge verified the engine pressure was good. So a new sender was bought from Nissan and that fixed the readings and saved a coronary!

The breather system was just using what looked like transparent garden hose, it wasn’t pretty.

The turbos themselves were the biggest issue, on boost they were weeping oil, quite a lot of it, and after around 1000 miles, they needed a rebuild – but they couldn’t be rebuilt. I’ve referenced it here, but they weren’t GT2530 turbos, they weren’t even HKS, they were Trust T517Z turbos. That would have been £1500 to £2000 to rebuild properly.

When we removed the turbos to go single turbo, we inspected everything – and thankfully we did. The clutch was on it’s last legs. A replacement wouldn’t be possible as it was discontinued. So, we needed to buy another clutch …

The rear differential. A full service and inspection also constitutes a fluid change. The rear differential wasn’t standard. We didn’t know what it was. Suffice to say, the 75W140 fluid we used as a replacement caused the previous fine operation to be somewhat awful. It was dragging, clunking. Thankfully, the ever helpful team at Opie Oils advised on another oil. Straight 90W. That worked well and continues to do so.

ECU

The Link G4+ ECU was fitted without any additional sensors, no wideband, no oil pressure, no fuel pressure. Just thrown in. The map was very rich, the timing was very retarded. On boost, the car chugged black smoke, there’s rich and there’s rich. On looking at the date of the receipt, I saw it was recent and downloaded the Link G4X software and bought the tuning cable. Nothing. On looking closer, it was a Link G4+ not the G4X, so it was new old stock. I contacted the previous tuner to ask if we could unlock the map to add some sensors and tweak the map, they were less than interested. So, I asked SRD Tuning to start it from scratch, and we put a plan together to put everything to a standard. The first issue was the fuelling. The 800cc injectors weren’t flowing what was expected, so they were pulled out and found to be old 660cc units. On boost, the fuel pressure was dropping, the fuel pump was dying. That needed to be replaced.

Fast forward a few weeks, the car was running much better. Wideband was in, the safety trips were in – and we found more power on less boost with less fuel. I think I can safely get another 30 miles per tank on a run now. A car like this should not be skimped on. Ever.

Suspension

The car came equipped with Ohlins, set on the near stiffest setting, the car was very skittish on bumps and was prone to tramlining. I went to my local 3D alignment place, we softened the damping, and aligned it. It was red across the board – camber and toe were all out. We rectified this, put a good alignment on it, added a half degree of negative camber on the front. It is still stiff, but it drives a lot nicer now, less skittish, a little more compliant. Better, but not perfect – yet.

Audio

This is minor, but annoying. The radio was all in Japanese (which is fine) but nothing worked. I changed the radio for a UK supplied one but we had no radio reception. Double checked the wiring for the built in antenna in the rear screen – all good. Still no radio. Verified the radio in another car – fine. Traced the aerial, all good – but the fuse had blown. So, a replacement 10A went in and it was now working. It’s not amazing reception, but that’s an R34 trait – so we’re good.

Interior

Finally, the interior. The supplied seats were not built for a man of my stature! The Bride seats are so lovely, but quite narrow. So I’ve had to buy some regular sized seats. Thankfully, Corbeau came to the rescue and helped me out with some great advice.

The climate control has been a bit of a nightmare. At 18 degrees, the AC was cold, like ice. Great on a summers day. At 18.5 degrees, it was like lava, nothing in between. Some searching narrowed me down to two options, an issue with the PCB inside the temperature controller, or a broken internal temperature sensor. I pulled the underside of the dash out, and there was the temperature sensor, hanging down. I plugged it back in and we had normal temperature control. Finally.

Conclusion

So I have a great car, much better now than when I took ownership. But what has it cost me? Approximately £17,000 for:

• First remap
• Pressure Sensors
• Wideband
• Fuel Pump
• Alignment
• Single turbo conversion
• Injectors
• Clutch
• Radio

Would it have cost less if I’d cut some corners? Yes, we could have possibly got it closer to £12,000 with some lesser brands and a lower standard, but that’s not what a Skyline GTR deserves.

So, should you enter these competitions for older classics? Yes. But be prepared to spend money – or at least have a contingency fund ready for the unforeseen.

The post The Dangers of Winning a Modified Classic first appeared on BlownByTwins.

The post The Dangers of Winning a Modified Classic appeared first on BlownByTwins.