Bull Bar Cowboy Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 John, I think you will find it comes under the construction & use regulations ……….. and that with all its amendments is serious bedtime reading …………. So in essence its not an MOT issue, but an MOT station can refuse to test the vehicle because it does not conform to the construction and use regulations …… IIRC………..Non conformity is a moving traffic offence ……….. Si White will know the definitive’s. Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2023 Share Posted March 5, 2023 Anyone able to provide a link to the specific legislation/section which shows the law around wheel protrusion please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western Posted March 5, 2023 Share Posted March 5, 2023 My post in this old thread https://forums.lr4x4.com/topic/88497-wheel-arch-law/ road vehicle C & U Regs http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/contents/made regs relating to tyres http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/27/made regs relating to mudwings/bodywork around tyre/wheel http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/63/made extract --- (2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (5), every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be equipped with wings or other similar fittings to catch, so far as practicable, mud or water thrown up by the rotation of its wheels or tracks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2023 Share Posted March 5, 2023 Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2023 Share Posted March 5, 2023 1 hour ago, western said: My post in this old thread https://forums.lr4x4.com/topic/88497-wheel-arch-law/ road vehicle C & U Regs http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/contents/made regs relating to tyres http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/27/made regs relating to mudwings/bodywork around tyre/wheel http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/63/made extract --- (2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (5), every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be equipped with wings or other similar fittings to catch, so far as practicable, mud or water thrown up by the rotation of its wheels or tracks I realise this is not a legal forum and I'm not personally looking to have wheels protruding, its just a subject of interest to me, particularly as I watch a lot of "Matt's off road recovery" whereby vehicles are legal over in the US without issue....anyways, I digress. The aforementioned statement is nonspecific in that it does not specifically stipulate that wheels cannot protrude, and is ambiguous with it's requirements. I.e. I could fit wide arches which could work sufficiently even if the wheels protrude. It doesn't explicitly state that wheels must be inside the arches. Why are we to believe that it is illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western Posted March 5, 2023 Share Posted March 5, 2023 It's a Construction & Use thing, the tyres tread must be covered when viewed from 12 o'clock looking downwards, so up to the MOT tester on the day & Traffic police if they decide its not within the C&U regs. USA states all have different requirements, some states don't require a road worthiness test, but others do. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted March 5, 2023 Share Posted March 5, 2023 0nly in recent years cars were pinged on wheels sticking out and many cars had legality spikes fitted as an afterthought by the manufacturer, like this car, above the mudflaps: With this in mind, you have to wonder how this is legal: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165945102522?hash=item26a31950ba:g:ER8AAOSwpItj8B4Z&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoMPUx50v7TAakAa6KM59kPMk0DRsA02KkkXzETOIZG%2BW6wtK2h%2BK2rC6XT0HoAt8vXXsbtmRQqBKC5vQHcb4kHQtuD2kObhOYM5UCpHoHFuf2z%2BSTNNkESXPdm8smZd2%2BkOSGIg54Ip3BRi838hJY6m0%2BU6PDkEs%2FOfxvgeZwzdPFkYRUu36bGOYZ69fSPFe5%2F%2BK%2FGyoXsE7xEprO3Utwgg%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR-j3osDWYQ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagger Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 I’m pretty sure it isn’t, within the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketomcat Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 A fair few hot rods get trailered to shows and some have removable arches, I doubt many actually put them on though. The one above is in the UK but has an illegal Americanised plate, it probably has a whole host of illegality. Mike 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retroanaconda Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 The legal technicalities aside, it’s dangerous and antisocial, looks awful, and your car gets covered in mud/rubbish - so why would anyone want to do it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 9 hours ago, western said: It's a Construction & Use thing, the tyres tread must be covered when viewed from 12 o'clock looking downwards, so up to the MOT tester on the day & Traffic police if they decide its not within the C&U regs. USA states all have different requirements, some states don't require a road worthiness test, but others do. So its largely open to interpretation and whether the officer had weetabix for breakfast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Retroanaconda said: The legal technicalities aside, it’s dangerous and antisocial, looks awful, and your car gets covered in mud/rubbish - so why would anyone want to do it? Well my query is mostly about the technicalities. Dangerous - not sure how Antisocial - not sure how Looks awful - matter of opinion Car gets covered in mud / rubbish - true I could argue the same thing with many legal mods, or why would anyone would want a fast car, or perhaps to drive a defender on the road? I love my Defender but it'd hardly a great road car, but I love it all the same. The thing with the arches to me seems like a very pedantic part within law that is actually open to abuse by the plod. Here to protect and serve but there is more money to be gained from motorists than actual crime. Anyhow, topic for another day. Thank you to everyone for clearing things up for me. Edited March 6, 2023 by spookyandroid Typos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Daan Posted March 6, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted March 6, 2023 Just check the rules: 3 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzar Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 Dangerous - can throw debris (stones in tyre grooves) at passers by Antisocial - sprays water on pedestrians Looks awful - matter of opinion - true Car gets covered in mud / rubbish - true Not being snarky, hoping to point out things that might have been missed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted March 6, 2023 Author Share Posted March 6, 2023 They key here is that construction & use regs state no protrusion from 12-o-clock, so if you're outside that you're technically illegal. That is between you, VOSA/DVSA or police if you get stopped and/or the lawyers if you're in an accident. The MOT does NOT check for legality / conformance to C&U per my experience MOTing the 109 with no arches and ~6" of stick-out, the tester queried it with VOSA/DVSA and was told to issue the MOT despite everyone knowing the vehicle was technically not road legal. You can do all sorts of stupid mods and they will pass the MOT but they're still not road legal, and then it's up to how much you want to be standing up and explaining that in court after the accident. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landroversforever Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 57 minutes ago, FridgeFreezer said: They key here is that construction & use regs state no protrusion from 12-o-clock, so if you're outside that you're technically illegal. That is between you, VOSA/DVSA or police if you get stopped and/or the lawyers if you're in an accident. The MOT does NOT check for legality / conformance to C&U per my experience MOTing the 109 with no arches and ~6" of stick-out, the tester queried it with VOSA/DVSA and was told to issue the MOT despite everyone knowing the vehicle was technically not road legal. You can do all sorts of stupid mods and they will pass the MOT but they're still not road legal, and then it's up to how much you want to be standing up and explaining that in court after the accident. Couldn't have said it better. It amazes me the number (particularly in Non LR circles) that think the MOT is gospel from a legal point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, Gazzar said: Dangerous - can throw debris (stones in tyre grooves) at passers by Antisocial - sprays water on pedestrians Looks awful - matter of opinion - true Car gets covered in mud / rubbish - true Not being snarky, hoping to point out things that might have been missed. I have heard that in nations where they don't have such safety measures, that their healthcare system is littered with bodies of people destroyed by thrown debris and water spray. EDIT: Also not being snarky - throwing a little playful sarcasm in though Edited March 6, 2023 by spookyandroid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy996 Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 (edited) 16 minutes ago, landroversforever said: Couldn't have said it better. It amazes me the number (particularly in Non LR circles) that think the MOT is gospel from a legal point of view. An MOT only says it meets minimum standards in certain areas on the day in question. If you have managed to upset the spider-senses of the vehicle examiner, an MOT on the same day will not save you. It might suggest to the case manager at the insurance company that they do a "proper job" on you, or just pay the claim, depending on how corporate are feeling about claims costs. Edited March 6, 2023 by jeremy996 typo! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy996 Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 6 minutes ago, spookyandroid said: I have heard that in nations where they don't have such safety measures, that their healthcare system is littered with bodies of people destroyed by thrown debris and water spray. EDIT: Also not being snarky - throwing a little playful sarcasm in though Sorry, not funny. Spray and flying rocks have led to some big RTCs (Road Traffic Collisions). Having had a toughened glass windscreen come in on me, (Austin Maxi 1750 on the M1), I can confirm it was a bit of a distraction, so simple rules that reduce flying rocks are OK by me. Do any form of motorsport marshalling and you will see incidents that are triggered by spray or other debris. Most C&U, type approval and conformity rules are for the wider public good or public safety. If someone chooses to break them, they cannot be too surprised if society takes a dim view of it. We have it easy in the UK, in terms of vehicle modifications and customisation, especially when compared to Germany or Switzerland. We also have very safe roads compared to the USA and practically every other country. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzar Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 22 minutes ago, spookyandroid said: I have heard that in nations where they don't have such safety measures, that their healthcare system is littered with bodies of people destroyed by thrown debris and water spray. EDIT: Also not being snarky - throwing a little playful sarcasm in though Both are offences and can result in fines and points on your licence in the UK. It's called driving “without reasonable consideration for other persons.”. And quite right, too. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 There isn't an abundance of road issues where the same rules don't apply: The UK has around 5.7 RT deaths per 100k motor vehicles, per year. The data below shows that countries associated with more rules and slower speeds don't necessary reflect more safety - I've been to Iceland, its deserted, the roads are long, wide and have slow speed limits in most places. Japan has a car modifying market unlike any other, exactly the same as the UK. Japan 5.7 Spain 5.8 Germany 6.4 Iceland 7.6 France 8.4 US 14.2 Russia 50 China 104.5 India 130.1 Anyhow, you're absolutely correct, if we don't want issues with the plod, then we have to comply, that being said I'm certainly not one for thinking its "quite right". Long gone are the days where common sense prevailed. The general UK population believes it needs to be ruled/governed for "the greater good" and benefit of looking after everyone else and as a result most people take zero personal accountability and need everyone else to assume responsibility for them. Sorry fellas, guess I'm not gonna fit in around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nonimouse Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 But Traffic aren't interested in this unless an incident has occured or has been caused by a modification to a vehicle that breaks C&U Classic example is dynamic roof load weights, another is protruding tyres. Back in 2006, near Dunster, a local farmer pulled out of a field, in his LR 90, as he went down the road, parallel to a footpath, a lump of mud form his flicked off and hit a child, cycling with it's mother, long said path. The child fell off the bike and broke it's arm. The incident was reported to the police. The LR 90 had no mud flaps ( a legal requirement under C&U) but the driver was arrested and prosecuted for Driving without due care and attention, not for having an un roadworthy vehicle. I use this an example of 'vehicle prep, prior to returning to the road' to every one of the people I have on a course. You are unlikely to get pulled unless you are a nusance or you hurt somebody. Too few coppers, too many cars 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 17 minutes ago, Nonimouse said: But Traffic aren't interested in this unless an incident has occured or has been caused by a modification to a vehicle that breaks C&U Classic example is dynamic roof load weights, another is protruding tyres. Back in 2006, near Dunster, a local farmer pulled out of a field, in his LR 90, as he went down the road, parallel to a footpath, a lump of mud form his flicked off and hit a child, cycling with it's mother, long said path. The child fell off the bike and broke it's arm. The incident was reported to the police. The LR 90 had no mud flaps ( a legal requirement under C&U) but the driver was arrested and prosecuted for Driving without due care and attention, not for having an un roadworthy vehicle. I use this an example of 'vehicle prep, prior to returning to the road' to every one of the people I have on a course. You are unlikely to get pulled unless you are a nusance or you hurt somebody. Too few coppers, too many cars This is also a LR 90 drivers fault apparently - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10672239/Cyclist-falls-bicycle-Land-Rover-Defender-passes-country-lane.html The rules are rules, we can agree on that, being morally right or even useful is to be confirmed and is subjective to each incident. Keep in mind, we're living in a time where the council/gov is justifying "Clean Air Zones" to reduce deaths. When quizzed about deaths "it contributes to over 500" in my local city. So it doesn't cause i.e. it's not directly related to, just contributes. Entirely ambiguous, easily justifiable. I don't believe we have the statistics for wheel protrusion/mudflap/roof load weight related incidents, but if such data did exist, I expect it would be utterly minuscule. There is more of an issue from variations in weather conditions and more often the age of the vehicle Seemingly ironic that I'm having a battle around vehicle safety on a forum dedicated to old cars. Most of which have poor lights, poor brakes, practically zero safety equipment and probably one of the worst pedestrian impact safety ratings going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nonimouse Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 16 minutes ago, spookyandroid said: This is also a LR 90 drivers fault apparently - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10672239/Cyclist-falls-bicycle-Land-Rover-Defender-passes-country-lane.html The rules are rules, we can agree on that, being morally right or even useful is to be confirmed and is subjective to each incident. Keep in mind, we're living in a time where the council/gov is justifying "Clean Air Zones" to reduce deaths. When quizzed about deaths "it contributes to over 500" in my local city. So it doesn't cause i.e. it's not directly related to, just contributes. Entirely ambiguous, easily justifiable. I don't believe we have the statistics for wheel protrusion/mudflap/roof load weight related incidents, but if such data did exist, I expect it would be utterly minuscule. There is more of an issue from variations in weather conditions and more often the age of the vehicle Seemingly ironic that I'm having a battle around vehicle safety on a forum dedicated to old cars. Most of which have poor lights, poor brakes, practically zero safety equipment and probably one of the worst pedestrian impact safety ratings going. And most of the upgrades aimed at improving those issues are potentially illegal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagger Posted March 6, 2023 Share Posted March 6, 2023 Most of the owners on here try to keep their vehicles in good order, certainly compared to more common older cars like hatchbacks and cheap saloons. That is largely the point of this forum. Meanwhile, there are many new cars poorly maintained and running on inappropriate tyres because their owners have spent more than they can afford on what is seen as a prestigious car rather than an affordable one. As for rules being pointless and common sense being better, well, that is part of why the US statistics are so askew. The thing is, more people think they have very good common sense than actually have it. I think this very discussion proves why some issues have to be mandated and not left to owner discretion. 😉 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.