MOT rules

[tiddler]

I've recently noticed a couple of trucks with wheels which stick out beyond the arches. I'm not talking your usual 1" or so, I'm referring more to the LRW hot-rod thing which they claim has an MOT and Fridge-freezer's 109 (for which I have not seen any claims to be MOT'd but have assumed it is)

Now I've always thought the arch had to cover the tread to pass an MOT. Could someone who knows please put me right because it would be a great help if I could confidently tell my MOT inspector the facts

Thanks for any enlightenment,

Tid

[sheeppimp]

tin opener, can of worms.... off we go

[Les Henson]

I don't think that this is an MOT isssue - just construction and use regulations. You will pass the MOT, but then get nicked for driving it on the road.

Les.

[rtbarton]

Look here

MOT Manual

[dollythelw]

point your inspector in the direction of VOSA and ask him to give them a bell and clarify it with them - as Les said its C&U not MOT

and yep - Fridge has an MOT

[FridgeFreezer]

Yes I have an MOT, the inspector even phoned VOSA to check before he issued the ticket.

[reads90]

Yes I have an MOT, the inspector even phoned VOSA to check before he issued the ticket.

Jules and me were talking about this the other week. In referance to you truck Jon

The funny thing with the MOT is there are things not asn MOT failure but are Illegal

And one of thoses is Wheel arches. They will not fail you for tyres out side the wheel arche but in the eyes of a copper they are illegal and you will get pulled over.

I used to have a 100 Hybrid which i sold to a chap and it had a set of 33 , 11.50 BFG's on and they were about an inche out side the arches. The chap got questioned by a copper and he told her it was not the tread that was sticking out but the water ejaculation jacket and therefore was legal. The copper smiled said Oh ok and walked off

[dollythelw]

the water ejaculation jacket

sorry - I just had to quote that

chainguards on bikes - not an mot failure, 3 points if you get caught on the road though

hooray for cohesive legal systems

[reads90]

sorry - I just had to quote that

chainguards on bikes - not an mot failure, 3 points if you get caught on the road though

hooray for cohesive legal systems

At the time Jules was with the chap and after Jules said to him , Whats a water ejaculation jacket

And the Guy said, I be buggered if i know but got rid of that copper

[tiddler]

Thanks for that.

So my new challenge truck should be able to get its MOT after all and not have stupid arches which will get ripped off in the first 5 minutes!

It gets trailered to all events and none of them require road use any more so one less thing to worry about.

Tid

[gav-]

out of interest tiddler, any pics?

[tiddler]

out of interest tiddler, any pics?

Not yet, but soon!

[Les Henson]

Not yet, but soon!

Ooooh - getting all excited now!

Les.

[jules]

At the time Jules was with the chap and after Jules said to him , Whats a water ejaculation jacket

And the Guy said, I be buggered if i know but got rid of that copper

Ture

Mr Staply at his finest

[western]

Thanks for that.

So my new challenge truck should be able to get its MOT after all and not have stupid arches which will get ripped off in the first 5 minutes!

It gets trailered to all events and none of them require road use any more so one less thing to worry about.

Tid

if it's never going to be driven/used on the public highway & always be trailerd to/from events,then I can't see why it needs a mot test. unless it's part of the competion requirement

[Guest WALFY]

Ralph

A lot of organisers ask/state that all vehicles be roadworthy with tax/ins and MOT. So in theory if it never touched the tarmac it would be fine. But even at James' events you have to transit between 2 sites at one of his sites. So it would then need to be C & U compliant. Tough call but is it worth the chance.

[andyb]

You could PM oldmanmoore. He is a new member here but also an MOT tester of some considerable experience. Just tell him I sent you

[Guest WALFY]

Or Weeble. He's tested a few vehicles in the past.

[western]

Ralph

A lot of organisers ask/state that all vehicles be roadworthy with tax/ins and MOT. So in theory if it never touched the tarmac it would be fine. But even at James' events you have to transit between 2 sites at one of his sites. So it would then need to be C & U compliant. Tough call but is it worth the chance.

Ok, thought as much.

[Les Henson]

TEMPL4R is a member of this website too - he's an MOT tester

Les.

[geoffbeaumont]

Ralph

A lot of organisers ask/state that all vehicles be roadworthy with tax/ins and MOT. So in theory if it never touched the tarmac it would be fine. But even at James' events you have to transit between 2 sites at one of his sites. So it would then need to be C & U compliant. Tough call but is it worth the chance.

Would 'roadworthy' not imply compliant with C&U regs?

[Guest WALFY]

The MOT is a road worthiness check. C&U isn't a check in essence it's a set of rules. C&U isn't tested at any time during the life of a veh. It's something that has to be done. If a veh has an MOT it is deemed roadworthy. At the end of the day it all comes down to interpretation of the rules. It's like the English language. Moving commas and full stops can change the meaning of a sentence.

It is all academic until someone goes to court and makes a precident. Until then we all make decisions with our trucks as to how far we think we can push the rules. The average plod doesn't fully understand C&U.

Perhaps an event organiser could comment as to how they feel with this issue and it's implications with events they run and the impact itcould have on the events they organise.

[FridgeFreezer]

We're in danger of going into the whole SVA/C&U argument from Mr Wightman's thread of a while back - if you ask challenge vehicles to be 100% road legal to the letter of C&U then you can write off 90% of the field of every event. I would suggest if this thread strays in that direction it's split as that's another, even bigger, can of worms

[nickm]

Was pulled over earlier this year for driving my lightweight (fedima 35's on rangy axles) with no arches, they said that only about 6inches directly above the tyre had to be covered rather than having a whole arch fitted, not sure how true this is

was advised to have something fitted before they see it on the road again

was also told I could get 3 points per arch (instant ban)

[Ryan]

The following was taken from Butterworths Police Law 8th Edition:

"Regulation 63 of the Construction and Use Regulations requires that the following motor vehicles be fitted with wings or the like:

...

{b} heavy motor cars, motor cars and motor cycles, not being agricultural motor vehicles or pedestrian-controlled vehicles.

...

Works trucks, unfinished vehicles, living vans, and some agricultural trailed appliances are exempt from the need to be fitted with wings...

...Otherwise motor vehicles must be equipped with wings or similar fittings to catch, as far as practicable, mud and water thrown up by the wheels...

Regulation 100(1) of the Construction and Use Regulations requires that a motor vehicle, every trailer and all parts and accessories of such vehicle or trailer must at all times be in such a condition that no danger is caused or is likely to be caused to any person in or on the vehicle or trailer or on the road."

So that's nice and clear then! Unfortunately, Butterworths does not specify what is an unfinished vehicle, which is helpful (considering this is used as reference material to police officers all over the country). Aren't most Landrovers unfinished??

Edited to add:

Trouble is, how this is interpreted is down to the individual, police officers included. It seems alot of laws are written in such a way, that the authors want to leave it to the courts to make a decision and set a precedent.