Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So here goes...

This may well be opening an old can of worms, in fact I AM.

I think what I am looking for here is some fresh perspective and definitive facts on the law which covers this subject.

I was pulled over today as part of a routine / random police checkpoint thingy.

All my paperwork and insurance was in order etc etc. However one chap spent a rather long time perusing the corner of my 90. This is not unusual for me as I run 35x12.50 r16 BFG MUDs on 8inch rims and people do like to look. However after he disappeared from my mirror for a chat in his mates ear he returned with some pointers regarding the coverage of my wheel arches and the state of my tyres.

Now I don't want to open up the "can of worms" mentioned above about how rubbish people think the laws are because they are there and I get it (I don't necessarily agree either).

As someone who loves his Land Rover hobby and relies on it also for travel I believe I have made a conscious effort to be within the law in every aspect.

I use QT wheel arch spats to cover the additional tread and all is insured etcetc. I have also read the law/directive thingy, which I can't now find!, which stated that the MAIN TREAD of the tyre must be covered from an above view but sidewall and logo is permitted.

This chap decided That the entirety of the wheel and tyre must be covered "like any other vehicle". He also claimed to be and ex-traffic cop? He Los did not seem to like the front and rear trimming of the spats.

As well and the arches he pointed out the paper cuts in the side wall and partial cracking beginning to form in between the tread and on the sidewall. It is not bad at all and we all know that BFG's have a good ply strength. The tread incidentally is near brand new! He said that for the "paper cut" slashes as I call them, could be up to 3 points each on a bad day.

I respect his genuine and sensible approach to informing me of all this but I would just like to know what the facts are behind it all?

Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this but I believe I'm not the only one who requires info in this dark area....if people are interested I can post a couple of pics whilst a I go tyre shopping!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all depends on the copper that pulls you over, as these details are subjective it's up to them. You might be able to complain, however it's a labored and painful experience.

Being nice and polite can work wonders.

Cheers,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was pulled over on the way back from an mot a couple of years ago. The rr had passed, the copper said it could not have passed because the tyres came out 2in passed the arches. He then implied that the mot was dodgy. He then called his mates in, and they decided to take the car away to let vosa have a go at it. They failed it on one number plate bulb was not working and the rear brake line was missing one clip! Then they said the car was unfit to be on the road because of these two faults and canclled the mot giving me 7 days to get it re moted. The tyres going passed the arches was never mentioned by vosa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was speaking to a mate of mine within the garage trade recently (he owns a garage that does tyres/MOT's etc.) he informs me that traffic police officers are all qualified MOT Inspectors-they have to be to be able to pick things out/up during roadside checks etc. they do one MOT a year and that covers them for updates on the current rules on new things VOSA bring out, As far as I'm aware the wheels and tyres have to be within the coverage of the arches

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC Construction and use regs only the tread has to be covered, the sidewalls and wheels can protrude.

Trouble is C&U is irrelevant as it depends on any previous court case precedents that have been set.

If they can win it they will prosecute.

My mate was stopped by the Met for his 1948 flat fender Willy's jeep. They did not like the open front of the mudguards, even though it is a standard body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies so far. I appreciate there is a subjective element to all roadside observations, however there must be a definitive law on which an officer has to refer to otherwise this would never happen.

The construction and use legislation thingy is what I was referring to in my opening post (couldn't think of the name). That is one part I am most interested in as I struggle to read and understand the legislation writing on the .gov website. It would be interesting to know for all concerned wether this has been amended anywhere?

Any chance someone could find and post the act here somewhere??

(I don't mean that to so sound too much like homework, it's just some people are better at this stuff than me)

So any ideas on tyres cracking and paper cuts then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was speaking to a mate of mine within the garage trade recently (he owns a garage that does tyres/MOT's etc.) he informs me that traffic police officers are all qualified MOT Inspectors-they have to be to be able to pick things out/up during roadside checks etc. they do one MOT a year and that covers them for updates on the current rules on new things VOSA bring out, As far as I'm aware the wheels and tyres have to be within the coverage of the arches

John

Whilst I have no evidence to refute this I sincerely doubt this to be true.

I base my conclusions on a number of things;

The mot rules are amended and updated on an almost weekly basis and the testers are unable to log in to perform a test until they have read the amendment

Also each tester must be quality checked by another tester (the station manager normally) monthly - to do this they undertake a test whilst being observed,

Both of these things would rule out the once yearly test to keep your hand in as you describe above.

Also I work in an business which supplies over 1500 vehicles to various police forces yearly, we have an MOT test lane and employ three testers, the station manager is a former VOSA hgv testing station manager, as is one of the testers, the other tester is a former VOSA mobile (roadside) inspector. None of us has ever heard that the traffic police are qualified mot testers, and I would have thought we would be better placed to hear about that kind of thing than your mate in the trade.

Further to the above, if traffic police were qualified testers what purpose would the mobile VOSA (now DVSA) inspectors serve?

Going back to the OP's question re tyre cuts - the MOT guidelines have recently been amended that cuts to tyres are acceptable provided the carcass of the tyre is not showing. The most the tester can do is pass and advise. It should be noted that the mot test is the minimum safety standard for use on the road

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was speaking to a mate of mine within the garage trade recently (he owns a garage that does tyres/MOT's etc.) he informs me that traffic police officers are all qualified MOT Inspectors-they have to be to be able to pick things out/up during roadside checks etc. they do one MOT a year and that covers them for updates on the current rules on new things VOSA bring out, As far as I'm aware the wheels and tyres have to be within the coverage of the arches

John

im sorry but this is purly scare tactics, both of my parents have been/ are traffic police and they dont hold mot status they dont even get specific training in what is legal just the usual of how to notice if something doesnt look right. this is why if they think it is wrong they will seize the vehicle for further inspection by the experts.

the only actual laws state the the tread must be xcovered enough to be safe to other road users and pedestrians and that you must make a resonable effort to reduce road spray.

so fitting extended arches with a lip covers you entirely law wise if you fit the flat QT spats then it is essential you fit some mud guards to reduce road spray.

the 'paper cuts' should be fine as long as you cant see the fabric coming through obviously if they are gashes of a reasonable size then it would be worth changing them and i would definately limit my speed. i would hate to think what would happen to me and my truck if one of my 33"s was to blow out at 70 on the motorway!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was speaking to a mate of mine within the garage trade recently (he owns a garage that does tyres/MOT's etc.) he informs me that traffic police officers are all qualified MOT Inspectors-they have to be to be able to pick things out/up during roadside checks etc. they do one MOT a year and that covers them for updates on the current rules on new things VOSA bring out, As far as I'm aware the wheels and tyres have to be within the coverage of the arches

John

Perhaps they should use this " alleged new found knowledge" to inspect their own cars/panda cars. The amount i see driving about with a light out or dirty reflectors or number plates is uncanny. Yet they'd be the first to tell you about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps they should use this " alleged new found knowledge" to inspect their own cars/panda cars. The amount i see driving about with a light out or dirty reflectors or number plates is uncanny. Yet they'd be the first to tell you about it.

I thought the police had to fill in the daily inspection report for the car before they took it out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in order to keep this one under control and too the point (don't want to start bashing the plod here!) what would be good is the "C&U" document to define this?

@Cookie64, with QT spats, what dictates the need for mud flaps as well when these spats are all but and extended version of the standard land rover item? Bearing in mind that a lot, if not most, defender have the mud flaps removed. Further more would that not then apply to "conveyor belt type spats" which would normally wider as well < incidentally what I am looking to do now!!

I'm going to go get some pics...be back in sec...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO... Having failed to upload the piccys (too big) I have been down to a very well trusted and faithful tyre place local to me. They also service and MOT stuff. Now, as mentioned above, the LAW and MOT have two slightly different views (which I guess is what we are trying to get to the bottom of). The guys there had a look over all the points I have mentioned including the cuts, cracking and wheel arch issues. He even probed the worst cracks (apologies for that ha!) with a screw driver. One cut was even a few mm deep but he informed me confidently that unless the ply is showing at any point, the tyres would be safe and not a failure. I have to say I agree which him as well especially having now seen the real thickness of the rubber and taking into account the number of plys in the sidewall.

As for the wheel arches/spats, he confirmed my thoughts that as long as the main lugs of the tread (road contact area) are covered then not even VOSA can argue. By technicality you could have about a 1ft section in the middle on it's own as long as it covered the main tread lugs!

I think I may still go the rubber belt route just to make it obvious that I am trying to be a law abiding citizen! (Good movie!)

I still want to search for the construction and use legislation paperwork and have it to hand - HIS advice!

Interestingly it would appear the officers that are conducting these operations (which has a funny code name) are NOT traffic police as this was meant to be a paperwork check - good idea I say! Is this a good use of street coppers' time?...well perhaps not a debate for this thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some Crash Investigation Officers are MOT inspector trained

Traffic coppers aren't in any of the forces I deal with - 7 at the moment

Although it would be nice to call the bluff - it's not worth it. I would however download the relevant section about allowable tyre damage, print it off and have it in the vehicle

In reality you are driving a vehicle with non homologated tyre size, no doubt with a lift (not for road use) and god knows how many other non 'approved' mods; but you will only feel the weight of the law if you have an accident and someone is injured or God forbid killed; and if that happens and it's your fault you can't win anyway, on more than one occasion I've been in the coroners court when the police vehicle examiner has found fault with a virtually brand new vehicle,

So cover your ar$e with some paperwork and don't have any accidents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MOT for all vehicles is subjective , and only can be applied based on the wording of the various testing manuals , there even is different criteria used by road side enforcement based on Categorisation of defects manual (This governs the seriousness of the defect and applicability of prohibition type eg immediate or delayed) .

The C and U regs are another case again , as these together with RVLR and others statutes etc are the overarching legislation that the MOT testing regs are based on , and not all parts of these laws are applied thru the the MOT testing regime .

Police are not warranted for test purposes , unlike VOSA (DVSA) examiners/inspectors . They can however involve VOSA for expert opinion .

Re your mudguards , they do need to cover the tread area , although the wording is not exact as to degree of spray suppression required (unlike HGV specifications) past this point . Like HGV however the type of vehicle and its usage would be a factor in deciding if the required reasonableness had been achieved . I hope this makes sense , as I am trying not to say an absolute , as this doesn't in reality exist . Re cuts , ply cords being exposed would be a definite fail. HTSH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems a bit picky to me, I have filled cracks (bigger than those) with black silicon sealant in the past but that was on truck tyres (11x22.5) worked fine but those were cracks in the rubber rather than cuts.

Plant hire firm I used to work for did the same with bad cuts in dumper tyres as well :)

There is a rule for depth of cuts I believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned but cannot corroberate, when I spoke to a Traffic cop in the HQ about C&U he said that it is a base but the past casebook sets the precident for subsiquent procecution. If they (sorry) have won before they will likely win again.

He gave the casebook to read to see if it was covered. Interesting but boring at the same time!

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy