****inthemud Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 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. Some useful bits, did you manage to find where the section is specifically in the C&U link? I have seen it before and it gives a clear statement on the coverage of tread vs sidewall bit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
****inthemud Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 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 So how did the casebook elaborate on the above? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
****inthemud Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 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 If you the link regarding tyre condition by Western, it is quite clear about how the police/VOSA should tread cuts. All in all as long as the ply is not showing, there is no case...I don't see how anyone can argue that kind of definition (when you read it) though I would not argue the points you make above as they seem the same as what the road side copper has to say - slightly inconclusive... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean f Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I was always under the impression that as far as tyres where concerned if they could pass the MOT requirements then they were legal (ignoring potential issues of not approved, declared different to insurance etc). If threads show fail, if excessive small cracking (rubber to aged) then fail, not sure the Police can really enforce any other requirements. I have in the past had a hire car company (one of the major ones at Heathrow which I won't name) try and convince me a tyre was fine even when it had a cut in the side that went down to the threads and cut some of those as well, I refused to accept the vehicle as un safe and non road legal, they kept says as long as the tread was fine the tyre was legal, after a "frank discussion" I got another car, happy in the end as I went from a Fiat Brava to the only other car they had free a soft top Merc!. What annoyed me is after a pointed out the fault they still tried to send me off in the vehicle, even there mechanic said it was fine, would have been me that had the accident if it blew out or got the points and fine if I was stopped shows how good there vehicle safety checks are, it clean and shiny send it back out. Police check points often don't know the law, I got stopped quite few years ago and given a road side emissions test, which apparently I failed on excess CO2, I knew the engine was rough as the airfilter was covered in mud, got given a defect tickets which had to be stamped by and MOT tester to say the vehicle is now to MOT standard. I upset the police tester by leaving the vehicle at the test point and walking down the road to the MOT station getting the form stamped and then walking back and handing it back to him. He wasn't happy that the vehicle had had nothing done to it and MOT tester hadn't even looked at it. We both ended up in the test station and the tester and police then had a discussion over requirements, a 1954 vehicle had no CO2 requirement for MOT, test was "does not smoke excessively" (might be different now) so it had passed on what the police had failed it on as the criteria was invalid confirming this required several calls to higher people including DVLA? to confirm MOT reuirements. Fixed the problem when I got home by cleaning out the airfilter. Used to get the same issue with not wearing a seat belt, don't have them officer, you must have, no I haven't, few calls and I used to be sent on my way with a recommendation that I really should have some fitted, which to be fair was good advice, never did fit them though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketomcat Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Down load the IVA manual because if you pass that your home made car is legal therefore if you meet those requirements then your legal. mind you could have an IVA then there's no arguments but that's another can of worms. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honitonhobbit Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Careful Mike - you mentioned IVA! You know that can bring down the wrath of the Gods! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketomcat Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Yeah but I'm building a car to pass those regs so I don't care la la la not listening. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
****inthemud Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 Your safe here in the defender forum aren't ya? LOL!! Western did you see my post replay above. I wondered if you tell me where the specifics are in the link to the C&U section? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Some useful bits, did you manage to find where the section is specifically in the C&U link? I have seen it before and it gives a clear statement on the coverage of tread vs sidewall bit? not when I looked for it yesterday, might be in my paper copy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Member Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The directive above references the EU directive as an alternate: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1978:168:0045:0050:EN:PDF 2. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 2.1. The wheel guards must meet the following requirements when the vehicle is in running order (see section 2.6 of Annex I to Directive 70/156/EEC) and the wheels are in the dead ahead position: 2.1.1. In the part formed by radial planes at an angle of 30º to the front and 50º to the rear of the centre of the wheels (see figure 1), the overall width (q) of the wheel guards must be at least sufficient to cover the total tyre width (b) taking into account the extremes of tyre/wheel combination as specified by the manufacturer and as indicated in section 5.2 of the certificate set out in Annex II. In the case of twin wheels, the total width over the two tyres (t) shall be taken into account. 2.1.1.1. For the purposes of determining the widths referred to in 2.1.1, the labelling (marking) and decorations, protective bands or ribs on tyre walls are not taken into account. 2.1.2. The rear of the wheel guards must not terminate above a horizontal plane 150 mm above the axis of rotation of the wheels (as measured at the wheel centres) and furthermore the intersection of the edge of the wheel guard with this plane (point A, figure 1) must lie outside the median longitudinal plane of the tyre, or in the case of twin wheels the median longitudinal plane of the outermost tyre. 2.1.3. The contour and location of the wheel guards shall be such that they are as close to the tyre as possible ; and in particular within the part formed by the radial planes referred to in 2.1.1, they shall satisfy the following requirements: 2.1.3.1. the projection - situated in the vertical plane of the tyre axis - of the depth (p) of the outer edge of the wheel guards, measured in the vertical longitudinal plane passing through the centre of the tyre, must be at least 30 mm. This depth (p) may be reduced progressively to zero at the radial planes specified in 2.1.1; 2.1.3.2. the distance © between the lower edges of the wheel guards and the axis passing through the centre of the wheels must not exceed 2r, "r" being the static radius of the tyre. 2.1.4. In the case of vehicles having adjustable suspension height, the abovementioned requirements must be met when the vehicle is in the normal running position specified by the vehicle manufacturer. 2.2. The wheel guards may consist of several components, provided no gaps exist between or within the individual parts when assembled. 2.3. The wheel guards must be firmly attached. However, they may be detachable either as a unit or in parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Member Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 See drawing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzar Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Well, that's cleared that up then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigelw Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I failed my MOT here in Belgium for not having mud flaps fitted!!! Only thing they failed me on too, no poxy mud flaps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacr2man Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The type approval requirements would only apply to vehicles with type approval which began in 2007 or so IIRC . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
****inthemud Posted April 6, 2015 Author Share Posted April 6, 2015 The type approval requirements would only apply to vehicles with type approval which began in 2007 or so IIRC . Which "type approval" are you referring to here out of interest?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
****inthemud Posted April 6, 2015 Author Share Posted April 6, 2015 The directive above references the EU directive as an alternate: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1978:168:0045:0050:EN:PDF The quote that you showed, does is that an up to date directive? I have found so many different versions in the past? It seems as though they try to make it as difficult to interpret as possible...."I wonder why that is?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Henson Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 MOT regulations and C&U ( construction and use) regulations are not the same at all. You could have a valid MOT, but still drive your vehicle on a public road illegally. Tyres are a good example - MOT requires minimum tread depth of 1.6mm, carcass damage (cracking), depending on the tyres being new or remould, and that's it. If your tyres extend beyond the bodywork in the straight ahead position, then it's not an MOT fail, but is however - against C&U regulations, so you would get nicked for possibly killing someone You might think that an MOT entitles you drive your motor on a public road. but C&U is actually more important. Strange rules that apply to the MOT - If you have no windscreen, then wipers/washers are not testable. ABS light not going off is a fail, but if you remove the bulb so that it doesn't come on at all is only an advisory. Same with the seat belt restraint. Most of the dashboard warning lights can be removed and are a far cheaper optiion than getting the problem fixed properly and still stay within MOT regs. You don't always know if your vehicle is legal on the road until it's too late :) Les Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 What Les said. When I 1st built the 109 it had no arches and the tyres stuck out 4-6" either side. At the MOT station the tester said "I'm sure that's illegal", spent 10 minutes reading & re-reading the MOT book, could see nothing, he actually phoned VOSA up with me stood next to him and they told him basically what Les said: "It's illegal under C&U but it's not in the MOT, you must issue an MOT cert." I did put arches on later, but time was against us that day so it had to have a ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
****inthemud Posted April 7, 2015 Author Share Posted April 7, 2015 I am already aware of the vast differences between C&U and the MOT world....all rubbish in my eyes. What I was trying to find out is what Red90 posted on page to with what I believe we C&U regs and wether they were up to date even though it says 1978 at the top of the document in the link...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 C&U will be upto date, only amendments to various sections would be issued when anything under EU or UK regs changing if it affects the existing C&U regs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Yup exactly.... that forms the basis of the C&U and then there are amendments of it, so that is current. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shutler1 Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Im my personal experiences over the last 2 years of running 35 12.5 mud tryes, the mot station cant fail your vehicle for the tyres not being entirely covered as it isnt an mot-able item, ( i just get an advisory every year ) but if you wer to have a particularly picky copper that knew what he was talikng about he could give you a bollocking for it. I was pulled over last year for towing a trailer ( by a traffic officer ) without the correct licence. He realy went to town on me with the lack of licence and the number if things that wer wrong with the trailer. He took a look at the tyres and gave me a dissaprovig look, but as i had just been bent over with regards to the trailer i think he decided to turn a blind eye to them. I think ur average copper isnt going to do mich about it as most of the local ones to me just look at the landy and give me a smile and a nod. Although i will admit that as soon as i have a spare £200 i will be purchasing a set if devon 4x4 wider arches. And when i have a spare £600 and a week off work i will be taking my trailer licence. Anyhow mostly just my opinion and my experiences but hey ho, just see what happens. Whats the worst that could happen. 3 points?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad_pete Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 So touching on some of the points should a 90 have mud flaps as a reasonable effort to reduce spray ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Mudflaps are not a MOT testable item, they were optional on new vehicles but seem to be a factory standard fit to help reduce spray on wet days therefore improving road safety for all, mudflaps might be covered under the spray supression regs for HGV's - just a guess. maintenance of spray suppression devices -- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/65/made Spray suppression devices -- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/64/made exception from the 2nd link.--- (2) This regulation does not apply to— (a)a motor vehicle so constructed that the driving power of its engine is, or can by use of its controls be, transmitted to all the wheels on at least one front axle and on at least one rear axle; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Drumstick Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Mudflaps are not a MOT testable item, they were optional on new vehicles but seem to be a factory standard fit to help reduce spray on wet days therefore improving road safety for all, mudflaps might be covered under the spray supression regs for HGV's - just a guess. maintenance of spray suppression devices -- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/65/made Spray suppression devices -- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/64/made exception from the 2nd link.--- (2) This regulation does not apply to[/size] (a)a motor vehicle so constructed that the driving power of its engine is, or can by use of its controls be, transmitted to all the wheels on at least one front axle and on at least one rear axle; I don't think mudflaps have been standard fitment on every model over the entire production period. So if the vehicle met type approval without them, then it is logical to assume that they are not required to meet the "reasonable effort to reduce spray". As an individual you cannot be expected to do more than the factory who gained the type approval. 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.