Cons & Use - Tyres & Arches help.
Cons & Use - Tyres & Arches help.
Author
Discussion

BliarOut

Original Poster:

72,863 posts

269 months

Thursday 23rd June 2005
quotequote all
I have a friend who has to drive a red cross ambulance. As it's used on beaches, it's fitted with extra wide tyres to cope with the sand. It's also used on the road.

The rear arches have been extended "with tinplate" (his words, I haven't seen them) but the front tyres are proud of the arches. It has just passed it's MOT, but my friend is concerned he may be being asked to drive an illegal vehicle.

Does anyone have the relevant regs? Google hasn't been able to help as yet.

Ta.

pdV6

16,442 posts

291 months

Thursday 23rd June 2005
quotequote all
Was under the impression that tyres had to be under the bodywork when pointing straight ahead. Don't know where to find the regs though.

BliarOut

Original Poster:

72,863 posts

269 months

Thursday 23rd June 2005
quotequote all
I was under that impression too. A regulation that I can see makes sense for once. The doubt comes from the fact that it passed the MOT... Perhaps things are different for ambulances. It's about 1991 vintage if that makes a difference.

Whistles patiently while waiting for that font of all knowledge known as DVD

Dwight VanDriver

6,583 posts

274 months

Thursday 23rd June 2005
quotequote all
Whistle no more mon ami, c'est moi...

Reg 63 R.V. (Con and Use) Regs 1986 has a special section on wings, non angel or bird type.

Applies to heavy motor car, which I presume is the classification of the Ambulance:

..every vehicle shall be equipped with wings or other similar fitting, to catch, so far as practicable, mud or water thrown up by the rotation of its wheels.

There are exemptions mainly in the field of agriculture, half finished vehicles etc..

...so if the tyres extend beyond the wing some distance then offence appears to be committed.

I presume the wheel spacers if fitted do not take the vehicle beyond its permitted width?

Don't think mudguards are a Mottable item but could be wrong.

DVD

>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 23 June 21:02

Tonyrec

3,984 posts

285 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
The guideline that we/i use is when looking down at the top of the tyre, if you can see the tread sticking out from the arch then its illegal. If all you can see is the tyre wall then its ok.

BliarOut

Original Poster:

72,863 posts

269 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
Dwight VanDriver said:
Whistle no more mon ami, c'est moi...

Reg 63 R.V. (Con and Use) Regs 1986 has a special section on wings, non angel or bird type.

Applies to heavy motor car, which I presume is the classification of the Ambulance:

..every vehicle shall be equipped with wings or other similar fitting, to catch, so far as practicable, mud or water thrown up by the rotation of its wheels.

There are exemptions mainly in the field of agriculture, half finished vehicles etc..

...so if the tyres extend beyond the wing some distance then offence appears to be committed.

I presume the wheel spacers if fitted do not take the vehicle beyond its permitted width?

Don't think mudguards are a Mottable item but could be wrong.

DVD

>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 23 June 21:02



Tres bien et merci mon ami DVD

And while we are feeling continental..... Grâce à Tony aussi bien

Edited to add:
What's the offence committed?

Turns out it's a Land Rover based vehicle.... I would imagine wing extensions are easy enough to source.... Google here I come.

>> Edited by BliarOut on Friday 24th June 14:05

Dwight VanDriver

6,583 posts

274 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
SUMMONS
(MC Act 1980,s.1; MC Rules 1981,r 98)

Piston Heads Magistrates Court (Code 1234)

24th June 2005

To the accused………..

of…………………..

You are hereby summoned to appear on…….. at………before the Magistrates’ Court at……………to answer to the following information:

That you did at ……on……., on a road called…..drive a motor vehicle, namely a Landrover registered number……. not equipped with wings or other similar fittings to catch, so far as was practicable, mud or water thrown up by the rotation of its wheels.
Contrary to Regulation 63, Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1986, Section 42 (1), Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act, 1988.

Prosecutor:

Address:

Date of Information:


Signed:

Justice of the Peace.

--------------------< cut here >-----------------------


One thing I did not mention earlier is that if home made wings have been constructed and fitted and if they have sharp edges etc then there is the possibility of a further offence of using a m.veh in such a condition as likely to cause danger.

For those that have never had one, hopefully never will, that is what a Summons looks like.

DVD

BliarOut

Original Poster:

72,863 posts

269 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
DVD, I do believe you are being facetious

Is that an endorsable offence? If so what points/fine could be expected?

No, I don't mean in the PH court!

He want's the info so he can explain why he won't drive the vehicle and why they shouldn't until it's resolved.

Dwight VanDriver

6,583 posts

274 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
No points, level 3 fine - 1000 notes max but if a goods vehicle or carry more than 8 passengers goes up to 2,500.

DVD

BliarOut

Original Poster:

72,863 posts

269 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
Thanks DVD, you're a star.

I know beach racing is dangerous, but I doubt they'll be able to carry more than eight people