"Legal ride height"
Discussion
Hi,
Wondered if anybody knows if there are any laws/regulations relating to the clearance height of the underside of a car?
A newly installed folding parking bollard (in the folded position!) has taken a chunk out of my undertray and damaged the cross member.
The public liability insurer of the private property where the damage occurred says they are not liable as the bollard's height when folded is 69mm. The spec of my non-modified CLA shootingbrake is reportedly 96mm, and they claim that the "legal ride height" in the UK is 135mm (quoted from speedytests.co.uk which is by no means a legal repository). I cannot find any legal ride height guidance and think this must be nonsense (if it were a legal requirement, no insurer would insure it??). Even if their claim is true from a legal perspective, it would not explain why my car was damaged anyway.
The reason, I believe, that the car was damaged is because there are significant ruts either side of the bollard which artificially lowers the car relative the bollard. This is something that they have not investigated and will be grounds of my appeal but I am looking for a statement from a reliable source/website explaining that there is no "legal ride height" or words to a similar effect to stop their assertation that my car is not road legal.
Many thanks,
Wondered if anybody knows if there are any laws/regulations relating to the clearance height of the underside of a car?
A newly installed folding parking bollard (in the folded position!) has taken a chunk out of my undertray and damaged the cross member.
The public liability insurer of the private property where the damage occurred says they are not liable as the bollard's height when folded is 69mm. The spec of my non-modified CLA shootingbrake is reportedly 96mm, and they claim that the "legal ride height" in the UK is 135mm (quoted from speedytests.co.uk which is by no means a legal repository). I cannot find any legal ride height guidance and think this must be nonsense (if it were a legal requirement, no insurer would insure it??). Even if their claim is true from a legal perspective, it would not explain why my car was damaged anyway.
The reason, I believe, that the car was damaged is because there are significant ruts either side of the bollard which artificially lowers the car relative the bollard. This is something that they have not investigated and will be grounds of my appeal but I am looking for a statement from a reliable source/website explaining that there is no "legal ride height" or words to a similar effect to stop their assertation that my car is not road legal.
Many thanks,
While I'm pretty sure there is something around minimum clearances around tractor trailer units or trailers, there isn't one when it comes to cars.
If your car is an unmodified normal model (e.g. not something proper specialist, which usually come with disclaimers such as "reduced ground clearance" etc.), then you'd have a reasonable claim against them, but IANAL...
If your car is an unmodified normal model (e.g. not something proper specialist, which usually come with disclaimers such as "reduced ground clearance" etc.), then you'd have a reasonable claim against them, but IANAL...
If the car is a completely standard homologated model (which it sounds like the OP's is), it will meet whatever the minimum clearance is meant to me. I wouldn't worry about any specific height in mm.
Assuming the access is obviously intended for "normal" cars to use (e.g. a car park etc), it would be the landowners responsibility to ensure that the design is suitable for those cars to drive across without incurring any damage. Making the design suitable doesn't necessarily mean reducing the height, it could be putting up a warning sign saying that cars with a ground clearance less than x mm can't use the car park (i.e. similar to the height and width restriction warnings on multi-storey car parks)
The CLA is a nice car, but would definitely fit into the definition as "normal". Its ground clearance won't be significantly different to something like a Focus or an Astra, so would be expected to be able to access a car park without getting damaged. It wouldn't be quite so clear cut if, for example you were using an Ariel Atom to take some rubbish to the tip where such usage could arguably not be expected.
Assuming the access is obviously intended for "normal" cars to use (e.g. a car park etc), it would be the landowners responsibility to ensure that the design is suitable for those cars to drive across without incurring any damage. Making the design suitable doesn't necessarily mean reducing the height, it could be putting up a warning sign saying that cars with a ground clearance less than x mm can't use the car park (i.e. similar to the height and width restriction warnings on multi-storey car parks)
The CLA is a nice car, but would definitely fit into the definition as "normal". Its ground clearance won't be significantly different to something like a Focus or an Astra, so would be expected to be able to access a car park without getting damaged. It wouldn't be quite so clear cut if, for example you were using an Ariel Atom to take some rubbish to the tip where such usage could arguably not be expected.
The lack of any cited sources in the speedytests.co.uk FAQ would have me questioning the veracity of their claims on "minimum legal ride height" - ultimately I'd expect something akin to a "maximum height" sign that you get in public car parks warning of "minimum clearance" to absolve them of any liability for damage - you'd think the supplier of said bollard would know the in's and out's of it
Ultimately I'd argue that there their defence is based on a non-authoritative source without any cited information (i.e. you could create a website and state 50mm is the "minimum legal ride height" to show the veracity of their evidence) and that they have a responsibility to ensure they do not create a hazard for users of the facilities through modifications, and in this case they did not live up to their requirements...
Ultimately I'd argue that there their defence is based on a non-authoritative source without any cited information (i.e. you could create a website and state 50mm is the "minimum legal ride height" to show the veracity of their evidence) and that they have a responsibility to ensure they do not create a hazard for users of the facilities through modifications, and in this case they did not live up to their requirements...
Chubbyross said:
I seem to remember the legal maximum height of speed bumps in the UK is 10cm. I researched it a few years ago when I was thinking of buying something relatively low slung.
Yuphttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1025/regu...
lard said:
The lack of any cited sources in the speedytests.co.uk FAQ would have me questioning the veracity of their claims on "minimum legal ride height" - ultimately I'd expect something akin to a "maximum height" sign that you get in public car parks warning of "minimum clearance" to absolve them of any liability for damage - you'd think the supplier of said bollard would know the in's and out's of it
Ultimately I'd argue that there their defence is based on a non-authoritative source without any cited information (i.e. you could create a website and state 50mm is the "minimum legal ride height" to show the veracity of their evidence) and that they have a responsibility to ensure they do not create a hazard for users of the facilities through modifications, and in this case they did not live up to their requirements...
There is a minimum legal ride height for cars outside of the UK. I happened across a post about this related to Australia earlier today, where cars that have been lowered can attract fines if below 10cm ride height.Ultimately I'd argue that there their defence is based on a non-authoritative source without any cited information (i.e. you could create a website and state 50mm is the "minimum legal ride height" to show the veracity of their evidence) and that they have a responsibility to ensure they do not create a hazard for users of the facilities through modifications, and in this case they did not live up to their requirements...
Google suggests that the only minimum for ground clearance is for trailers (160mm from googling C&U regs).
Otherwise UK law limits on the basis of where headlights etc are located relative to ground.
I expect you would have a hard time arguing negligence when a speed hump could be higher and wouldn't be expected to have a warning about ground clearance.
While there is an official risk of grounding sign, I suspect it is only really intended for places where HGV's could ground out despite meeting minimum spec for trailers...
Otherwise UK law limits on the basis of where headlights etc are located relative to ground.
I expect you would have a hard time arguing negligence when a speed hump could be higher and wouldn't be expected to have a warning about ground clearance.
While there is an official risk of grounding sign, I suspect it is only really intended for places where HGV's could ground out despite meeting minimum spec for trailers...
Robertb said:
Chubbyross said:
I seem to remember the legal maximum height of speed bumps in the UK is 10cm. I researched it a few years ago when I was thinking of buying something relatively low slung.
Yuphttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1025/regu...
Chubbyross said:
I seem to remember the legal maximum height of speed bumps in the UK is 10cm. I researched it a few years ago when I was thinking of buying something relatively low slung.
Although in practice many exceed this, as I find out regularly since the nose of my Elise is about 11.5cm off the ground and often scrapes. 96mm is idiotically low for a standard "non-sporty" mainstream car!
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 4th June 14:57
I had a similar issue at my work.
They put in speedbumps and every time I went over it, it would hit the underside of my Gearbox (Standard BMW E90 M Sport)
Put in a complaint and was met with "well you drive a silly car, it's obviously too low".
Most landlords/people DGAF unfortunately.
They put in speedbumps and every time I went over it, it would hit the underside of my Gearbox (Standard BMW E90 M Sport)
Put in a complaint and was met with "well you drive a silly car, it's obviously too low".
Most landlords/people DGAF unfortunately.
kambites said:
Although in practice many exceed this, as I find out regularly since the nose of my Elise is about 11.5cm off the ground and often scrapes. 96mm is idiotically low for a standard "non-sporty" mainstream car!
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 4th June 14:57
wc98 said:
My wife's CLA has problems with the standard square block type speed bumps, i wish they would make them all cover the full width of the road. Would achieve the same objective without causing some cars issues.
They wouldn't, because the whole point in that type is that Ambulances etc don't have to ride the bumps and can just drive through without disruption.Put one wheel over the speed hump.
kambites said:
Chubbyross said:
I seem to remember the legal maximum height of speed bumps in the UK is 10cm. I researched it a few years ago when I was thinking of buying something relatively low slung.
Although in practice many exceed this, as I find out regularly since the nose of my Elise is about 11.5cm off the ground and often scrapes. 96mm is idiotically low for a standard "non-sporty" mainstream car!
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 4th June 14:57
Forums | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff