Underwear's cheaper
(In all seriousness - thanks - you've reminded that I need to look for some new tyres too lol)
Police FPN advice... Wheel Poke.
- Thread starter the rake
- Start date
Currently reading:
Police FPN advice... Wheel Poke.
Underwear's cheaper
(In all seriousness - thanks - you've reminded that I need to look for some new tyres too lol)
OP
OP
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
- Messages
- 950
- Points
- 191
Anyways, back on topic.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/3013/made
As per the above source.
Quoted from the
The Motor Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 1996
"d) wheels, if there are no pointed or sharp features which projects beyond the external plane of the wheel rim, no wing nuts are fitted and there are no projections beyond the vehicle body plan form apart from tyres and wheel discs, if the latter have a radius of curvature of not less than 30 mm and do not project by more than 30 mm beyond the vehicle body plan form;..."
So, my question is... Legal, or .....?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/3013/made
As per the above source.
Quoted from the
The Motor Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 1996
"d) wheels, if there are no pointed or sharp features which projects beyond the external plane of the wheel rim, no wing nuts are fitted and there are no projections beyond the vehicle body plan form apart from tyres and wheel discs, if the latter have a radius of curvature of not less than 30 mm and do not project by more than 30 mm beyond the vehicle body plan form;..."
So, my question is... Legal, or .....?
Looks legal to me bud!
Looks legal, but I can understand why the police didn't like it. Perhaps narrower wheels, or arch trims might be a good idea. Even if you win this one, you are likely to be stopped regularly. Producing evidence of a won court case will embarrass the copper, so he will wast a lot of your time looking for anything else wrong. Avoid the aggro, cover them up.
You could take that to mean that the wheel itself must not come out beyond the wheel arch? In which case, yours clearly do, even if it is only a little way.
So a wheel trim can be convex & come out a max of 30mm
and/or
the natural 'bulge' of a tyre wall - distance from the tread to the outermost point on the wall including letterings etc. - so the tread has to be covered by a wheel arch but the wall of the tyre or a convex disk can stick out beyond the arch ?
Got to be extremely careful with the legalese - they write these things specifically with the intention of tripping up the lay person.
So, no tread or wheel rim beyond the arch but a bulging wall is OK.
Last edited:
That sounds right. So tread must not protrude, but sidewall and trim can.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
- Messages
- 950
- Points
- 191
Yeah.
Up to 30mm, as far as I understand....
Which I'm well within.
Irony of it all... Is with my new job at ATS Euromaster, I'm set to be covering the tyres used at the same Traffic Police depot where the Issuer is based.
I'm not sure, the straight edge is touching the side of the wheel rim in your pic?
"d) wheels, if there are no pointed or sharp features which projects beyond the external plane of the wheel rim, no wing nuts are fitted and there are no projections beyond the vehicle body plan form"
could be interpreted as 'wheel level with the arch' in other words, drop a plumb line down from the edge of the arch....
& the convex wheel disc would be like the old-fashioned hubcaps or maybe
Where the convex trim is designed to cover protruding wheelnuts/studs, giving a rounded/smooth edge to protect pedestrians ?
I would say that, without the tyre, that straight edge on your wheel MUST NOT be further out than the arch.
With the tyre on, the tread MUST NOT show outside the arch (which it appeards to do in the 1st picture) but the bulge of the tyre wall can.
In other words, the bulge starts at the edge of the tread & ends at the edge of the wheel.
in other words,
overall width of the tyre - rim width / 2 = 15mm
(looking at my earlier cross section of tyre)
So, if your rim is 165mm and the tyre's overall width (including lettering!) is 195mm then you're OK - and if you took it to court & your overall width was 200mm, the pedants would have you.
As I said, they write all this technical stuff & wrap it in jargon, legalese & gobbledegook. The idea, then, is that the legal teams spend forever pouring (glasses of champers & wringing their hands with glee) over the terminology & make a shedload of cash in the process.
With the tyre on, the tread MUST NOT show outside the arch (which it appeards to do in the 1st picture) but the bulge of the tyre wall can.
In other words, the bulge starts at the edge of the tread & ends at the edge of the wheel.
in other words,
overall width of the tyre - rim width / 2 = 15mm
(looking at my earlier cross section of tyre)
So, if your rim is 165mm and the tyre's overall width (including lettering!) is 195mm then you're OK - and if you took it to court & your overall width was 200mm, the pedants would have you.
As I said, they write all this technical stuff & wrap it in jargon, legalese & gobbledegook. The idea, then, is that the legal teams spend forever pouring (glasses of champers & wringing their hands with glee) over the terminology & make a shedload of cash in the process.
Most coppers are OK but you will ALWAYS get one or two that will nitpick & then hold grudges. Often they are the ones who can never get an erection or a promotion! They believe the uniform makes them a demigod.
I would also replace to avoid the aggro - before you find yourself pulled for wearing a loud shirt in a built up area during the hours of darkness. Or pulled for having a broken and defective (*smash*) headlight.
Once you are on someone's radar, a few of them will make your life hell.
Which is when a decent "dash cam" becomes useful :devil:
I'm wondering if there is a slight distinction to be found in the differences between tyre and wheel design when the legislation was passed and now. For instance, When I were a lad, wheels tended to have the disc part set further into the wheel and 70% profiles were considered pretty racy, along with a bowed sidewall. The latter would have made it difficult for a wheel to protrude beyond the arches unless it had a knock-off nut/spinner.
Personally, I would look at all the evidence you have, your photographs and the advice of tyre specialists and elect a Magistrates' Court hearing. Don't forget that the Mag's is for the little people, people like us in other words. They will uphold the law but they are generally welcoming of those who have a genuine belief that they are correct and are not taking the p**s.
You could go for Not Guilty; and explain your situation. There are a number of ways this could go. They could find on behalf of the Prosecution and penalise you with points, fine (possibly increased) and add costs, which are most likely to be double figures.
They could find you guilty but order a Conditional Discharge, or alternatively an Unconditional Discharge.
The other choice would be to plead Guilty by the Ticket but that you would like to attend as you have Extenuating Circumstances.
I'll give you a personal example.
A long time ago I worked for an organisation whereby I had use of a new Transit van. I had at the time, an Uno 60DS. Then you didn't have to tax a vehicle if it was kept off the highway. At one stage I decided to change job within the same firm which would mean I'd have to give back the van. I knew the Uno would need some rent on it as I hadn't used it for 18 months. Mrs. Beard suggested I should wait 10 days or so until I got paid and do it then . You can almost see this one coming can't you? On the second day, on my way into work, I passed a Police Range Rover that was on the hard shoulder, and as I drove past he pulled me over. The next day I rang the Mag's and spoke to a clerk who told me I'd have to pay all the back tax plus I'd be fined the equivalent of 1.5 times the value of that and in addition I'd have to pay Court costs.
I pleaded guilty and stated that I'd like to attend. I asked my employer for proof that I'd had use of a fully expensed van and that I'd had it for almost 2 years. I also asked the garage owner on the unnadopted street where I'd parked it if he would write a letter to the Court stating that he couldn't remember a day that the car wasn't parked there. I then asked the Council to confirm that the road where it had been left was not maintained at public expense, which they did.
Armed with these letters I turned up, and after confirming that I was still pleading guilty, explained the circumstances. They actually thanked me for the effort I'd put in to my defence and went into a little huddle. After speaking with the Clerk to the Court they decided to give me an Unconditional Discharge. I'd already told them that I'd taxed the car and asked if it would be possible to pay the back tax to the Court. The Clerk to the Court explained that unfortunately they couldn't waive the back tax but otherwise they were not going to fine me nor would they demand costs.
Because I was going guilty the Cop didn't attend and as I'd been ok with him there was no need for him to make any statement that I'd..... shown no remorse.....had a total lack of respect for the law.....was clearly comtemptuous of the fact that others obeyed the law while I flaunted my contempt for it.....etc., etc.
If you firmly believe that you are not guilty and that you were acting in accordance with the law as you saw it and were advised regarding it, the worst that is liable to happen is that you'll receive a Conditional Discharge.
I think it's worth remembering the phrase that "You had a genuinely held belief that you were not committing an offence....."
Personally, I would look at all the evidence you have, your photographs and the advice of tyre specialists and elect a Magistrates' Court hearing. Don't forget that the Mag's is for the little people, people like us in other words. They will uphold the law but they are generally welcoming of those who have a genuine belief that they are correct and are not taking the p**s.
You could go for Not Guilty; and explain your situation. There are a number of ways this could go. They could find on behalf of the Prosecution and penalise you with points, fine (possibly increased) and add costs, which are most likely to be double figures.
They could find you guilty but order a Conditional Discharge, or alternatively an Unconditional Discharge.
The other choice would be to plead Guilty by the Ticket but that you would like to attend as you have Extenuating Circumstances.
I'll give you a personal example.
A long time ago I worked for an organisation whereby I had use of a new Transit van. I had at the time, an Uno 60DS. Then you didn't have to tax a vehicle if it was kept off the highway. At one stage I decided to change job within the same firm which would mean I'd have to give back the van. I knew the Uno would need some rent on it as I hadn't used it for 18 months. Mrs. Beard suggested I should wait 10 days or so until I got paid and do it then . You can almost see this one coming can't you? On the second day, on my way into work, I passed a Police Range Rover that was on the hard shoulder, and as I drove past he pulled me over. The next day I rang the Mag's and spoke to a clerk who told me I'd have to pay all the back tax plus I'd be fined the equivalent of 1.5 times the value of that and in addition I'd have to pay Court costs.
I pleaded guilty and stated that I'd like to attend. I asked my employer for proof that I'd had use of a fully expensed van and that I'd had it for almost 2 years. I also asked the garage owner on the unnadopted street where I'd parked it if he would write a letter to the Court stating that he couldn't remember a day that the car wasn't parked there. I then asked the Council to confirm that the road where it had been left was not maintained at public expense, which they did.
Armed with these letters I turned up, and after confirming that I was still pleading guilty, explained the circumstances. They actually thanked me for the effort I'd put in to my defence and went into a little huddle. After speaking with the Clerk to the Court they decided to give me an Unconditional Discharge. I'd already told them that I'd taxed the car and asked if it would be possible to pay the back tax to the Court. The Clerk to the Court explained that unfortunately they couldn't waive the back tax but otherwise they were not going to fine me nor would they demand costs.
Because I was going guilty the Cop didn't attend and as I'd been ok with him there was no need for him to make any statement that I'd..... shown no remorse.....had a total lack of respect for the law.....was clearly comtemptuous of the fact that others obeyed the law while I flaunted my contempt for it.....etc., etc.
If you firmly believe that you are not guilty and that you were acting in accordance with the law as you saw it and were advised regarding it, the worst that is liable to happen is that you'll receive a Conditional Discharge.
I think it's worth remembering the phrase that "You had a genuinely held belief that you were not committing an offence....."
DueUno
New member
Every traffic cop you've spoken to has told you he'd pull you as it looks dodgy. You've had to get a rule out to prove their probably not, so you can't expect a copper to judge that at speed.
Therefore if you go to court and win, you'll be able to tell each one that you're right every time you get pulled over. You may need something in writing.
However, virtually every journey which involves passing the police will also involve a lengthy stop at the side of the road whilst you discuss the intricacies of the law and get your rule out for your wheels.
Personally, I'd change the wheels or add widened arches so that they look obviously legal.
Therefore if you go to court and win, you'll be able to tell each one that you're right every time you get pulled over. You may need something in writing.
However, virtually every journey which involves passing the police will also involve a lengthy stop at the side of the road whilst you discuss the intricacies of the law and get your rule out for your wheels.
Personally, I'd change the wheels or add widened arches so that they look obviously legal.
as already said get as much evidence you can and go to court, that's what i'd do.
just because they are police officers doesn't mean they are always right & this case looks a perfect example of that.
just because they are police officers doesn't mean they are always right & this case looks a perfect example of that.
And there will also be all the other 'excuses' they can trot out - 'a vehicle fitting this description was used in a robbery/drugs/getting fuel without paying...' plus, 'you didn't appear to be wearing your seatbelt, you looked like you were using your phone, are those tints legal? (assuming you have them), let me get my light meter out - oh look, it's broken, let's wait for a colleague to bring one - which will involve sitting there for even longer.
You'll need to carry your driving license as well as copies of insurance doc plus all copies of the court case - so they can check it all out.
They'll be like the proverbial dog with a bone!
I'm no legal expert, but if I can interpret those rules the way I did, I'm sure the legal bods will do the same.
Remember also that prosecution can bring in EXPERT witnesses who will no doubt look at the above rule/law and put exactly the same slant on it that I did.
Note, their expert could be one of the traffic cops who has already said he will pull you over.
Can you afford your own expert witness who could argue otherwise?
As advised above, you will need to get all your documents and facts lined up. Magistrates are not legally trained, they rely on the advice of one court clerk, which is actually a qualified barrister. If this clerk is a keen driver, they will understand and give good advice. If however, they do not like driving, get cut up by motorists on their bicycle every day, etc., they may interpret the law differently. As you work for ATS, you may be seen as supposed to be the expert here, advising your customers. Have ATS a legal department that can advise, as they would have to do so if you, or a colleague had advised a customer who was now in this situation.
You need to stand in court, confident that you are right, with all the details to back it up, without making anyone else look stupid. (Policeman, clerk, magistrate, etc.)
Might be an idea, between now and court case, if possible, to refit original wheels and tyres, showing that you are concerned to get it right.
Then, after you've won (or sadly lost) fit some arch extensions.
You need to stand in court, confident that you are right, with all the details to back it up, without making anyone else look stupid. (Policeman, clerk, magistrate, etc.)
Might be an idea, between now and court case, if possible, to refit original wheels and tyres, showing that you are concerned to get it right.
Then, after you've won (or sadly lost) fit some arch extensions.
Last edited:
DueUno
New member
When I was 17/18 I had a Mk 2 Escort. As it was a rust bucket, it ended up with rally arches (ones under were rotting away) and was permanently painted in primer, as it was easier to touch up when the rust appeared again.
Funnily enough, I used to get stopped weekly, especially at night whilst they checked me out even though I never got more than a producer for the documents. Since then I've had much quicker and sportier cars yet have NEVER been stopped as they've all been stock on the outside.
I've read the snippet several times, my personal interpretation is that you are illegal. Tyres and wheel discs may project up to 30mm, but from your photos the actual wheel is sticking out past the bodywork, you've also slightly stretch your tyres, they may investigate further and bring up construction and use regs, if tyre manufacturer says its stretched you might have issues, do your insurance know you have done this too? Are they standard fit wheels for the car?
I am very interested to know which way this goes if it does get to court. Good luck I hope you don't get screwed over.
Your insurance company need to be told about those wheels and tyres (no expert myself but are they 'stretched'?) before you next take your car out if you haven't already.
They're asking for a policy invalidation if you ask me, and mention stretched tyres and most main stream insurance co's will be seeing red.
30k post
They're asking for a policy invalidation if you ask me, and mention stretched tyres and most main stream insurance co's will be seeing red.
30k post
Similar threads
