A Question About Tires Poking Past The Fender

A place to discuss any general Highway Traffic Act related items.

Moderators: Reflections, admin, Radar Identified, hwybear, bend, Decatur

Post Reply
jjc2019
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:43 am

A Question About Tires Poking Past The Fender

Unread post by jjc2019 »

I had my car lowered with a fender roll and had after market wheels installed. The front wheels poke slightly beyond the wheel-wells probably by 1.25 inches. Is this illegal? I tried looking up the law and all I could find was that the tire should not come in contact with anything for a safe operating of the vehicle and the tires never touch the fenders or rub even while hitting massive potholes so I should be alright right(the guy who did the fender roll said it is legal but I want to confirm)? Also what are the rules on mudgaurds, my car came with mudguards at the front but none at the back, is it required by law to have mudguards at the back as well?


Car is a 2001 Acura 3.2TL

whaddyaknow
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 1:15 pm

Posting Awards

Unread post by whaddyaknow »

Mudguards


(3) Every motor vehicle and every trailer shall be equipped with mudguards or fenders or other device adequate to reduce effectively the wheel spray or splash of water from the roadway to the rear thereof, unless adequate protection is afforded by the body of the motor vehicle or trailer or by a trailer drawn by the motor vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 66 (3).

jjc2019
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:43 am

Unread post by jjc2019 »

Thank you for the reply!


I am confused by this statement: "unless adequate protection is afforded by the body of the motor vehicle", what does this mean? If the back of the car is long enough to reduce spray then mudguards aren't required or is it referring to some sort of other mechanical protection from spray other than mudguards?

whaddyaknow
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 1:15 pm

Posting Awards

Unread post by whaddyaknow »

I'm no lawyer, but here is how I would interpret it: Basically if somebody driving behind you is getting sprayed, that's a problem.


Mudflaps, body size, magic force fields, the mechanism doesn't matter.

bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1436
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:44 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

Unread post by bend »

It basically means mudguards aren't required unless they are required.


If the fenders, rear bumper, or body does what a mud guard does then they are not needed.


It's up to the individual laying the charge to make the call. There is no guidelines for this particular charge. Much like window tint or exhaust noise, it's up to the officer to decide.

JFDavidson
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:27 am

Unread post by JFDavidson »

If the tires on any motor vehicle or trailer extend beyond the protection of the body of the vehicle to either the left or right side of the motor vehicle then the motor vehicle will not pass a safety inspection. This means that it is unlawful to drive said vehicle on the roadway because it would be unsafe. Also tires extending behond the sides of motor vehicles are not protected from sending a spray to the rear of the vehicle. Many pickup trucks are getting away with this because the police even have them themselves. My windshield was hit by a stone from just such a vehicle. I managed to get the plate number and the owner was charged with operation of an unsafe vehicle. He had to have a safety inspection done on the truck before putting it back on the road.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests