|
|
Post by beaker on Jul 6, 2006 19:23:15 GMT -5
Anyone here challenge a MA inspection that was failed due to tires sticking out past the body? MGL Ch 90, Section 19 states it is permissible if the vehicle is equiped w/ 4wd.
I'm in the middle of filling out the challenge form now, and will be faxing it in tomorrow morning.
-mike
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Jul 6, 2006 19:36:32 GMT -5
Good luck! Keep us advised.
Of course those 18.5 X 33 X 15 may be considered a little over-kill. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by ZAEDOCK on Jul 6, 2006 20:18:50 GMT -5
I have never had a problem, but here it is, plain as day:
Section 19 Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, no passenger motor vehicle shall be operated on any way if such vehicle has the side wall or thread of any tire projecting outward beyond the outer portion of the fender or side body panel, unless such vehicle is equipped with four-wheel drive or is otherwise modified and intended for off-the-way use.
This is from section 7:
Every passenger motor vehicle which is equipped with tires which extend beyond the fenders or body of such vehicle and which is operated in or upon any way shall be equipped with flaps or suitable guards to reduce such spray or splash to the rear and sides.
IMO, chapter 7 indicates that IF you tires stick out, then you need either flaps or guards to reduce (not eliminate) spray or splash. So, I would think that factory fender flares are acceptable.
Ultimately, I think that you have a very good argument.
Good luck and keep us updated.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaker on Jul 6, 2006 22:23:54 GMT -5
Interesting. I'm past the fender flares, that's the issue. Reading Section 9, it leaves things a bit vague & subjective. Does 75% coverage of the tire by the fender flare 'reduce such spray or splash to the rear or sides.'?
We'll see how it goes.
-mike
|
|
joejoetheduck
Jeeper
Just Empty Every Pocket (at least once a month)
Posts: 66
|
Post by joejoetheduck on Jul 7, 2006 15:19:35 GMT -5
good luck
|
|
|
|
Post by DOUG® on Jul 8, 2006 14:43:13 GMT -5
So your saying that 25% of your tires stick out beyond the flare? If this is the case, don't even bother contesting it, you will not win.
There are plenty of aftermarket flares to chose from.
|
|
|
|
Post by extremeex1 on Jul 8, 2006 17:49:07 GMT -5
he should be able to win doug there is no place in the laws written above that says the amount that has to be covered. they just have to reduce the amount of splash or spray. but maybe i am reading really wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kodi on Jul 8, 2006 17:54:51 GMT -5
Doug took the "course" for inspections for work mmmmmmmmm last year, year before? He'd be in the know.
|
|
|
|
Post by extremeex1 on Jul 9, 2006 10:14:39 GMT -5
i see
foot to mouth dooohhh
|
|
|
|
Post by beaker on Jul 9, 2006 12:07:32 GMT -5
But my question is what's the basis for that?
-or-
Where's the magic book that states what's valid & what not?? Not just on this issues, but inspections in general...
-mike
|
|
|
|
Post by ZAEDOCK on Jul 9, 2006 13:11:05 GMT -5
I was in an argument on another forum last year, with an individual who had just been through Mass inspector training. He indicated that ALL vehicles needed to comply to the 2" deviation in suspension height. I told him that he was wrong and that my Jeep needed to comply with 540 CMR 6.05 Maximum Combined Mechanical and Tire Lift.
Also, a number of years ago, I had a new exhaust system installed on my Malibu. I was pulled over sometime later for loud exhaust and ticketed. I told the officer that the shop had used a dB meter and I was legal. He didn't care. At the hearing, my ticket was thrown out because I provided the documentation that my exhaust was legal and that the officer ticketed me based on his opinion.
There is no consistency in inspection stations. I did some checking and could not find anything related to inspector training that indicated how much a tire can stick out of your vehicle. Probably because MGL chapter 90, section 19, documents what is allowed. A good analogy to all of this, is that Police officers enforce the law, but do not know ALL the laws that they enforce.
edit: IMO, contesting you tires is not futile.
|
|
|
|
Post by DOUG® on Jul 9, 2006 14:30:03 GMT -5
There is no consistency in inspection stations. I did some checking and could not find anything related to inspector training that indicated how much a tire can stick out of your vehicle. Probably because MGL chapter 90, section 19, documents what is allowed. A good analogy to all of this, is that Police officers enforce the law, but do not know ALL the laws that they enforce. edit: IMO, contesting you tires is not futile. Good point Joe, it is typically up to the PO to make the call. |
|
|
|
Post by ZAEDOCK on Jul 9, 2006 21:13:28 GMT -5
The inspectors and PO's probably need a little discretion though, with the 1000's of laws out there. In a perfect world, everything would be cut & dry. I think I remember my brother in law telling me (when he worked for a shop as an inspector in NH) about a guy whose car he failed for something(maybe brakes? It was a long time ago). Anyway, the guy contested and won, but it was actually a legit problem. He just slipped through the system. I still think you should contest, in the very least, to see their interpretation of whatever law or rules they dig up. It would be cool to see some facts. Personally, I recommend what Doug said in an earlier post about getting some good flares, regardless of the outcome. kicking up rocks at the dude behind you kinda sucks.  |
|
|
|
Post by baseshakers on Jul 10, 2006 11:09:13 GMT -5
i've heard of plenty of people who own "inspection" tires. buy an old set of little stockers for cheap, go get your sticker, then put on what you want. i've never done it, but i've heard it works. now if a cop stops you...
|
|
|
|
Post by beaker on Jul 10, 2006 14:25:12 GMT -5
I could easily have done that, I have my 30"s in the garage. That wasn't the point, I wanted to pass as-is.
FWIW, I've already ordered extended flares & will be going back for the re-inspection after getting them on.
-mike
|
|
