|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Throttle |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Throttle Crazy Courier

Joined: 02 Jul 2009 Karma :     
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| The Shaggy D.A. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 The Shaggy D.A. Super Spammer

Joined: 12 Sep 2008 Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Paxovasa |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Paxovasa World Chat Champion

Joined: 25 Apr 2010 Karma :   
|
 Posted: 11:09 - 21 Jul 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
I believe that a front mudguard has to be fitted.
Edit: If you have one fitted it has to be secure, but it is not a legal requirement . Although it is a requirement for road use, just like a speedo. As you don't need one fitted for an mot, but do need one fitted for road use. ____________________ Suzuki GSF600 K3 (in the fastest colour, black).
Last edited by Paxovasa on 11:17 - 21 Jul 2010; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| The Shaggy D.A. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 The Shaggy D.A. Super Spammer

Joined: 12 Sep 2008 Karma :  
|
 Posted: 11:16 - 21 Jul 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
From a chopper forum :-
| Quote: | You’ve actually more chance of failing an MOT ‘With’ a front mudguard than without one, because it isn’t actually part of the MOT test.
To quote VOSA:-
MOT guidelines on Motorcycle Front Mudguards.
“The mudguard is not a tested item, as part of the MOT test. Its condition size and position would have no bearing on the test, unless a mudguard, if fitted, adversely affected the rotation of the front wheel”
This goes back to what I’ve said in the first issue, so just to recap, the MOT test is only a periodic safety check to identify worn or defective parts, it doesn’t check whether the bike is actually legal to ride on the road.
However, technically you 'could' still fail an MOT without one, although the guard itself isn't part of the inspection, the roadtest is still an optional part of the MOT if the inspector chooses to use it, if the vehicle isn't road legal then he or she won't be able to complete the inspection and it'll fail in that instance. It won't fail on the lack of a mudguard it'll fail as the inspection wasn't completed.
Mudguards are required to pass the MSVA.
Ok, so what does the rule book say, and are they required?…..yep I’m afraid so.
To quote The DfT:-
“Motorcycle mudguard requirements are contained in Regulation 63 of “The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986/1078)” as amended. It states that, motorcycles are required to have mudguards fitted which catch, so far as practicable, mud or water thrown up by the rotation of its wheels” So we’ve established that you’ll need a front mudguard, but how much tyre does it need to cover? Well here, we do have some ‘leeway’ because there isn’t any actual regulation that covers a mudguards size, other than being ‘practicable’ So I asked the local Constabulary how they enforce the C&U’s Regulation 63 on the road, to quote the Road Traffic Policing Unit:-
“They are legally required. With regards to size, I have looked everywhere that I can think of to find the answer but have failed, so there are obviously no guidelines available. My only comment would be that
they should not constitute any ‘dangerous parts’, e.g. sharp protruding edges, etc, that may cause injury to a pedestrian in a collision”
So there you go, a front guard is a legal requirement, but there are no dimensional requirements, if its checked for size it’ll be down to the discretion of who ever checks it and whether it could be considered ‘practicable’ or not. The full regulations are below.
Regulation 63 of “The Road Vehicles
(Construction and Use) Regulations
1986 (SI 1986/1078)” as amended.
Provides for the fitting of wings or
mudguards to vehicles to prevent mud or
water being thrown up by the wheels or
tracks.
63(1) This regulation applies to:
(a) invalid carriages;
(b) heavy motor cars, motor cars and
motor cycles, not being agricultural motor
vehicles or pedestrian controlled vehicles;
(c) agricultural motor vehicles driven at
more than 20 mph; and
(d) trailers, unless exempted by paragraph
(4).
63(2) Every vehicle to which this regulation
applies shall be equipped with wings or
other similar fittings to catch, so far as
practicable, mud or water thrown up by the
rotation of its wheels or tracks, unless
provided for in paragraphs (3) and (5).
63(3) The requirements specified in
paragraph (2) apply, in the case of a trailer
with more than two wheels, only in respect
of the rearmost two wheels.
63(4) Those requirements do not apply in
respect of:
(a) a works truck;
(b) a living van;
(c) a water cart;
(d) an agricultural trailer drawn by a motor
vehicle which is not driven at a speed in
excess of 20 mph;
(e) an agricultural trailed appliance;
(f) an agricultural trailed appliance
conveyor;
(g) a broken down vehicle;
(h) a heavy motor car, motor car or trailer
in an unfinished condition which is
proceeding to a workshop for completion;
(i) a trailer used for or in connection with
the carriage of round timber and the rear
wheels of any heavy motor car or motor
car drawing a semi-trailer so used; or
(j) a trailer drawn by a motor vehicle the
maximum speed
63(5) Instead of complying with paragraph
2) a vehicle may comply with Community
Directive 78/549. |
____________________ Chances are quite high you are not in my Monkeysphere, and I don't care about you. Don't take it personally.
Currently : Royal Enfield 350 Meteor
Previously : CB100N > CB250RS > XJ900F > GT550 > GPZ750R/1000RX > AJS M16 > R100RT > Bullet 500 > CB500 > LS650P > Bullet Electra X & YBR125 > Bullet 350 "Superstar" & YBR125 Custom > Royal Enfield Classic 500 Despatch Limited Edition (28 of 200) & CB Two-Fifty Nighthawk > ER5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| neil. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 neil. World Chat Champion

Joined: 24 Feb 2008 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| The Shaggy D.A. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 The Shaggy D.A. Super Spammer

Joined: 12 Sep 2008 Karma :  
|
 Posted: 12:31 - 21 Jul 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
Possibly, if the examiner deemed the mudguard to be part of the structural integrity of the front end. They'd have to be bloody picky though  ____________________ Chances are quite high you are not in my Monkeysphere, and I don't care about you. Don't take it personally.
Currently : Royal Enfield 350 Meteor
Previously : CB100N > CB250RS > XJ900F > GT550 > GPZ750R/1000RX > AJS M16 > R100RT > Bullet 500 > CB500 > LS650P > Bullet Electra X & YBR125 > Bullet 350 "Superstar" & YBR125 Custom > Royal Enfield Classic 500 Despatch Limited Edition (28 of 200) & CB Two-Fifty Nighthawk > ER5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| neil. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 neil. World Chat Champion

Joined: 24 Feb 2008 Karma :    
|
 Posted: 12:36 - 21 Jul 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
Perhaps I'll superglue the head on then. I tried to drill the bugger out at the time and all I did was make a hole, so there's no thread in there. I assume it'll have to be tapped out again. Meh. ____________________ CBT February 2008 | A2 June 2008 | Yamaha YBR125 (written off) | Honda CBF125 (current) |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Throttle |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Throttle Crazy Courier

Joined: 02 Jul 2009 Karma :     
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| tahrey |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 tahrey World Chat Champion
Joined: 07 Jul 2010 Karma :   
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| drzsta |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 drzsta World Chat Champion

Joined: 20 Apr 2009 Karma :     
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Dan79 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Dan79 Scooby Slapper
Joined: 26 Nov 2009 Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 15 years, 151 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|