Flares & Mudflaps - Whats required by law

[cj!]

For those interested here is the Tyre standard that is applicable to us. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/legisla ... ALFRLI.pdf

Also something to keep in mind is that the ADR is the minimum requirement and that the States can add their own requirements to it but cannot reduce the requirements of the ADR. For example the ADR states that the mudflaps for offroad vehicles needs to be within 300mm of the ground. The State can add to that by stating that it is required to be within 200mm of the ground if it so wishes but it could not say that it only needs to be within 400mm of the ground as that would be attempting to reduce the effect of the ADR.

[mightymouse]

Getting some great info back...

And I agree that having a roadside argument isnt going to get you very far.....
But the facts do help - PhantomZooks Sierra was going to be rejected for a roadworthy because of the lift till he produced the appropriate docs ( as I understand it ).

However so far its exposed the mass of uncertainties, partially appropriate docs etc.

If you have a look at the application table at the beginning of the doc you quote Matt you will see that it covers passenger cars FROM 1 Jan 1993 so whats the go before that ? ADRs are not retrospective as far as I know....

And in a phone call to Vicroads - they tell me that the VSI - Roadworthiness requirements are to be used.

Given the mass of confusing docs - etc, any further info would be usefull.

[gwagensteve]

I don't want to add to the confusion, but here's my take on the section width at the top of the tyres thing-

It allows of the fact that a car with significant negative camber (rear of VW as an example, or even a laden commodore) might have the section width of the bottom of the tyre outside of a line drawn vertically from the outside edge of the wheelarch to the ground. I think even stock height (unladen) HSV product might fall into this category.

For our purposes (unless something is terribly wrong) we generally don't have to deal with significant negative camber so the coverage for the section width at the top of the tyre will be the same for the bottom.

Just my take on it.

Steve.

[Matthew]

If you have a look at the application table at the beginning of the doc you quote Matt you will see that it covers passenger cars FROM 1 Jan 1993 so whats the go before that ? ADRs are not retrospective as far as I know....

The copy I posted is 42/02 for vehicles manufactured after 1st Jan 1993, I had a quick look at 42/00 which covers vehicles made after 1st Jan 1988 and it appears to be the same (regarding wheel guards), the far right column of the application table refers to ADRs for previous years and there is no ADR listed for vehicles older than 1988, I had a quick look at Federal Register of Legislative Instruments http://www.comlaw.gov.au and there doesn't appear to be anything mentioning pre 1988. I imagine that older ADRs would be less strict than those of 1988, so if people stuck to 42/00 they should be pretty safe.


I have no clue as to what is going on anymore , I thought I knew more than I did. I'm just going to work with my original theory.

[muppet_man67]

If you want to keep it simple, you can download the checklist that roadworthy mechanics have to use. If you follow that then you shouldn't have any problems. (my theory anyway)

[mightymouse]

Yes I can see the logic in that Steve - its seems strange when the common police interpretation seems to be "fully covered" that
a perfectly legal OE car might not pass the "standard test", but can't fault the logic.

Will see if I can find the downloadable checklist ( thanks Muppet_Man )the whole thing is getting more interesting by the minute.

[muppet_man67]

The way I see it is that police don't have the time or memory to remember section 1.3.76.1 ADR specific to vehicles with live axles and led indicators etc. They will be following a far more simple set of rules. Flares, do they protect pedestrians from the wheels? do they prevent water mud gravel etc from being thrown into the air? Are their mudflaps? are the mudflaps effective in preventing gravel, water, mud, etc being thrown at following vehicles? Which is worked out either by a ratio to the height of the axle or how far the bottom of the mudflap is from the ground.

Matt if your concerned about your tires then just go and get some bushwacker flares. They are actually fairly rigid with the wire in them. I would be surprised if a cop picked on them as they are used so commonly for this purpose.

[muppet_man67]

link. http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonl ... /VSI26.pdf

[Matthew]

I'm not that concerned about what I will be doing with my tyres, I was just going to work with the info from my first post.

[mightymouse]

Yep Muppet_Man thats the VSI, I started with, that says the section width at the tyres top.

This thread isn't the result of anyones actual problem ( although prompted by a recent story ), Its about my confusion with the rules