I was following a stock height alfa 147 GTA yesterday and it would have failed the "straight line from guard to ground" test both front and rear but the section width was covered at the top of the tyre.mightymouse wrote: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.
I am aware though that a TOG officer will shoot first and ask questions later - I have heard all the horror stories about this stuff - door speakers in commodores attracting a "structural defect" etcetc. IMHO best to comply with 300mm (or better) and the vertical line from guard to ground and then you are surpassing any interperetation of the law.
Don't even start on tyre coverage from the front. I have heared of cars being canaried for inadequate tyre coverage viewed from the front even when the tyres were covered from above. I have never seen standard in relation to this.
One point - I have a theory that police know when a car is too heavily modified to easily get through an RWC so all they have to do it put a yellow bird on the screen and by their reasoning they have taken an unsafe/illegal car off the road regardless of how spurious the reason. They know that the car won't pass a RWC even if the one item they nominated is fixed.
Steve.
Steve.