Wife has Grand Vitara with slightly wider after market alloys / tyres whereby the tyres marginally protrude beyond the bodywork. A guy drove from his driveway into the road as wife was passing and fortunately his car bumper only impacted with her rear n/s tyre hence no damage whatsoever.
Makes a mockery of her having to change her insurers when they declined to insure her re purported 'additional risks' probably associated with potential theft albeit without them there would have been a sizeable claim.
Yet another insurance 'mystery' re some insurers either won't give cover or will cover for increased premium and others don't give a toss as long as they are notified of the change.
|
some are not keen on modifications. Also, arent wheels wider than the body illegal?
|
|
|
Wife has Grand Vitara with slightly wider after market alloys / tyres whereby the tyres marginally protrude beyond the bodywork.
I'm sure it's not legal for tyres to protrude beyond the bodywork, someone will no doubt be able to clarify this. If they're not the wheels fitted at the factory, any insurance is invalid unless the company knows.
|
|
|
|
I saw a TV program (Road Wars?) where a boy racer was pulled over. The officer said along the lines of "You can see your tyres are too big. They stick out further than the bodywork, so they're illegal."
|
Wheels which protrude outside the body work are illegal which is why one sometimes sees pathetic pop rivetted 'spats' at the top of the wheel arches to make body work 'wider'.
|
|
|
Be assured that they conform to relevant legislation..the car has passed it's M.O.T test at four different testing stations since they were fitted 4 years ago and the current insurers were made aware of the size and type of after-market wheels. Maybe I wrongly implied that my wife was a 'lady racer' (she's 70 next year) and that the wheels / tyres protruded excessively. The tyres do not extend beyond the upeer wheel arch but at the lower ends adjacent to the sills the tyres protrude by marginally by only a few mm and it was at this point that the impact occurred....hope that clears up any ambiguity.
|
Be assured that they conform to relevant legislation..the car has passed it's M.O.T test at four different testing stations since they were fitted 4 years ago
There's no link between the two.
A car passing an MOT can still be illegal. It can even be unsafe. All an MOT means is that your car passed as series of pre-determined inspection points, it is not a comprehensive check of the legality or safety of the vehicle.
If your tyres protrude beyond the arches, they would be illegal. By the sound of it, they are comfortably within the tops of the arches, then this should be OK.
Number_Cruncher
|
|
There is a specific measurement I'll look it up, unless DVD beats me to it.
|
No specific measurements that I am aware of. In the days of the old Minis anything over 1" was deemed to be unacceptable.
'Dangerous Parts and Accessories' - onus on prosecution to prove the whys and where for's as to why the were or could be dangerous to other road users including pedestrians.
--
Fullchat
|
Forget measurements and protruding wheels.... not standard alloys need to be notified if the same size. I know of at least on driver in this situation. Accident not his fault but had to pay the difference on the policy (£50-100?) for different alloys on an older Audi A6.
Driver beware.
|
>>his car bumper only impacted with her rear n/s tyre hence no damage whatsoever.>>
Are you sure, it could have knocked the alignment out or even bent a tie rod etc.
|
|
LandRover tyres protrude beyond the wheel arches. Fitting deformable rubber spats seems to make them legal.
|
|
|
>>his car bumper only impacted with her rear n/s tyre hence no damage whatsoever.>>
>>Are you sure, it could have knocked the alignment out or even bent a tie rod etc.<<
As previously stated, no damage 'whatsoever'
I think that the reason for my original post has got lost in the subsequent posts re legality aspects etc. I was merely indicating that the fitment of the marginally wider alloys / tyres had prevented major damage and had therefore negated the insurers meeting a potentially significant claim albeit they chose to increase the premium by £50 for the privilege of fitting them.
|
|
Geordie - are you saying that the other party's car collided at right-angles to the Vitara, and that the 'marginally wider' tyre fended off any damage to the bodywork?
|
|
The insurers are likely to be charging an extra premium for sound reasons. Specifically, their data probably tells them that "modded" cars are higher risk than standard ones. This will be because such cars are more likely to be in an accident (perhaps due to the people who drive them - OP's wife excepted) and/or cost more to repair.
|
>>Geordie - are you saying that the other party's car collided at right-angles to the Vitara, and that the 'marginally wider' tyre fended off any damage to the bodywork?<<
That just about sums it up LHM...virtual 'T' Bone
|
|
|
|
|
|
