(not my image. I just find these comical and incredibly dangerous)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 44 points 1 week ago (18 children)

Oh that’s easy! They’re not :)

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (17 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    I am guessing most states have a law about “unroadworthy vehicles” that pose a hazard

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Sure, but they they also define "unroadworthy," and this isn't it. To be clear I think these are awful and would prefer they were illegal, it's just that they genuinely aren't a lot of the time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    In South Carolina the law text is broad.

    It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or move or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved on any highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in such an unsafe condition as to endanger any person or property

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    And yet I still see Carolina squats on bigass trucks. Their front blind spot has to be hundreds of feet at least.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (10 children)

    common sense?

    But seriously, nothing can stick out beyond the body of the car (expect mirrors), not even wheels.

    Edit: After checking the laws says the fender has to cover the tire to prevent splashing so it may not apply to rims like that. So back to common sense

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    nothing can stick out beyond the body of the car (expect mirrors), not even wheels.

    That might be true for civilised countries.

    But then it's also the main reason why cars brought over by US military staff fail the inspection for road worthiness here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago*

    Various US states have fender coverage laws:

    • Fender Coverage Laws: States like California, New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania require the vehicle's fenders or mudguards to completely cover the width of the tire and wheel assembly. If a rim protrudes past the body of the car, it is a ticketable safety violation.

    Ultimately, the "slab" culture that popularized swangas remains highly localized to Texas and small pockets of the American South precisely because the rest of the world has closed the legal loopholes that allow them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

    I am not a lawyer but EU Regulation No 1009/2010 on type approval requirements for wheel guards states:

    2.1.1. In the part formed by radial planes at an angle of 30° towards the front and 50° towards the rear of the centre of the wheels (see Figure 1), the overall width (q) of the wheel guard shall be at least sufficient to cover the total tyre width (b) taking into account the tyre envelope as well as the extremes of the tyre/wheel combination(s) as specified by the manufacturer. In the case of twin wheels, the tyre envelopes and total width over the two tyres (t) shall be taken into account.

    In short: Nothing is allowed to extend beyond the wheel guards. Now, look at the image above again.

    Deviating materially from the type approval makes your car not street legal as far as I understand. But this is a matter for a lawyer. Surely there is a reason why these psychopathic car mods are impossible to find in all of the EU on public roads.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 6 days ago (3 children)

    Well written! But it misses my point entirely.

    Common sense is not a law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

    I did not quote "common sense" I quoted relevant law. If you want a full legal analysis rather than seeing relevant law, you need to pay a lawyer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments