Topic: Message #1039925

[Snowtoy]

No you have to have adequate coverage to prevent spray to the rear of the vehicle.

This requirement is unenforceable since the law doesn't state what amount of spray is acceptable, and if it did, it would then only be enforceable under wet conditions.

27600.  No person shall operate any motor vehicle having three or more wheels, any trailer, or semitrailer unless equipped with fenders, covers, or devices, including flaps or splash aprons, or unless the body of the vehicle or attachments thereto afford adequate protection to effectively minimize the spray or splash of water or mud to the rear of the vehicle and all such equipment or such body or attachments thereto shall be at least as wide as the tire tread. This section does not apply to those vehicles exempt from registration, trailers and semitrailers having an unladen weight of under 1,500 pounds, or any vehicles manufactured and first registered prior to January 1, 1971, having an unladen weight of under 1,500 pounds.

LEO’s aren’t experts in the law, they don’t have any better understanding of the law then the average person does, which is why so many arrests/tickets get dismissed when challenged in court.  Laws are written primarily by lawyers for lawyers who understand how to interpret them from a legal analysis perspective, you can’t read and interpret them the same way you do with general literature.

When interpreting CVC 27600 as it was intended to be interpreted it states the following, all motorized vehicle having 3 or more wheels, any trailer, or semi-trailer is required to have a body that at least covers the tread of the tire.  Any motorized vehicle having 3 or more wheels, trailer, or semi-trailer that does not have a body that at least covers the tread of the tire must then be equipped with fenders, covers, mud flaps, or splash guards.  The purpose of this requirement is to afford adequate protection to effectively minimize the spray or splash of water or mud to the rear of the vehicle.  The only exemptions to this requirement are vehicles exempt from registration, trailers and semi-trailers with an unladen weight of under 1500lbs, and vehicles with an unladen weight of under 1500lbs that were manufactured and first registered prior to January 1, 1971. 

not an "either or"  that means by law he would of had to have flares aswell CHP probably let him slide since he's not retarded wide. Ive had enough mudflap/flare tickets to know the law way too well..  Last one i got on my fullwidth truck where i had FULL size semi truck mudflaps on the rear of the vehicle and it was still not enough for the CHP.

Whomever told you that CVC 27600 was an “and” law was wrong, it is an “or” law when pertaining to tire tread coverage.  The only “and” requirement is in the section defining which vehicles are exempt from the requirements of the statute.  For it to be an “and” law, it would have to state fenders or covers are required on all motor vehicles having 3 or more wheels………, and when fenders or covers do not “afford adequate protection to effectively minimize the spray or splash of water or mud to the rear of the vehicle”, devices such as fender flares, flaps, splash guards, or a combination of these devices will be required for compliance.  Or, the law would state that no more than “X” amount of inches of tread can be exposed from the side of the body of a vehicle or trailer, and no more than “X” inches of tread can be exposed below the body of the vehicle, before additional coverage is required, such as the Oregon law does.  CVC 27600 does neither of these, therefore it is an “or” requirement code, and not an “and” requirement.

I ended up fabbing flares with my flaps like this

which also had garden edging coming out off that too since that also was not enough to cover the tire.

Nice work on the flares.