Safety Inspection laws *new and improved"

[BCGPER]

While I'll agree with you the present lift law is somewhat of an improvement over the original, it's pretty much worthless due to the wording of the law, and the consessions made to get it to pass. At the time, we really didn't care about the tire coverage issue because quite frankly, it was needed in some cases, but really hadn't been an issue with most of us in the past.

In my mind, and I think most saw it this way, something like Brett's rig (since we both know that one well) on 38's and full width axles was the poster child for needing mudflaps. A TJ with a 1" budget boost, or a truck with oversized tires didn't really costitute a "lift". I won't attempt to qoute the law, but in a nut shell anyting that raises the frame rail is considered a lift. No wiggle room in the wording, if it's 1/8" or 8" it's a lift. So, the way it's written, over inflating your tires is cause for a mudflap ticket. However, you're golden with a 2" body lift.

As far as the specifics on mine, both have the same issues as most everyone else on here. The Jeep is mainly tire coverage issues. Even with the dorkey looking 6" flares and flaps, that's still not enough according to the letter of the law. So I'll be ordering new wheels just to get it to pass safety inspection.

The truck is exactly the way it left the showroom floor, and has passed inspection the last 7 years without flaps. It has a leveling kit and 35's, so it's required to have mudflaps. The flaps are now installed to the letter of the law, and hang down one inch lower than the tailpipe.

Are you referring to the suspension law or the mup flap law?

Whats specifically illegal with your Jeep? Whats specifically illegal with your tow rig?

Suspension:
I personally think the new law is 10 times better than the older, for every CJ/TJ/FJ/XJ (shorter wheelbase than ~100") you get twice (or more) of legal lift. With the old lift a CJ5 could have ~2" of lift, with the new law they can be sprung over on 35's if setup with the law (frame height) in mind.

Mudflap:
I'm not sure what changed and when it happened, but to my knowledge it didn't have anything to do with the suspension law that U4WDA helped introduced. Even if it did the old suspension really sucked and I'll live with fender flares and mud flaps long before I'm content with a 2.5" lift on my FJ40.

 

[eatrocks]

When my jeep was sold to me by a dealer ship it had front mud flaps but not rears. a year later i went o get my 1st utah MVI and was told it needed rear mud flaps. I would love to find out if it really passed the 1st time or not. Any way about 6 months after that I got stop in west vally city, for not have a seat belt on that I had on. At that point the officer walked around the jeep and gave a ticket for a cracked winsheild, no 3rd brack light, and no mud flaps, they were back at the house waitng to be used for the next MVI. with it cost me 50.00 for each ticket I have decided that it a lot easyer to make the jeep so it will always all the time.

It also helps our case to keep our rigs 100% leagel all the time! With the new BLM games we need to be looking at the bigger problem here and stay in side the laws. Is it a PIA you bet. But other then not wanting to do what we have to do or are told to do!!!!! On the street with the cop is not the place to have this out.

Years ago when i lived in KCMO I drove a 72 blazer that had no seat belt it was not made with them it was after realy a 72 truch not a car but a blazer can have eather truck or car plates. All car made after 67 have seat belt truck did not have them till 73. i got not one but 3 ticket for not have my belt on , a belt that was never there. That i proved to the judge were never there not once but 3 times and i lost my plates and licensefor 90 days anyway. i then put in the belts was gone to change the plate to truck ones but trucks could not have seats in the beds.

Lets pick the fight we can win. I think that there is something going on here that you dont know some one on your block that does not like your jeep and is calling on it. But if you know that a full with bumper is needed then put it on. Go crash it with out it being legal and get tickited during said crash and see how fast your insurance use that as the reson to not pay. Some fight are not worth it no mater how much we want to fight it. Have you sent a letter to local state rep telling him what you think. thats what well get this changed. And yes in know i spell like s&&#

 

[cruiseroutfit]

While I'll agree with you the present lift law is somewhat of an improvement over the original, it's pretty much worthless due to the wording of the law, and the consessions made to get it to pass. At the time, we really didn't care about the tire coverage issue because quite frankly, it was needed in some cases, but really hadn't been an issue with most of us in the past.

In my mind, and I think most saw it this way, something like Brett's rig (since we both know that one well) on 38's and full width axles was the poster child for needing mudflaps. A TJ with a 1" budget boost, or a truck with oversized tires didn't really costitute a "lift". I won't attempt to qoute the law, but in a nut shell anyting that raises the frame rail is considered a lift. No wiggle room in the wording, if it's 1/8" or 8" it's a lift. So, the way it's written, over inflating your tires is cause for a mudflap ticket. However, you're golden with a 2" body lift.

As far as the specifics on mine, both have the same issues as most everyone else on here. The Jeep is mainly tire coverage issues. Even with the dorkey looking 6" flares and flaps, that's still not enough according to the letter of the law. So I'll be ordering new wheels just to get it to pass safety inspection.

The truck is exactly the way it left the showroom floor, and has passed inspection the last 7 years without flaps. It has a leveling kit and 35's, so it's required to have mudflaps. The flaps are now installed to the letter of the law, and hang down one inch lower than the tailpipe.

I think there is a little confusion here (probably on my part ).

Yes the new lift law (41-6a-1631) does have a notation about "If the wheel track is increased beyond the O.E.M. specification, the top 50% of the tires shall be covered by the original fenders, by rubber, or other flexible fender extenders under any loading condition." That said I believe that the mudflap law (41-6a-1633) had nothing to do with the new lift law and was in fact in place at the same time as the old lift law? I can't find older archives of the laws to verify but I remember this being the case with the older safety inspection handbooks??

A body lift would also be means for having to have mud flaps, it does say "a vehicle that has been altered from the original manufacturer's frame height", but it also says "or a vehicle that has been altered in any other manner so that the motor vehicle's wheels may throw dirt, water, or other materials on other vehicles", so as I interpret and understand the law (last amended in 2005 fwiw), even a body lift would be subject to mudflaps.

EDIT: Found archives of the old laws, sure enough the mudflaps were required just as they were under the old law. However the new law does require that the entire width of a tire be covered by a fender flare as well.

 

[jsudar]

Jsudar, I recommend you read the rules this time. On page 19 is specifically states that fender flares must cover the tread of the tire.

Mud flaps must be as wide as the tire.

The rules are different for mud flaps and fender flares.

I also recommend you use a 2009-2010 copy of th Safety Manual instead of that old copy you have posted. Here's the link if you missed it.

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/safetyinspections/docs/2009-2010 SI PLT ManuaL.pdf

WTF? I did read the rules and I never said anything about fender flares. I stated mud flaps must cover the width of the tire and the upper 50%. Looks like it says the same thing in the 2008 or 2009 manual. Yeah, they changed the wording a bit, but it says the same.

 

[Maverick]

I'm sorry you are having so much difficulty complying with state law. It must be difficult.

While I do not agree with this law, it is the law nonetheless. Don't like it? Write your legislator, start a petition, hold a rally, stage a protest, write a letter to the editor, etc. With any of these options, you may want to hold back on the rooftop genitalia concept, as it could seriously cost the credibility of your cause. I hope this helps.

Jared

NOOOOOOO!!!! We already DID that; that's how we got the current law, and it beats the snot out of the old law. Mudflaps were a concession, sorry guys.

It IS the law, and 4-wheelers all over the state worked their arses off to get it passed, knowing that there were concessions.

Mudflaps on ANY vehicle that had the ride height altered higher or lower were to be required. ("lower??!?" I asked. "Yes" "ok, whatever") It was a big deal to the DPS/UHP and like BC said, a small deal to us trying to get a better law.

My X has had "oversize" tires for 4 years with no problems at the inspection station.

The Green gets lawn-edging flares at inspection time. The mudflaps have slide on mounts.

Brett

 

[cruiseroutfit]

NOOOOOOO!!!! We already DID that; that's how we got the current law, and it beats the snot out of the old law. Mudflaps were a concession, sorry guys....

Brett, you would know best. Are you sure that there wasn't an existing mud flap law in place simultaneous to the old lift law too? I know the new lift law has the fender flare inclusion, but the actual mudflap law seems to predate the new lift law???

Anyone have an old (pre 2001) inspection manual?

 

[Maverick]

Brett, you would know best. Are you sure that there wasn't an existing mud flap law in place simultaneous to the old lift law too? I know the new lift law has the fender flare inclusion, but the actual mudflap law seems to predate the new lift law???

Anyone have an old (pre 2001) inspection manual?

I am NOT sure there wasn't an existing mudflap law.

I DO know that it was a (hot) topic of discussion during our negotiations, and they wanted to have (add?) the "any altered" portion.

The mudflap issue and the 2" vs 3" bodylift were the main concessions on our part to get the improvements that we were after.

The bottom line though is that it has been the law now for 8 years. We've known about it. There are several threads on this forum that explain it well.

I am very curious as to what was changed in the 2005 amendment...I follow it pretty closely (as you might imagine) and I don't recall getting excited over anything in '05. (or maybe cuz it wasn't a big deal, I forgot about it)

 

[Maverick]

All I know is under the old law my Jeep would be legal.

Under the old law my tow rig would be legal.

Under the new law, both are illegal. So, where is this great improvement?

You only have 4" of lift on the short bus? I thought it was more.

Good point on the truck. (still don't want to go back to the old law)

 

[spencevans]

I think there is a little confusion here (probably on my part ).

Yes the new lift law (41-6a-1631) does have a notation about "If the wheel track is increased beyond the O.E.M. specification, the top 50% of the tires shall be covered by the original fenders, by rubber, or other flexible fender extenders under any loading condition." That said I believe that the mudflap law (41-6a-1633) had nothing to do with the new lift law and was in fact in place at the same time as the old lift law? I can't find older archives of the laws to verify but I remember this being the case with the older safety inspection handbooks??

A body lift would also be means for having to have mud flaps, it does say "a vehicle that has been altered from the original manufacturer's frame height", but it also says "or a vehicle that has been altered in any other manner so that the motor vehicle's wheels may throw dirt, water, or other materials on other vehicles", so as I interpret and understand the law (last amended in 2005 fwiw), even a body lift would be subject to mudflaps.

EDIT: Found archives of the old laws, sure enough the mudflaps were required just as they were under the old law. However the new law does require that the entire width of a tire be covered by a fender flare as well.

Kurt, the new law only requires the tread of the tire to be covered by fender flares and the rear top 50% of a tire must be covered by either the vehicle or mudflaps. Unlike fender flares, mudflaps must cover the full width of the tire.

 

[Jared]

try again, try harder

Okay here goes.

I believe a large percentage of us are tired of hearing your bit#hing about failing your MVI. The law is the law and it is your responsibility to educate yourself about the law and then comply. You can piss and moan about the UHP all you want, but it is not their job to put mud flaps on your Jeep or Ford - it is solely yours. It is, however, their job to enforce our laws and write you a ticket for breaking our laws.

This is no different than somebody driving a buggy through a mud bog in a wilderness area, and then whining that they got a ticket for it because "they didn't know any better" and "wilderness areas area stupid anyway". This is no different than getting a ticket for doing 45MPH in a school zone and saying "I didn't see the flashing 20MPH sign, this ticket is ridiculous". It's also no different than showing up to your MVI with no windshield and getting bent out of shape when they fail you because "you wear glasses when you drive".

Like it or not, the law is the law and it is there for good reason. I've personally had two windshields taken completely out by rocks thrown from vehicles that should have had flaps but did not. Could it be worded better, or even thought through better? Of course, but again that doesn't really matter.

Grow up, grow a pair, be a man, take some responsibility for your own actions and quit giving yourself and the whole 4x4 community a black eye by fighting the system. I'm sorry if Bubba with his 44" tires seems to get a pass and you don't. Some people win the lottery and I don't. Some people had parent's that bought them a new Mustang GT when they got their license, I didn't. Life isn't fair, deal with it.

Just like basically all OHV/4x4 use issues - educate yourself... then comply.

Jared

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Kurt, the new law only requires the tread of the tire to be covered by fender flares and the rear top 50% of a tire must be covered by either the vehicle or mudflaps. Unlike fender flares, mudflaps must cover the full width of the tire.

Not sure how your interpreting tread width versus tire width? The flares in deed must cover the "tires", it doesn't read "tire tread" do tell.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...I am very curious as to what was changed in the 2005 amendment...I follow it pretty closely (as you might imagine) and I don't recall getting excited over anything in '05. (or maybe cuz it wasn't a big deal, I forgot about it)

Ditto, I too would be interested to know. You can search the laws before and after the chance, I did a quick glance from 2004 versus the current law and didn't see anything (didn't really compare either).

 

[BroncoMama]

Like it or not, the law is the law and it is there for good reason. I've personally had two windshields taken completely out by rocks thrown from vehicles that should have had flaps but did not. Could it be worded better, or even thought through better? Of course, but again that doesn't really matter.

Grow up, grow a pair, be a man, take some responsibility for your own actions and quit giving yourself and the whole 4x4 community a black eye by fighting the system. I'm sorry if Bubba with his 44" tires seems to get a pass and you don't. Some people win the lottery and I don't. Some people had parent's that bought them a new Mustang GT when they got their license, I didn't. Life isn't fair, deal with it.

Just like basically all OHV/4x4 use issues - educate yourself... then comply.

Jared

I agree one hundred percent with Jared.


If Utah law sucks so badly and is so horrifically unfair, why live there? That would be like me complaining that I got pulled over in Lemon Joy and was ticketed for no mirrors, an illegal windshield, and non-DOT approved wheels all whilst having her registered! How unfair would that be? I pay my $30 a year for her tags and keep her insured so I can continue to renew her registration and that should excuse me from having to keep her street legal. NOT. While I do realize how fortunate we are to have a completely non street legal buggy registered, I'm not ignorant enough to say that I should be able to drive her on our roads. The arguments are all the same, she's safer than our trucks because of blah, blah, blah, but the law is the law. While Fords do look so much better sitting on 285's, is it really that big of a deal to schlep on some mud flaps?

 

[GOAT]

NOOOOOOO!!!! We already DID that; that's how we got the current law, and it beats the snot out of the old law. Mudflaps were a concession, sorry guys.

It IS the law, and 4-wheelers all over the state worked their arses off to get it passed, knowing that there were concessions.

Mudflaps on ANY vehicle that had the ride height altered higher or lower were to be required. ("lower??!?" I asked. "Yes" "ok, whatever") It was a big deal to the DPS/UHP and like BC said, a small deal to us trying to get a better law.

My X has had "oversize" tires for 4 years with no problems at the inspection station.

The Green gets lawn-edging flares at inspection time. The mudflaps have slide on mounts.

Brett

Wow, I had no idea that it was that bad:-\

Seems to be a continuous struggle just to own and enjoy a 4x4 in a state where some towns rely on tourism.

Utah seems to a little too strict on altered vehicle considering how unpopulated a majority of the state is (particularly when the lift law was written). I could see having these issues in the NE, but BFE Utah, come on.


Oh well. This post started out as a rant and this latest safety saga isn't going to change anything other than becoming the proverbial straw for me. I will still have to get mudflaps for my towrig and Jenn's unlimited will end up looking like it drove through pep-boys with the crap magnet on high

planning my escape,
Marcus

 

[GOAT]

I agree one hundred percent with Jared.


While I do realize how fortunate we are to have a completely non street legal buggy registered, I'm not ignorant enough to say that I should be able to drive her on our roads.

Then why would you knowingly register it or ask an inspector to compromise their integrity by doing so? It's against the law

 

[jeepers]

i have a stae inspection license and a uhp can pull you over and inpound ur truck and jeep or what ever sick ride you have on the spot just like dui now to me thats just pushing it i see truck driven all the time with no mud flaps that is why im getin my jeep registerd in las vegas no lift laws there but i can still get busted anyway i think its all a bunch of bs mud flaps dont help that much anyway. on big rigs they still thro rock at ur window they drop out off the tire and hit the road doin 70 and come right at ur window. i have a stock 03 dodge and it has 285s and stead of 265s and i got busted im fightinit now cause i dont agree with it .sorry if this spelling isnt right lol

 

[Maverick]

Wow, I had no idea that it was that bad:-\

Seems to be a continuous struggle just to own and enjoy a 4x4 in a state where some towns rely on tourism.

Utah seems to a little too strict on altered vehicle considering how unpopulated a majority of the state is (particularly when the lift law was written). I could see having these issues in the NE, but BFE Utah, come on.

It was pretty wacky too in '00 when they (UHP) started cracking down on the old law, including at UROC and the U4 convention in Vernal. It pissed a few people like Craig Stumph and Tom Barkume off enough and they began the process of changing the law. And, speaking of tourism, local Chambers of Commerce were very supportive in getting the new law passed.

Getting the law passed was the FIRST time that a state had gone to a less restrictive law. Though I guess that would be "less overall"...since from a mudflap standpoint it is more restrictive.

 

[GOAT]

It was pretty wacky too in '00 when they (UHP) started cracking down on the old law, including at UROC and the U4 convention in Vernal. It pissed a few people like Craig Stumph and Tom Barkume off enough and they began the process of changing the law. And, speaking of tourism, local Chambers of Commerce were very supportive in getting the new law passed.

Getting the law passed was the FIRST time that a state had gone to a less restrictive law. Though I guess that would be "less overall"...since from a mudflap standpoint it is more restrictive.

Good information.

At a convention? Kinda like fish in a barrel I guess.

 

[BroncoMama]

Then why would you knowingly register it or ask an inspector to compromise their integrity by doing so? It's against the law

The only one who has had their integrity compromised is poor Lemon Joy! When we orginally registered LJ, she was a bone stock 72 Ford Bronco with uncut fenders. In Colorado, the only time you need anything looked at is if you've bought a vehicle out of state that requires a VIN inspection, if it's a local vehicle, they never need to see it. As long as she retains her VIN number and insurance, we can keep license plates on her. I continue to register her for the simple fact that I'm trying to stack the deck in our favor. If and or when we do get pulled over, at least I won't get in trouble for driving an unregistered vehicle.

 

[BCGPER]

I think I recall that weekend, refresh my memory if you will though. We were traveling in a convoy. A UHP pooper passed a basin local with bashed out tail lights and no mudflaps, only to pull Carl over and nail him for no flaps. Was this the same trip?

And some say revenue collecting has nothing to do with it? No sense in pulling over a local, when we can get our hands on that out of town money.

If I remember correctly, some of the areas elected officials got involved and got the UHP to back off.

Good information.

At a convention? Kinda like fish in a barrel I guess.