Calgary Jeep Association
4x4 Related Groups => General Talk => Topic started by: JasonT on November 30, 2018, 12:09:17 AM
-
Hi. I’m an auto journalist (Globe Drive) and I write a Q&A column. I have a question from a reader with a 2013 Jeep Wrangler who says he got a $78 ticket from the RCMP for violating section 64/2 of the vehicle equipment regulation.
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2009_122.pdf
“64(1) A motor vehicle or trailer must have a part of its body, a fender or a mudguard that covers the width of each tire.
(2) The body part, fender or mudguard referred to in subsection (1) must be above each wheel and
(a) extend downwards at the rear of each axle or axle group to at least the centre line of the axle, or
(b) be a distance away from the ground equivalent to at least 1/3 of the horizontal distance from the bottom edge of the mudguard to the centre line of the axle, but not closer to the ground than 150 millimetres when the vehicle is loaded.”
So are all Wranglers (and other trucks/4x4s) in Alberta in violation of the law?
Have you heard of other Jeep owners getting tickets for this? Is this a rule that’s unique to Alberta?
Thanks!
Jason
-
Question for you JT.
Is your “readers” Wrangler still in its original OEM condition or had they made modifications/added accessories?
-
I got three of those tickets this past summer. Two at once from one police officer who did his best to make my life difficult and tried to get me to argue with him over it.
Now I’m not going to lie, my tires stick way past the flares and I don’t use mud flaps.
But yes, this does happen in Alberta and across Canada.
If the Jeep is not modified then they tires are completely covered from flares.
-
If the Jeep is not modified then they tires are completely covered from flares.
That said....in some cases, I believe that on a stock JK Wrangler, the way that the law is written means that the vehicle is in violation the minute it rolls off the dealer's lot.
-
Question for you JT.
Is your “readers” Wrangler still in its original OEM condition or had they made modifications/added accessories?
He believes it's OEM, although he bought it used last year.
-
That said....in some cases, I believe that on a stock JK Wrangler, the way that the law is written means that the vehicle is in violation the minute it rolls off the dealer's lot.
I checked with the RCMP and they say any vehicle without wheel wells (ex. trucks) needs mudflaps. Personally, I'd had no idea.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181201/cecdf06035d51e8c78d8addd10e2604b.jpg)
Passenger cars do not require mud flaps.
-
Theres an interesting statement in the code, section 4 states a passenger car does not require mudflaps.
Now, since an XJ is identified as a station wagon, one should be able to beat a no mudflap charge.
-
You have to go to the federal act for definition of a car. Truck etc. My jeep by definition is a car. But my truck should have mud flaps.
-
You have to go to the federal act for definition of a car. Truck etc. My jeep by definition is a car. But my truck should have mud flaps.
Can ya post the fed. definition that says a Jeep is a car?
Eric for one could probably put it to good use. ;) 8)
-
Can ya post the fed. definition that says a Jeep is a car?
Eric for one could probably put it to good use. ;) 8)
My old Jeep XJ was classified as a station wagon lol.
-
It is about the fender reaching the center of the rear tire at the back. If it is not covered to center by the gender or something else it is in violation. I’m pretty sure that a stock Wrangler may not meet this rule and that is why something like mudflats are need to cover to the center of the tire.