I need magazines with pictures of cars with camber to take to court and fight my case. According to what the police are charging me for I can't get done if I believe I wasn't in the wrong and I've seen other cars in the uk also running camber. I can PayPal you to cover the postage etc. please share this around so I can finally win against the police in the grey area. Thanks Freddie
Why not got to somewhere like VOSA, and get their opinion on the matter? Id be surprised if a magazine article would sway a courts decision?
I don't think magazine articles will get you very far, anyone can do something before / after a photo session. Surely a more technically supportive response will give you a better standing, although your going to struggle finding any reliable source. I assume you intending to argue your interpretation of 40A? TBH I would look at that and think, that's not right.
40A Using vehicle in dangerous condition etc. A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when— (a)the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or (b)the purpose for which it is used, or (c)the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or (d)the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured, is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.] Shouldn't they have to prove that the camber on your japanese saxo is dangerous? I'm all for going with your own style, but that car looks wank, and to the uneducated,might seem dangerous.
This is the angle I'm attacking from [F148 Exemption from disqualification and endorsement for certain construction and use offences. (1)Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (using vehicle in dangerous condition etc) the court must not— (a)order him to be disqualified, or (b)order any particulars or penalty points to be endorsed on the counterpart of any licence held by him,if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the use of the vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person. Also on my mot the wheels were only an advisory...and regards to the mag choice il be arguing the point of a national mag would post illegal road driven cars etc so I (assumed) it was legal.
To be honest that set up does look dangerous and I believe they will win there prosecution against you what ever the weather,, Stop being a retard and get thoes stupidly to wide rims and camber off..
Still look overly wide IMO, It's the set up on the civic which is completely Retarded and as I say dose look dangerous.. Neither set up looks fit for ROAD USE which is what the issue is.. The road is NOT. A track
See that's where your point is invalid to you it doesn't look "fit for road use" because to you it looks broken. What's the law on it? Can you show me where is says camber is illegal?
"and had no reasonable cause to suspect" is the key part here. You knowingly modified your vehicle to an extent which is considered danger, it is 'reasonable' to look at that set up and 'suspect' it could 'cause' problems. The case of R v Freddie, the court / police can source all the relevant manufactures guidance and technical specification available. There is going to be very little if not nothing for you to stand on and say that is safe for use on the road. Because it has an MOT does not make it road legal, take HID's for example.
How far has it actualy gone ? I.e. Have you received a summons to court or anything like that ? Or have you got a fine that your thinking about appealing against ?
Saw this on Facebook, Splitter Scuffers? In my opinion, good. It's about time they started cracking down on shit like this. The whole wide as fuck, low as shit and ridiculous camber scene is gay as fuck anyway, makes your car look straight up broken and serves no purpose what so ever other than scoring MAD SCENE POINTS.
Get them to quantify what dangerous is. If you're running reasonably good tyres (and also bigger), not a lot of camber up front and your car is fairly light you could probably argue that your car stops better than other production cars. Also it's forward weighted and your rear brakes might be too poop to lock up the rears MOT measures stopping force doesn't it? Surely if it can measure that and pass then you have no issues, you might find it corners better than a stock car too. Generally you just need something for comparison because saying it's dangerous because it doesn't look right is a load of bollocks in my eyes.
I don't like commenting on threads like this as it just tends to become a slagging match but... From what i'm seeing and in answer to the actual question, it does seem you are pushing the boundaries of legality with the amount of 'poke' and camber. Having said that, we are all guilty of that in one form of another and it is only by pushing boundaries that we can progress. I myself don't believe this constitutes an unsafe vehicle and i would argue, by the picture you posted, that the contact patch of the tyre onto the road is great enough for adequate road holding. You may want to get more technical in this respect and measure the percentage of tyre contact, (by my eyes and from that picture) say around 70% and with evidence explain that this will increase further when cornering, on the inside wheel. I would then go into the wide use of negative camber in motorsport to increase cornering ability etc. Anyway, i've already spent way too much time on this. Hayden P.s. Although i am not a fan of this modifying style (form over function and all that shit), i am a fan of defending personal choice.
1.Put some wheels that fit on it and don't look like your a 3rd world bodger. 2.go to court say yes you got it wrong and that the problem has been sorted show updated dated photos. No court is going to go by magazine articles and a amazing ne a dodge looking old civic over a police officer unless you get some amazingly mediocre proof that running a wheel/tyre combo like that is safe or sensable. 3. Get your given punishment and take it as a life lesson. 4. Starting a thread like that in this day and age. Brave Been serious now you should at least get some legal advice and see what they advise you. good luck.
The motor vehicle regulations act of 1996 states in section 18 paragraph 2 subsection D that the front face of a wheel on the vertical plane may protrude from the wheel arch/mudguard a maximum of 30mm but the tyre tread must be covered however the road traffic act states that the wheels must be designed to fit that vehicle without the need for spacers/adapter, but adapters are TUV approved which is more strict than our mot/vosa inspection. Your first stop needs to be a friend who has another civic like yours but standard, get yourself to brake testing on mot station. Go to VOSA for inspection and speak to the construction vehicle people (can't remember there name) if your serious you'll look into all this before putting some dodgy mags before a court as evidence. Also look for examples of court cases already tried in similar situations, that will give you guidance whether your going to succeed or not, if a precedence has already been set, you'll have a hard job overturning it. Also there are other factors they may want to investigate i.e. water spray off the road etc etc, list goes on my friend, easier to run less camber. Tom ps your car looks like a spastic xx
