States that require mud flaps

[TygerMark]

Does anyone have any experience with citation for not having mud flaps on their van?

Do you have mud flaps on your van?

States requiring mud flaps on cars


https://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0344.htm

[booster]

Originally Posted by TygerMark

Does anyone have any experience with citation for not having mud flaps on their van?

Do you have mud flaps on your van?

States requiring mud flaps on cars


https://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0344.htm

We put them on the rear of our Roadtrek 190 Chevy mostly to help keep the battery box behind the R/H rear wheel cleaner. We found it somewhat helped keep the rear of the van cleaner and definitely keeps the stainless exhaust pipe behind the R/H wheel nicer.

[Jon in AZ]

In most states those laws only apply if the wheel is not enclosed by a fender. I’m trying to imagine a B-van in which that is not true... The laws in California, Nebraska, and Louisiana are a bit confusing. I have only driven extensively in California, and I do not see mud flaps on low clearance vehicles. A lifted truck, on the other hand, is very likely to get cited if it doesn’t have flaps.

My take is this. If the van is lifted or a stock high clearance 4x4, you should have them. If the van has dual rear wheels, which can trap and throw a large rock, you should have them. Otherwise, it’s up to your personal preference, not a matter of legal compliance.

[TygerMark]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

The laws in California, Nebraska, and Louisiana are a bit confusing.

I don't see any room for confusion. It is plain English.

[booster]

I just looked at the actual code for a couple of the "questionable" states and both them are actually written to say something along the line of the vehicles have to be able to control splash and spray with fenders, mudflaps, etc IF the body does not provide adequate protection.


To me that would mean that any van that has full fenders and tires don't extend outside the body would not need flaps at all unless they got way to high. I think it may be hard to enforce the way it is written because it will come down to a law enforcement or inspectors opinion on whether or not the body is doing and adequate job of control on any given vehicle but it is a reasonable way to state it.

[Bud]

And this is also a matter of Ethics, like other stuff. Don't damage other folks vehicles. I have never yet but have come close to stopping another vehicle because of the lack of safeguards. I don't have a problem with folks not following the law, rules IF they are not hurting others, with exceptions for a variety of reasons. Example:

I really do like dogs although I don't have one. So when walking a not very populated camp ground and I come upon a dog off a leash, I just keep walking toward the dog and the owner(s) with a neutral look. Then as I get closer I change it up slightly, negative not positive. Then at the right time/distance I say: There should be a LAW kind of a little demonstrably 'No Dog on a Leash, unless they should be' and smile. They then become obviously happy. That ensures I get to play with, enjoy their dog and maybe their company. Hey, I know I'm going to like the dog.

Bud

[booster]

Originally Posted by Bud

And this is also a matter of Ethics, like other stuff. Don't damage other folks vehicles. I have never yet but have come close to stopping another vehicle because of the lack of safeguards. I don't have a problem with folks not following the law, rules IF they are not hurting others, with exceptions for a variety of reasons. Example:

I really do like dogs although I don't have one. So when walking a not very populated camp ground and I come upon a dog off a leash, I just keep walking toward the dog and the owner(s) with a neutral look. Then as I get closer I change it up slightly, negative not positive. Then at the right time/distance I say: There should be a LAW kind of a little demonstrably 'No Dog on a Leash, unless they should be' and smile. They then become obviously happy. That ensures I get to play with, enjoy their dog and maybe their company. Hey, I know I'm going to like the dog.

Bud

What would you do if your wife, kids, or grandkids were terrified of dogs?



I do agree on judging situations by what they are, not technical rules or laws, but sometimes the danger, etc, would apply to those other than me, so it muddies things up a lot. Even semis with flaps put up too much spray for me to pass safely, under some conditions, so the rules don't eliminate all the issues anyway.

[Jon in AZ]

Originally Posted by TygerMark

I don't see any room for confusion. It is plain English.

The chart is plain, but it is only a summary of more complex rules, as booster points out.

Common sense is needed here.

None on our (low clearance) B-van. Our three SUVs all have tiny mud guards integrated into the factory fender trim. Not sure how effective they really are. My guess is they’re just enough to comply with regulations in all 50 states.

[Bud]

"What would you do if your wife, kids, or grandkids were terrified of dogs?

Like most things like that, hope others do the right thing. Don't go for a walk with a dog off a leash.......etc When backpacking for 30 years and horses were coming my way, I left the trail downhill. Horse might think I'm a dog off a leash with the horse being hurt, rider too. I would easily take the actual risk, but I'm responsible for others and some nice horse. I like Horses!, so don't attend rodeos. Here comes avanti, just can't seem to help it.

And plan ahead, avoid 'too much' risk given the whatever circumstances, responsiblities, etc.

[Scottie409]

I find it hard to understand how some vehicles (Pickups/jeep type) are able to drive on public roads after having massive lift kits and 30 plus inch wheels that stick out from the body and have trailer hitches at mid windshield level on most cars. Seems crazy that commercial vehicles need under ride bumpers but these yahoos can do as they please. No consistency in the law.
QUOTE=booster;105675]I just looked at the actual code for a couple of the "questionable" states and both them are actually written to say something along the line of the vehicles have to be able to control splash and spray with fenders, mudflaps, etc IF the body does not provide adequate protection.


To me that would mean that any van that has full fenders and tires don't extend outside the body would not need flaps at all unless they got way to high. I think it may be hard to enforce the way it is written because it will come down to a law enforcement or inspectors opinion on whether or not the body is doing and adequate job of control on any given vehicle but it is a reasonable way to state it.[/QUOTE]