Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC 45 degree mudguard rule

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by resonator, Nov 21, 2010.

  1. Does anyone have a link to vicroads that describe the 45 degree rule, or able to tell me how to measure it? I got done today on my CBR250rr which is an absolute pain in the arse because if you can even find another undertail thing they have virtually all been cut down.

    I'm thinking I'll just rivet a piece of plastic to the back to pass the vicroads test. Just need to know the rules so I know how to make it.

    Something like http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/7A14DDDC-3DF3-4ADD-9821-B8C7816777A3/0/VSI26web.pdf for bikes would be ideal.

  2. ADR's be in there
  3. I believe it's in the Australian Design Rules for motorcycles.

    It's quite simple really.
    From your rear axle, go towards the back up at 45 degrees and your fender should come down enough to cover that line.
  4. What about the width and does it matter if it is non-standard?
  5. Not sure about the width but I've seen some brand new bikes with skinny fenders so I don't think it has to be as wide as the tyre. I'd cover at least 50% tyre width or start wide and have it thin down to the end.

    Did you get fined (what's the the fine these days if you did) or was it only a warning?
  6. Didn't the police chat recently touch on this also ?
  7. ADR was the missing keyword. Cheers Thera and joedelosa. I found this http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/forum/f14/motorcycle-mudguards-45-degree-rule-52750/index4.html

    Looks like you must measure it it 45KG on the back which they didn't do. Maybe it'll pass. Maybe I can adjust the suspension so soft that it will pass as is... I'll have to check that.

    I didn't get fined but if they did it would have been $300. I have 7 days to fix it and take it to vicroads for inspection or it's off the road. I don't need to do an entire roadworthy.

    The cop was a dick, he wouldn't have stopped looking over my bike until he found something he could write down. This was at the Reefton Spur and they recon they'll be their a lot if anyone wants to avoid themselves the attention.
  8. ****ing pig
  9. Yep, that answers it. Thanks
  10. Wow you guys in Victoria have it hard. That's complete bullshit :eek:
  11. Nothing more than trying to be seen to be doing something for the sake of it AND reducing the road toll by taking riders off the road for any reason.

    It's utterly short sighted and pointless.

    Enforcement isn't the answer to the road toll, but it's the only lever the institutionalised road safety fools have at their disposal. :roll:
  12. Here...

    (image removed for thread readability.) Click here--> http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/4142/notthathard.jpg

    Line A is the foremost part of the wheel.
    Line B is your 45 degree angle to the horizontal plane through the center of the wheel.

    Your mudguard has to extend into the red shaded area anywhere to be legal.
    Red mudguard is legal
    Blue mudguard is illegal.

    The undertray, under seat, under body of your bike is allowed to make up that part of your mudguard.
  13. The mole carefully puts on his fire retardant underwear, flak jacket, helmet and crawls into his concrete burrow.

    I get pissed off when trucks, utes etc with missing/defective mudguards fling rocks and mud at me as I'm riding. I wish the cops would put as much effort into policing these infractions as they do in harassing bikes.

    HOWEVER, I'm sick to the back teeth of bike riders moaning about being pinged for having chopped off a perfectly satisfactory mudguard that weighed about 1/2 a kilo. Its not done for performance or handling or safety, its done because the owner wants his bike to look more like a real racing bike. Its a wank. It risks other road users having debris thrown at them. IMHO there is no justification for it. It should be policed. If you so desperately want to look cool, go and stand in a freezer, you're a fashion victim.

    Rant ended, the mole shuts the bombproof burrow door and latches it firmly, climbs into his mudguardless tradie van and drives out the secret escape tunnel to go and terrorize some learner riders.
  14. But I have to prove my d!ck is bigger somehow.
  15. So if someone was to completely remove their fender, by means of an eliminator or custom job.. but keeping the indicators legal and a reflector under the license plate etc

    And then used a hugger to make up the 45 degree angle, is this legal?

    I've seen a lot of huggers that only go from the front to top of the wheel, and then huge ass fenders hanging out, but imo a hugger that extended all the way back should do the same job and allow the owner to remove ugly fenders.
    Just not sure if its actually legal.

  16. I ride a gladius, and have a fender eliminator.

    Got pulled up, defected, whacked some retarded plastic board on the back together with Number plate, rear reflector, L plate etc. Took it to VicRoads got it passed and ripped it off again.

    The people at VicRoads are ****ing retarded unless you get unlucky and get someone who specialises in bikes.
  17. Most huggers I have seen are only there to protect the underside of the bike, and particularly keep dirt off the rear shock. I know that is all mine does.

    If my carbon fibre hugger was any longer, it would be too flimsy to avoid being caught up on the tyre. After all I only have a single sided swingarm, so that hugger can only attatch at the front and on the right side.

    The frustrating thing with the regulations is that the manufacturers, Ducati in this case, get away with providing a bit of a mudguard with a skinny bit of metal hanging off it, and a reflector at the bottom, and that meets the requirements.

    It is paying lip service to the regulation, but they have been getting away with it for years. Removing that little bit of metal and the reflector at the bottom would make mine illegal, but wouldn't change the functionality at all.

    Booking people under that regulation is the height of hypocrisy. Either what the manufacturers provide is legal, since it was allowed to be sold, or it is not and it shouldn't have been sold in that form. If it was legal, any change that did not effect functionality should also remain legal. If that was the case, we may have better designed and better looking rear ends of our bikes, and they would meet the intention of the regulation, not just the wording. Then we wouldn't need to remove bits to make our bikes look cool and fashionable. :D

    BTW DragonCypher, a full wrap around hugger such as your illustration would make changing rear tyres much harder, and it would probably have to sit further away from the tyre so that stones wouldn't get jammed between the tyre and hugger. Taking that into consideration, plus the need for rigidity, your hugger would now look like a full cruiser rear mudguard, and would weigh considerably more than a standard hugger as well.

    Also Maetrik, I don't think that all the people at Vicroads are retarded. (Definitely some.) But they know the regulation is inadequate, and enforcing it lacks a certain sincerity. So they just go through the motions after some poor smuck gets defected because a Police Officer was having a bad day.

    Attached Files:

  18. Yes, that Ducati obviously doesn't meet the ADR and its sale should not be allowed in that form. If an owner modified a bike to have a mudguard like that it would be illegal, so why are manufacturers allowed to get away with it? Its no wonder the law is not respected.
    DragonCypher's pic of the full hugger would work very well, no more of a problem with jammed rocks than the front guard, especially if the gap between hugger and tyre gets slightly wider towards the front. And it would certainly be legal.

    And by the way, that Duke is pig ugly IMHO!
  19. Yes. 10 Characters.