Need info on beadlocks law:

BigRedB2 said:
So, yeah, the DOT is a law making and enforcing entity.
Click to expand...

You're thinking of the wrong DOT there, buddy.

Automakers don't give a shit about the North Carolina DOT.
 
BigRedB2 said:
For those of you carrying fire extenguishers !!!
§ 20‑136. Smoke screens.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to drive, operate, equip or be in the possession of any automobile or other motor vehicle containing, or in any manner provided with, a mechanical machine or device designed, used or capable of being used for the purpose of discharging,.... smoke, gas or other substance not necessary to the actual propulsion, care and keep of said vehicle,.....
Click to expand...

I don't see that pertaining to my Fire Extinguisher for the reason I left quoted and bold. If My Jeep is on fire, I would be caring for it by using an extinguisher to put out the fire. :flipoff2:
 
Rich said:
You're thinking of the wrong DOT there, buddy.

Automakers don't give a shit about the North Carolina DOT.
Click to expand...


that is the NC DOT the law was refering to.

i wasnt really arguing with you, i just saw that law while i was looking for bead lock laws.


Tactor tires look legal as far as i can tell, i dont see the difference between those and 54 inch iroks.
 
mbalbritton said:
I don't see that pertaining to my Fire Extinguisher for the reason I left quoted and bold. If My Jeep is on fire, I would be caring for it by using an extinguisher to put out the fire. :flipoff2:
Click to expand...


sorry, it was late, and i had seen hunfreds of articles, guess i wasnt reading too carefully at that point
 
Did you know the roof lights on a liberty renegade are illegal in Va. an example of manufacturers not giving a shit about state highway safety laws.

****edit**** unable to locate supporting evidence. any one know the details on this. i remember it being a controversy when the renegage model came out.
 
well, your innocent until proven guilty. it would be up to the district attorney to provide the court with a statute saying that they were illegal.

It looks like as long as they are not studded and they are made of rubber and do not have excessive wear or chunking and are inflated and the weight is supported by air, your good to go.
 
BigRedB2 said:
well, your innocent until proven guilty. it would be up to the district attorney to provide the court with a statute saying that they were illegal.
It looks like as long as they are not studded and they are made of rubber and do not have excessive wear or chunking and are inflated and the weight is supported by air, your good to go.
Click to expand...

Yea that what it looks like, I've always heard that tires have to be "DOT approved" as well, wonder if that true or just kinda like the beadlocks needing to be "DOT approved" thing.
 
BigRedB2 said:
well, your innocent until proven guilty. it would be up to the district attorney to provide the court with a statute saying that they were illegal.
It looks like as long as they are not studded and they are made of rubber and do not have excessive wear or chunking and are inflated and the weight is supported by air, your good to go.
Click to expand...

You are indeed innocent until proven guilty.
You are, however, still liable for thr costs of standing trial. E.g. they're gonna write you a ticket, which will include court costs etc. You can fight it, and if lucky, get it thrown out. However if it it is not 100% thrown out, you still gotta pay the court costs. In the meanwhile you lose lots of time and pay from missed work.
Think about all the crap you get w/ a speeding ticket, same story.

Re: roof headlights, I believe the deal is that they are only illegal if they are not covered. Same law as in NC, just rarely enforced here. You can have 30 lights on your car, and cover all except 4 that are below eye level and you are not breaking the law.
It is in place to prevent me from being a jackass and riding along my subdiviion or the highway at night w/ the overlead lights on, blinding everybody.
If it weren't for a lot of jackassery, many silly things would not be illegal.
 
jrraw23 said:
Yea If someone could confirm that tractor tires are indeed legal with preferably a statute to back it up that I can print out and put in my console to have with me while driving you would be the man :driver:
Click to expand...
yeah, that's just what we need... tractor tires flying off your vehicles.
 
w/e tractor tires flying off wouldn't be any worse than 52's flying off, pick which one you want :flipoff2:

but on a more serious note, if cop did indeed pull me to write me a ticket for driving with tractor tires doesnt he have to have a law supporting him to do so? I mean of course I wouldn't be a jerk to the policeman or anything and I'm not trying to be a smart@$$ here I'm just honestly curious, but . . . If you ask a cop what law/statute/etc that he's basing his ticket on and he has nothing to back himself with and you can show him statutes/laws that say nothing about what your doing being illegal . . . how can he legally write you a ticket without fear of reprocusions from the person for writing a false ticket (ie lawsuit) and also from his superior for writing a ticket on no legal premise and getting into trouble?

I may be missing something here I def don't know it all and know i sound like a stupid know it all kid idiot asking this question but it just seems in today's society with people getting sued left and right how a policeman can cite you for something they can't backup from a legal standpoint?
 
Well

I don't see anything mentioning beadlocks specifically but it could be taken from the following
If a State trooper, county mounty, etc. is giving you grief/ticket make sure you get them to state which section of the state code they are citing/referencing.
§ 20‑122.1. Motor vehicles to be equipped with safe tires.
(a) Every motor vehicle subject to safety equipment inspection in this State and operated on the streets and highways of this State shall be equipped with tires which are safe for the operation of the motor vehicle and which do not expose the public to needless hazard. Tires shall be considered unsafe if cut so as to expose tire cord, cracked so as to expose tire cord, or worn so as to expose tire cord or there is a visible tread separation or chunking or the tire has less than two thirty‑seconds inch tread depth at two or more locations around the circumference of the tire in two adjacent major tread grooves, or if the tread wear indicators are in contact with the roadway at two or more locations around the circumference of the tire in two adjacent major tread grooves: Provided, the two thirty‑ seconds tread depth requirements of this section shall not apply to dual wheel trailers. Provided further that as to trucks owned by farmers and operated exclusively in the carrying and transportation of the owner's farm products which are approved for daylight use only and which are equipped with dual wheels, the tread depth requirements of this section shall not apply to more than one wheel in each set of dual wheels. For the purpose of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Chunking" – separation of the tread from the carcass in particles which may range from very small size to several square inches in area.
(2) "Cord" – strands forming a ply in a tire.
(3) "Tread" – portion of tire which comes in contact with road.
(4) "Tread depth" – the distance from the base of the tread design to the top of the tread.
(b) The driver of any vehicle who is charged with a violation of this section shall be allowed 15 calendar days within which to bring the tires of such vehicle in conformance with the requirements of this section. It shall be a defense to any such charge that the person arrested produce in court, or submit to the prosecuting attorney prior to trial, a certificate from an official safety inspection equipment station showing that within 15 calendar days after such arrest, the tires on such vehicle had been made to conform with the requirements of this section or that such vehicle had been sold, destroyed, or permanently removed from the highways. Violation of this section shall not constitute negligence per se. (1969, c. 378, s. 1; c. 1256; 1985, c. 93, ss. 1, 2.)
Click to expand...
 
OK so why does a tractor tire not qualify as safe? Some dumb old lady that doesnt like trucks could say that 35's arnt safe so does that mean we cant run 35's on the road anymore? I just spent a while looking up what I could and the only statutes I could find that mentioned tires in a way that defined them was 20-122.1 20-122 and 20-183.3

None of them mentions anything about a tire having to be DOT approved so I guess that general public assumption is completely unfounded.

The only thing in any of them that could possibly support the officer is the red highlighted section atblis posted.

However, nowhere in the statutes does it define what "safe for the operation of the motor vehicle" is or "which do not expose the public to needless hazard."

Technically if they wanted to get you on "safe for the motor vehicle" they would have to not only contact the original manufacturer about the exact specific vehicle VIN # in question, they would have to also have "an expert" look at any modifications done to said vehicle that might have increased the vehicles capability to safely handle a certain tire size, at which point the plaintiff could provide there own expert that says otherwise, and then provide experts proving that there expert is an expert, its just ridiculous they left the law standing so wide open.

As far as exposing the public to needless hazard, once again they didnt define what exactly exposes the public to needless hazard and here we go again . . . .

This is all very weakly founded IMO, they left the law completely open to personal interpretation. I think I might print the statutes out and run over to the highway patrol station down the road and just ask them nicely what they think, arguing about it on here isn't gonna do anything, lol :shaking:

I should be a lawyer, law is so open to attack its ridiculous :rolleyes:
 
When is the last time you saw a John Deere rollin 75mph down the highway ( not on a trailer)?

Those tires will not support the forces required fo turn that fast.

Look closely at the tires, somewhere it will say NOT FOR HIGHWAY USE specifically for this reason

You are definatly a Darwin candidate. Our only hope is his spirit act quickly.
 
ricky, just give up. go buy a honda accord and never touch it except to drive it. even then use extreme caution.:flipoff2:
 
OFF TOPIC - The lights on top of the Jeep Liberty Renegade are not allowed in WV right? I remember seeing that model there at a Jeep dealership without the lights.

<><Fish
 
How did we go from beadlocks to tires to lights on a liberty?:flipoff2:
 
BigRedB2 said:
Gotta kid who talks on the phone and drives?
§ 20‑137.3. Unlawful use of a mobile phone by persons under 18 years of age.
(a) Definitions. – The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Additional technology. – Any technology that provides access to digital media such as a camera, electronic mail, music, the Internet, or games.
(2) Mobile telephone. – A device used by subscribers and other users of wireless telephone service to access the service. The term includes: (i) a device with which a user engages in a call using at least one hand, and (ii) a device that has an internal feature or function, or that is equipped with an attachment or addition, whether or not permanently part of the mobile telephone, by which a user engages in a call without the use of either hand, whether or not the use of either hand is necessary to activate, deactivate, or initiate a function of such telephone.
(3) Wireless telephone service. – A service that is a two‑way real‑time voice telecommunications service that is interconnected to a public switched telephone network and is provided by a commercial mobile radio service, as such term is defined by 47 C.F.R. § 20.3.
(b) Offense. – Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person under the age of 18 years shall operate a motor vehicle on a public street or highway or public vehicular area while using a mobile telephone or any additional technology associated with a mobile telephone while the vehicle is in motion. This prohibition shall not apply to the use of a mobile telephone or additional technology in a stationary vehicle.
(c) Seizure. – The provisions of this section shall not be construed as authorizing the seizure or forfeiture of a mobile telephone, unless otherwise provided by law.
(d) Exceptions. – The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply if the use of a mobile telephone is for the sole purpose of communicating with:
(1) Any of the following regarding an emergency situation: an emergency response operator; a hospital, physician's office, or health clinic; a public or privately owned ambulance company or service; a fire department; or a law enforcement agency.
(2) The motor vehicle operator's parent, legal guardian or spouse.
(e) Penalty. – Any person violating this section shall have committed an infraction and shall pay a fine of twenty‑five dollars ($25.00). This offense is an offense for which a defendant may waive the right to a hearing or trial and admit responsibility for the infraction pursuant to G.S. 7A‑148. No drivers license points, insurance surcharge, or court costs shall be assessed as a result of a violation of this section. (2006‑177, s. 1.)
Click to expand...


Uh yeah officer I was talking to my dad I swear....
 
Ok guys, I know Ricky bashing is a hallowed tradition and favorite activity here, but in tis case you need to back off.

jrraw23 said:
[snip a bunch of worthless half-assed logic about old bats and tiny mud tires)

However, nowhere in the statutes does it define what "safe for the operation of the motor vehicle" is or "which do not expose the public to needless hazard."
Click to expand...
Actually young grasshopper they did exactly that. See below.

atblis quoting some special fancy law book said:
§ 20‑122.1. Motor vehicles to be equipped with safe tires.
(a) Every motor vehicle subject to safety equipment inspection in this State and operated on the streets and highways of this State shall be equipped with tires which are safe for the operation of the motor vehicle and which do not expose the public to needless hazard. Tires shall be considered unsafe if cut so as to expose tire cord, cracked so as to expose tire cord, or worn so as to expose tire cord or there is a visible tread separation or chunking or the tire has less than two thirty‑seconds inch tread depth at two or more locations around the circumference of the tire in two adjacent major tread grooves, or if the tread wear indicators are in contact with the roadway at two or more locations around the circumference of the tire in two adjacent major tread grooves: Provided, the two thirty‑ seconds tread depth requirements of this section shall not apply to dual wheel trailers. Provided further that as to trucks owned by farmers and operated exclusively in the carrying and transportation of the owner's farm products which are approved for daylight use only and which are equipped with dual wheels, the tread depth requirements of this section shall not apply to more than one wheel in each set of dual wheels. For the purpose of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Chunking" – separation of the tread from the carcass in particles which may range from very small size to several square inches in area.
(2) "Cord" – strands forming a ply in a tire.
(3) "Tread" – portion of tire which comes in contact with road.
(4) "Tread depth" – the distance from the base of the tread design to the top of the tread.
(b) The driver of any vehicle who is charged with a violation of this section shall be allowed 15 calendar days within which to bring the tires of such vehicle in conformance with the requirements of this section. It shall be a defense to any such charge that the person arrested produce in court, or submit to the prosecuting attorney prior to trial, a certificate from an official safety inspection equipment station showing that within 15 calendar days after such arrest, the tires on such vehicle had been made to conform with the requirements of this section or that such vehicle had been sold, destroyed, or permanently removed from the highways. Violation of this section shall not constitute negligence per se. (1969, c. 378, s. 1; c. 1256; 1985, c. 93, ss. 1, 2.)
Click to expand...

By definition of the law anything not expressly defined as unsafe there is considered safe.
 
lol yea I totaly missed the fact that the next part defined that :shaking:

Hmm this is interesting, I think that legally I could actually drive a monster truck on the road. Think about it, the lift law statute has an exception for vehicles on a truck chassis or intended for offroad use. Than to follow that there is no law that limits tire type (as long as it completly rubber with no metal parts or studs on it) or size.

So technically as long as the truck was within 102" wide I'm pretty sure I have found a loophole of epic proportions :driver:
 
how do they define "off road vehicle"?

f. Jacked-up vehicles -- It is unlawful to raise or lower, either in
front or back, a passenger vehicle (does not include off-road
vehicles) more than six inches from the manufacturer's specified
height [G.S. 20-135.4(d)].
 
However

Yes they do define some specific "unsafe situations", however that first clause appears to be a catchall, left to the discretion of the officer/court. You could argue that if beadlocks were so unsafe, why are they not name specifically?

Are beadlocks safe? I've never run them. It might be that officers assume you have them on to keep your tire from coming off the rim. This only applies if you have your tires aired down, right? Otherwise they're just like normal tires/wheels?

It is rather sad when you get down to it, about LEOs not actually knowing the law. I had a state trooper in VA, lecturing me about a law that was declared unconstitutional several years ago and wasn't even on the books. Combine ignorance with some arrogance (respect my authoritay!), and you get...lies. That's exactly what they're doing, lying.

If beadlocks are in fact safe, and you can make a persuasive argument that they are, I wouldn't hesitate to take it to court. Worse case is you're paying some fines and putting normal wheels back on.
 
Back
Top