I got pulled over tonight because I don't have mud flaps on my truck. I thought I would warn everyone. Washington state has made mudflaps mandatory on all vehicles..period. I was driving my 1979 F250 crewcab with 35" tires. I'm from the dry part of the state, so I've never seen the need to have some. Besides, I think they're ugly! I checked online to see what the regs are and couldn't believe it. One more step in becoming another commiefornia! Bleh.

 

Update: Any vehicle 40+ years old can run without flaps on hard surfaced roads in "fair" weather. Bad weather or gravel/dirt roads require flaps. All vehicles 40 yrs old and newer require flaps at all times. Have a "safe" day ya'll.

 

Nothing wrong with flaps, drive a brand new car and have a rock fly into it from some yahoo who has aggressive tires and no flaps.
You might just think differently. I come from both sides, I appreciate crap not flying into my windshield or hood. Regardless of what I'm driving.
Deal with a mudflap or guy who calls the cops on you because a pebble hit their car and now you have to pay 1k+ for that exotic paint touchup.

 

I've been hit by gravel from cars with flaps. I see both sides too.

 

A related problem, many states have laws about removing snow and ice from the vehicle before operating. We've all seen folks driving around with iced over windshields and side, back windows covered over. But another issue is those huge chunks or blocks of ice that build up behind the wheels, this is a hazard when they break off.

 

RCW 46.37.500: Fenders or splash aprons.



RCW 46.37.500

Fenders or splash aprons.

(1) Except as authorized under subsection (2) of this section, no person may operate any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer that is not equipped with fenders, covers, flaps, or splash aprons adequate for minimizing the spray or splash of water or mud from the roadway to the rear of the vehicle. All such devices shall be as wide as the tires behind which they are mounted and extend downward at least to the center of the axle.

(2) A motor vehicle that is not less than forty years old or a street rod vehicle that is owned and operated primarily as a collector's item need not be equipped with fenders when the vehicle is used and driven during fair weather on well-maintained, hard-surfaced roads.




The size and bold is the copy/paste, the color is me. This is important, I've argued this with both cops and judges and won. I roll a large tire but stock suspension height. As the mud flap law specifies center of axle the length of the flap is about suspension height, not tire size. This is important in a few factors, one it makes the mud flaps useless, "legal" flaps do nothing. Secondly many cops think the flap has to almost reach the ground, but with a 35" tire the flap can be 17" off the ground. Third, but risky, an argument can and has been made that the law can't make you add equipment to a stock vehicle, stock height means stock mud flaps which is no mud flaps in my case. Even a 2015 4WD F350 doesn't meet the mud flap law stock and is illegal as it leaves the dealership.

 

FWIW a few other Washington State laws many vehicles including new ones break.


RCW 46.37.040: Head lamps on motor vehicles.
Headlights must be between 24" and 54" from the ground. The 54" part is at times enforced by LE on lifted trucks. But many vehicles have them lower then 24" even new and I've never seen this enforced.


RCW 46.37.210: Additional lighting equipment.
The 3 center pattern clearance lights are really only legal on vehicles over 80" wide excluding the mirrors. Many SRW pickups have this pattern clearance light and the new Ford Raptor(not 80" wide) comes with them new.


RCW 46.37.270: Number of lamps required ? Number of additional lamps permitted.
Only up to 4 front lights, some add extra lights, I've seen many with 6, only 4 are legal.


RCW 46.37.180: Spot lamps and auxiliary lamps.
Fog lamps can't be any lower then 15" from the ground, many vehicles violate this stock.

 

Another one that I have NEVER seen enforced is, in Wa state, the only LEGAL type of window tint is the dot style, all film style window tints are illegal no matter what % grade they are.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to find tint that is NOT the film style? The only one I can think of off hand is those ugly "Window-Scapes" pictures for the rear windows on trucks.

Makes me want to daily drive my 61 Econoline again, no seatbelts, no blinkers, no flaps, no emissions, no problem.

 

This is part of the reason I put some on my 78. My brother got pulled over in 2 of his broncos, and he f250 he had. All 3 for the flaps. I never got it for my 78 but I had flaps on pretty soon after buying it. As for my 87 stang, it's lowered so I doubt it's an issue but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want them on it. They had a factory option that said "Mustang" on them. But I'm not sure I want them yet.

 

God information in this thread, I wish people would read and understand the laws before they illegally lift there trucks. Part of the lifted truck is proper mud flaps and DOT lighting. It is as important, if not more so than the lift in my opinion. I mean really, it takes less than 5 minutes to find all the laws and regulations that apply to these modifications.


As to Raptor, it requires over 80 DOT lighting as the fender flares / wider stance make it wider than 79.9"


Which means that ANY truck that someone puts wider tires on, that stick out past the stock wheel well lips, then requires mud flaps as well as fender flares to be legal, also needs full over 80 DOT lighting.


As to the government not being able to force you to add equipment to a vehicle, well if that is the case so be it, but that entity can also force you to remove illegal equipment as well, and a lifted but illegal truck falls under that category.


Personally I would support state inspections to get illegally modified vehicles (any vehicle - car, truck or motorcycle) off the road, or brought into compliance.


Each to there own though.... I am not a policeman, so I can only offer my opinions. If I were a policeman and had the time, every illegal vehicle would be ticketed. It just is not that hard to research the law BEFORE modifying, none of these laws are hard to find, they are but a couple of clicks away, if people really cared.....


David

 

The only issue I have with the above mentioned opinion, is the fact that not everyone has the money to do a proper fix, or modification. I do understand that if you cannot afford a proper mod, you shouldn't do it, but if you can get a ticket for any improper mod, then the same goes for a vehicle with some kind of damage. Say for an example, my headlight housing on my mustang gets smashed. I don't have the money to order a new one yet so I rig up some kind of light that happens to still allow visibility. Then not only would I pay out the bum for a new housing, I'd also have to pay a "fix it ticket" on top. However if the example is, I'm a 16 year old who just got a ricer and I want to look totally cool for all the ladies so I slap on a ridiculous spoiler with some wood screws, then try to fit a body kit not made for my car. Then I could see where a violation can be used. That of course is not limited to ricers, people who improperly use lift blocks can be incorporated.

I don't mean to start any arguments over something like this, for one, I don't know facts for it. However, I am among those who sometimes have to "jerry-rig" something to get by. My exhaust on my 78 bronco, I had it use zip ties to keep it on the truck. It cost just under 1k for me.to get a new exhaust installed. I'm young and live at home so my bills are small, someone who has a family may not be able to afford the shop cost to fix that.

 

I understand this, and I certainly do not want to step on anyone's toes either. It is really my opinion.


I would venture out though that using the case of the Mustang headlight verses a lifted truck really are two different issues.


First, on the Mustang, there was nothing that you did to illegally modify it to have to rig up a temporarily headlight.


Second, on the lifted truck, this was done on purpose, and frankly if someone does not have either the money to do it right, or the intelligence to do even 5 minutes of research before doing the illegal modification, then they do deserve a ticket, and have no right to drive that illegal truck on our streets. Driving is a privilege after all and not a right. No one has the right to endanger or destroy other's person and equipment because they think they have a right to drive there illegal truck down the road, throwing mud, stones and what have you every which way.


I did have the windshield on my C600 stone chipped by a Geo Metro, so it not always lifted trucks, and I understand that, but again this guy cut me off and slid his rear end over, the sideways force of the rear tire threw up the rock, I could see it clearly, and if the guy had followed the law and driven within the law, then I would not be out the repair costs, and really in the light of the day he got to the next light what, 5 seconds and 15 feet further than me? But because he was a self centered above the law buffoon, he cost me money!



Just my honest opinion... at the end of the day each of us has to choose their own path, and live with that....


David

 

Fair enough, to each their own.

 

What do you mean by "illegally lift there trucks"? There is nothing illegal in WA about lifting your truck. And FWIW while there are a few states with lift laws I very much disagree, it's my property, I'll do with it as I wish. Same with the laws I posted, my point was largely about hypocrisy, not that everyone must blindly follow and study every little point of these ridiculous laws.

I googled the Raptor width prior to that post, it's 79.something excluding the mirrors. Last I looked 79 was less then 80.

Tires are not part of body width(wheels are though) and in many sections of width laws some fender flares and all mirrors are exempt/separate with there own limitations.


I'll fully admit I haven't read every detail of the 3 center pattern clearance light laws as they apply to pickups but as a trucker the details of those width laws are well known to me.



Such as?



I have some wording in reply to that that would likely lead to a ban from FTE, so I'll let your imagination provide, or your welcome to PM me.



Every illegal vehicle would include MANY new ones.


You make it sound so easy, IMO that shows your ignorance on the subject, there is nothing that easy about it when your really get into the application of these laws. There are way to many layers to both the law and it's application. Sure, you can easily look up the RCWs but then there's the federal and local levels, case law, the cops opinion, the judges opinion, etc. Even something as simple as mud flaps has many layers.


As to your government overregulation attitude see my previous self censored reply.

 

So you're saying that government bureaucrats that have never toughed a wrench in their pathetic lives are better equipped to decide what mechanically should be legal, is best, safe, etc.?


Again mud flaps are a fantastic example of this. The mad flap law as written is flat out pointless for preventing the throwing of mud or rocks onto other vehicles. As quoted previously the law states the tire must be covered as low as the center of the axle. This is of course completely pointless, the mud/rocks leave from the bottom of the tire. A mud flap right behind the tire extending down to the center of the tire will do NOTHING to stop this. However for example many pickups will naturally protect from mud/rocks being thrown into a windshield of the vehicle behind them regardless of mud flaps do to the long overhang behind the axle. The mud/rock can't fly in the needed arch before hitting the bed/bumper, etc.


A proper law with some thought to it would say for example:


Except as authorized under subsection (2) of this section, no person may operate any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer that is not equipped with fenders, covers, flaps, or splash aprons adequate for minimizing the spray or splash of water or mud from the roadway to the rear of the vehicle. All such devices will cover an area above a 15 degree angle upward and directly rearward from tire contact area.




I'll continue my rant with my own personal biggest pet peeve in the law, headlight placement. The law states that headlights must be in the front of the vehicle and within a height range, aerodynamics states that they then must be rather low. A light lower then the eye line creates a shadow behind any rise. Thus again as a truck driver I experience this to an extreme, my eye level is MUCH higher then my headlights. Thus any rise in the road shadows the road behind it leaving me cresting even these little hills blind as to what is ahead. This of course for all of us also requires headlights to be rather level leading us to all blind each other all the time with headlight glare.


If the law allowed headlights to be higher and set back then they could be placed for example in the top corners of the windshield. This would make us all safer by eliminating shadows and allowing the headlights to be aimed at a lower angle so we no longer constantly blind each other.