Number plates

[hotfoothowell]

The latest Flat Out suggests we need number plates front and back, yet I thought three-wheelers had recently been reclassified as motorbikes, which only require a rear plate. Anybody got chapter and verse on this?

[hutchii]

Sorry, don't have chapter and verse.
But, a couple of years ago I wanted to revamp the front end of my 223, shortly before the MOT was due. To avoid doing a fair amount of work and then getting a fail when I turned up for the test, I asked the guy who has always carried out the test for his take on the situation. He was very clear, without referring to any VOSA directives. "A car, derived from a car, requires plates front and back, and they need to be car size too"
Interestingly this subject has come up at the Kent Kit Car Club more than once, and a 223 owner there uses an MOT station that has passed his car, with only a rear (car size) plate, for about 10 years, and I was assured has never commented about it!
Any help?

[Filbyflyer]

This has been discussed before. The "chapter and verse" is given in the DVLA leaflet INF 104 "Vehicle registration numbers and number plates"which says:

For vehicles with new or replacement number plates
fitted from 1 September 2001, “3-line” number plates
are no longer permitted (except where the vehicle was
first registered before 1 January 1973). In addition,
the characters on number plates purchased from
1 September 2001, will need to meet the following
specifications.
n Character height 79mm
n Character width (except the figure 1 or letter I) 50mm
n Character stroke 14mm
n Space between characters 11mm
n Space between groups 33mm
n Top, bottom and side margins (minimum) 11mm
n Vertical space between groups 19mm
Motorcycles and tricycles
There are separate provisions for motorcycles and
tricycles. This means, motorcycles registered from
1 September 2001 must only display a number plate
at the rear of the vehicle.
Motorcycles registered before 1 September 2001 can
display a number plate at the front, but do not have to.
The number plate must be a “2-line” number plate and
must be displayed on all motorcycles registered on or
after 1 January 1973. Tricycles derived from four-wheeled
bodies, such as saloon cars and quad bikes must meet
the normal requirements above.

The last sentence is the relevant one. It means that tricycles derived from four wheeled bodies must have a front plate.

Actually, the DVLA advice is only their interpretation of the law. The law itself is contained in the The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 which say:

In the case of a motor cycle or a motor tricycle which does not have a body of a type which is characteristic of the body of a four-wheeled vehicle—
(a)a registration plate must not be fixed on the front of a vehicle if it was first registered on or after 1st September 2001, .
(b)a plate need not be fixed on the front of the vehicle if it was first registered before 1st September 2001.

In other words, if a tricycle DOES have a body of "a type characteristic of a four-wheeled vehicle" it must have a front plate. Put in another way, if it looks like a car it needs a front plate. A Lomax 223 obviously looks more like a car than a motorbike.

There was a discussion about this on the forum in 2008 which you can find by searching the "old forum" on this website.

[Geoff Ryall-Harvey]

In the case of a motor cycle or a motor tricycle which does not have a body of a type which is characteristic of the body of a four-wheeled vehicle

The Lomax has a body type which is characteristic of the world's most famous tricycle - the Morgan. It does not look like any 4 wheeled vehicle. The 4 wheeled Lomax is a derivation of the three wheeler and not the other way around.

I have run my Avion for 15 years without a front number plate. I carry the DVLA leaflet that suggests this is acceptable and have not had any issue on the road or at MOT time.

I believe that it to our advantage to keep things unclear - if we ask DVLA and VOSA for an absolute ruling they will, without a shadow of a doubt, require you to have a front number plate. At the moment it is all down to interpretation.

[Filbyflyer]

I agree with Geoff that there is sufficient vagueness in the law here to accept alternative interpretations and we are better off with the flexibility of vagueness than a definitive answer (although DVLA can't give a definitive answer until the interpretation of the regulations has been proven in court). Even so, I think the most likely interpretation is that a Lomax 223 and a Morgan three wheeler both need front plates.

Incidentally, for 3 wheelers registered since September 2001 there are no options. If it is a type that requires a front plate it must have one, but if it is a type that doesn't need a front plate it must NOT have one. So if the new Morgan 3 Wheeler doesn't need a front plate, all those new ones out there with front plates are illegal! (See Autocar review video of a works Morgan 3 with its front plate)

There are also other vaguenesses which we need to cherish.

1. Running without front mudguards. I think this is illegal but people seem to get away with it. Let's keep it vague.
2. Towing on an A frame. I think that towing on an A frame without brakes is within the regulations if the all-up weight is under 750kg. But other club members have argued strongly that it is illegal. Let's keep it vague.
3. A Lomax 223 is technically a "motorcycle" (that's not the taxation class) if its unladen weight is under 410kg. There is nothing in my V5 to indicate its unladen weight, so it might or might not be a motorcycle. Having said that, being a "three wheeled motorcycle" doesn't entitle you to park in a motorcycle bay so the benefit of being a motorcycle is limited to coming under MSVA rather than SVA and arguing with ferry companies. Let's keep it vague.
4. If the unladen weight of your three wheeler is over 450kg it needs a Class 4 MoT which is dearer than the Class 3. Again, I don't know what my unladen weight is - so lets keep it vague!

[hutchii]

I've had a look at the DVLA leaflet mentioned, looking to see if there was anything regarding "stick on" plates as were fitted way back, to cars like the E type. This interest is prompted by the fact that my latest project has no suitable flat surfaces, either front or rear, to fix standard plates. I acknowledge that stick on plates are probably impossible to obtain these days, due I suppose to the ease with which they can be cloned, but it would better suit my car than the huge flat surfaces required today.
Another point that annoys me is that motorcycle plates are allowed to be smaller in size, with smaller characters. This anomaly I find particularly annoying, as the number plates need to be readable from a defined distance. If a motorbike plate meets the requirement, why do cars have to have a larger plate with larger characters?

[Paul Narramore]

"Running without front mudguards. I think this is illegal but people seem to get away with it. Let's keep it vague"

FF, You THINK it's illegal but I KNOW it's illegal. There's nothing vague about it. I can't quote act & section but it'll be in the Construction & Use Regulations.

Ian, Self adhesive black numberplates and letters & numbers are still available and I've seen them at autojumbles. On a curved surface you could always mask off a square and paint this with gloss black, and then add the stick on digits. Far easier on curved surfaces.

(Later) Here ya go -

Regulation 63 of “The Road Vehicles
(Construction and Use) Regulations
1986 (SI 1986/1078)” as amended.
Provides for the fitting of wings or
mudguards to vehicles to prevent mud or
water being thrown up by the wheels or
tracks.
63(1) This regulation applies to:
(a) invalid carriages;
(b) heavy motor cars, motor cars and
motor cycles, not being agricultural motor
vehicles or pedestrian controlled vehicles;
(c) agricultural motor vehicles driven at
more than 20 mph; and
(d) trailers, unless exempted by paragraph
(4).
63(2) Every vehicle to which this regulation
applies shall be equipped with wings or
other similar fittings to catch, so far as
practicable, mud or water thrown up by the
rotation of its wheels or tracks, unless
provided for in paragraphs (3) and (5).
63(3) The requirements specified in
paragraph (2) apply, in the case of a trailer
with more than two wheels, only in respect
of the rearmost two wheels.
63(4) Those requirements do not apply in
respect of:
(a) a works truck;
(b) a living van;
(c) a water cart;
(d) an agricultural trailer drawn by a motor
vehicle which is not driven at a speed in
excess of 20 mph;
(e) an agricultural trailed appliance;
(f) an agricultural trailed appliance
conveyor;
(g) a broken down vehicle;
(h) a heavy motor car, motor car or trailer
in an unfinished condition which is
proceeding to a workshop for completion;
(i) a trailer used for or in connection with
the carriage of round timber and the rear
wheels of any heavy motor car or motor
car drawing a semi-trailer so used; or
(j) a trailer drawn by a motor vehicle the
maximum speed
63(5) Instead of complying with paragraph
2) a vehicle may comply with Community
Directive 78/549.

[Geoff Ryall-Harvey]

I think mudguards is an issue best never mentioned on this Forum

[Paul Narramore]

.....along with OIL and TYRES perhaps?

[flat quatre]

Paul, do we need to be reminded that you are "ex JOB."

I seem to remember Geoff covered the subject pretty well some time back,as well as his wheels, by carrying guards ready to fit in the event of wet conditions.

Re your latest post, the lines 4/5/6 and 7 would appear to (pardon the pun)cover the case at time of event. regards bill d-k 1903