We had a discussion on this topic a little while ago and it showed how LRs recommendations had changed over the years.
Here's what it says (verbatum) in the handbook of my 2010 Defender
Rear Wheels: Snow chains can be fitted to the rear wheels of any vehicle provided that standard size wheels and tyres are fitted.
Ensure gearbox differential is locked.
If snow chains are to be fitted to the front wheels only, or to all four wheels, then only Land Rover approved snow chains should be used. Only Land Rover approved chains have been tested to ensure that they do not cause damage to the vehicle
Non-approved snow chains can be fitted to the rear wheels only.
So there you have it.
Now if you fit front chains only that implies you do not lock the diff.
Also I'm surprised that if you fit to all 4 wheels you must use LR approved on all 4 wheels whereas if you fit on rear wheels only you can fit non-approved.
Also how can LR know that theirs are the only chains that have been tested for damage to the vehicle on the front wheels?
Can't be! I think that you're reading something into this that isn't there. If any rear wheel slips, which it will if unchained, you're going nowhere if the centre diff. is unlocked.
I think that's an interpretation that is not intended. They may wish all four chains to be the same and having restricted the front ones, the extension to the rear ones follows.
They won't, of course, be LR's own make (probably RUD etc.) but ones that LR have tried and confirmed that the necessary clearances exist - which is what they say.
It doesn't mean that others won't fit but LR won't be taking the responsibility. Any reputable manufacturer quoting their product 'as suitable for ...' would expect to carry the can if they got it wrong.
What I quoted is as it appears in the handbook in that sequence. The sentence on difflock should have come first. I agree with your sentiments on the practical aspects but I was taking the handbook literally as written - maybe to show how badly written it is.
But it's what it says in the book.
You may well be right.
Again that isn't what the handbook says. They claim that that theirs are the only ones that have been tested. Perhaps they should have inserted "by Land Rover". Again I am being a bit literal in the interpretation to illustrate how badly written is this section of the handbook. It almost suggests that whoever wrote it didn't quite understand the subject.
Pitty chains are now illegal to use on the public roads in the UK, have been for some years... Remember the Iced up M11, and all the stranded trucks? All the continentals carry them (by law in the EU) but were not permitted to use them in the UK.
The reason for the ban? "They might damage the road" As if anyone would notice....
I phoned the local trafic cop shop and asked a couple of years back, that's when I found this out...
Same with studded tyres BTW.
If it's changed again since, it'd be good to know.
I can't find anything confirming that they are illegal. Many references state that they are only to be used if there is sufficient ice or snow to ensure the road would not be damaged. I cannot find anything that I would regard as authoritative either way.
I think it's reasonable to assume that if you need them any traffic cop who actually knows what's legal and what isn't will be far too busy to make a nuisance of himself...
That any number of people are selling them for less than two hundred quid without a warning in sight does rather indicate that people are both buying and using them and any subsequent cases aren't making the papers...
It's difficult (impossible) to prove a negative, but it seems to me that given that tracked vehicles can be driven on the public highway I can't see that snow chains could be banned on the basis that they might damage the roads.
Yet something that has with Bliar's government entered our legal system. As an example, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) makes it an offence not to disclose the password/key to 'protected information'.
formatting link
How many times have you, genuinely, forgotten a password? In the context of RIPA that could be an offence! Forgetting is not a defence. How do you prove that you can't remember the 'key'? The section 49 notice mentioned below is a request to provide the 'key'.
Section 53 "Failure to comply with a notice. E+W+S+N.I.
(1)A person to whom a section 49 notice has been given is guilty of an offence if he knowingly fails, in accordance with the notice, to make the disclosure required by virtue of the giving of the notice.
(2)In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if?
(a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(4)In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for that person to show?
(a)that it was not reasonably practicable for him to make the disclosure required by virtue of the giving of the section 49 notice before the time by which he was required, in accordance with that notice, to make it; but
(b)that he did make that disclosure as soon after that time as it was reasonably practicable for him to do so.
(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable?
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F1the appropriate maximum term] or to a fine, or to both;
(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both."
How many people have been locked up because of it?
The last Labour government made an awful lot of things illegal because they were under the sway of a number of very vociferous pressure groups, but nobody ever gets prosecuted.
They can't even get the local hunt into court for killing foxes, never mind some nerd because he forgot a password...
Not true. It's not illegal to use either, subject to certain conditions, and I believe never has been.
Yet another example of those who are supposed to know the law giving out duff information! Although, in this case, I have to say that the wording of the relevant regulation leaves a very great deal to be desired.
As far as I am aware the regulations make no specific mention of either studs or chains but, somehow, the definition of a tyre has been broadened to include tyres with studs or chains. I can find no written evidence of that broadening.
The wording of the regulation does not require actual damage to occur to the road surface for an offence to be committed. Herein, I think, lies the reason for all the discussion.
The Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 (RVCUR) as amended (at least as far as 2008) contains the woolly words:
Schedule 27 (1) "... a tyre shall not be used on a road, if: (h) the tyre is not maintained in such condition as to be fit for the use to which the vehicle or trailer is being put or has a defect which might in any way cause damage to the surface of the road or damage to persons on or in the vehicle or to other persons using the road."
Are studs or chains a 'defect'?
I believe that in conditions where there is sufficient snow covering to avoid any possibility of damaging the road surface both chains and studs are legal. The difficulty appears to be that the wording of the regulation allows an alternative interpretation which looks forward to a future situation when the snow cover may no longer exist.
If you drive on clear roads with studs or chains it will be difficult to provide a defence. That's not good news for those who face icy roads where the ice covering does not provide any 'cushioning'.
However, I wonder if anyone has been successfully prosecuted for using studs or chains on an adequately snow/ice protected surface? Does any case law exist?
I, personally, would feel quite comfortable with using chains in extremis even if the road surface were at times exposed.
Tracks are specifically mentioned in the RVCUR: Schedule 28 (3) "The tracks of a vehicle shall not have any defect which might damage the road or cause danger to any person on or in the vehicle or using the road, and shall be properly adjusted and maintained in good and efficient working order." Rubber pads being the way used to avoid the potential road damage but a sort of inverse of the situation with tyres and studs/chains.
I think its more aimed at anyone who say leaves an employment and refuses to tell the password to protected files, maybe using the excuse they've "forgotten it". Bit of a sledgehammer but that's legalise for you.
Any organisation that doesn't insist on two admin users along with a valid admin password to an unused account being placed in a sealed envelope in the bosses' safe deserves to lose all their data.
This stuff isn't rocket science, it's all horribly basic.
It would take any of our sysadmins about 2 minutes to lock out all the admin accounts and/or change their passwords for our enterprise. The 11 other members of the sysadmin team would be powerless to do anything in a timely manner afterwards.
Nope! It's all anti-terrorist and anti-paedophile and similar. The then government (and probably this one, too) doesn't like us having our privacy. Anything hidden in an encrypted file must have a 'sinister' purpose.
The introductory words to the Act are quite clear: "An Act to make provision for and about the interception of communications, the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications, the carrying out of surveillance, the use of covert human intelligence sources and the acquisition of the means by which electronic data protected by encryption or passwords may be decrypted or accessed;...."
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.