wash. law concerning tire width?
 

ok fellow washington state residents , i need to find out about the law(s) concerning the width or tires past the fenders, anyone know the correct answer or a place online to check?
i recently bought a fellow yota tech'rs 4runner from kanas and the tires stick out apprx 2"s or so, im not sure what back spacing its running yet , but it has 33x12.5x15 baha claws on it. im eventually going to switch over to bfg at's same size , if i have problems with the local law enforcment on the over hang , im not sure which to do, smaller back spacing or fender flares. currently there is no rubbing , and the cost of fender flares would be less then new smaller back spacing wheels.
i wont change a thing until i know the law though, except for the bfg's , the howl is going to kill me on my way home from kanas.

thanks for the help, and it feels good to be back as a yota tech'r. i made the mistake of selling my t-100, and buying an american made 4x4 , and dreaded it everyday, but im back and happy as can be.


airrikk17

http://www.wattora.com/ click on Wa laws

ok, so its my understanding , fro mthe laws listed at the mentioned site , that any portion of the tire that makes contact on the road , shall be covered . in that thinking , any portion of the tire sticking out past the body line or fender flares would be breaking the law. anyone else read that a different way ?

thanks for the help.

airrikk17

You are correct in your interpretation. Anything touching the road mut be covered.

Often a difference in what part of the tire tread contacts the pavement and how wide the actaul tire is. When I ran 15.50 wide Swampers on 10" rims, I had 4" flares that *just* barely covered the tread that touched the ground, but the side lugs/sidewalls stuck out about 2" wider than the flares:

http://www.4crawler.com/4x4/CA-168/D...01/dusy_06.jpg

It did pass some close visual inspections by law enforcement folks, so must have been within the law.