When a sun visor is unsafe

[edivarius]

I have a 1965 LVVTA MG TF (Mark ll) replica built in 1988. My local WOF inspector pointed out that the car would not be WOF compliant without a sun visor.


According to NZTA they are regarded as mandatory equipment, stating that 'a vehicle other than of class LE must be fitted with a sun visor for the driver’s use if it is reasonable and practicable to do so'.
 Almost all of the T cars I have seen do not have visors.Given the the small dimensions of the windscreen - only 28 cm in depth - I can’t see how this would be practicable as my view of the road would be obscured, making the vehicle unsafe to drive.

Do I need to get a letter from either LVVTA or NZTA to get an exemption?

[Chris]

Aug 7, 2020 8:45:59 GMT 12 edivarius said:

I have a 1965 LVVTA MG TF (Mark ll) replica built in 1988. My local WOF inspector pointed out that the car would not be WOF compliant without a sun visor.


According to NZTA they are regarded as mandatory equipment, stating that 'a vehicle other than of class LE must be fitted with a sun visor for the driver’s use if it is reasonable and practicable to do so'.
 Almost all of the T cars I have seen do not have visors.Given the the small dimensions of the windscreen - only 28 cm in depth - I can’t see how this would be practicable as my view of the road would be obscured, making the vehicle unsafe to drive.

Do I need to get a letter from either LVVTA or NZTA to get an exemption?

Hi Edivarius, presumably your vehicle is certified, the requirement in the Car Construction Manual for a sun-visor is that

A low volume vehicle must be fitted with an effective and adjustable sun-visor for the use of the driver, unless:
(a) due to the design of the vehicle, a sun-visor cannot be practicably fitted; or
(b) there is insufficient available interior space or windscreen height for a sun-visor to operate effectively and safely.

With 28cm of windscreen height, then if you were able to get a half height sun-visor, then there may be provision to fit one, but I assume, from the information you have given, that clause (b) could be reasonably applied in this situation.

Hopefully that helps

Chris