So. Most trailers it seems have underrun protection to assist muppet car drivers and cyclists from trying to drive under the trailer; but tipper trailers and skellies don’t have them. Why is this? Is it ‘law’ to have them or just reccomended or 'best practices.
I’ve looked around but haven’t found much about it. A more thorough search may be needed 
I’ve seen references on here that they should be fitted or that it looked like some had been removed from some rigids or trailers but would like clarification please 
So is it that they became compulsory to have after a certain date yet due to the age of some trailers it is not a retrospective law? I guess that would make sense. Especially as I saw some skellies this morning with or without under-run protection.
Maybe Saratoga you might get a better responce if you moved this into the owner and fleet operators forum, would save you having to answer your own posts 
Yeah, but my reply was after some thinking time on the M1 this morning 
well as a quick guess, if it’s a sliding skelly, you can’t have under-run bars or else it can’t telescope for 20 footers to be loaded?
lankyphil:
well as a quick guess, if it’s a sliding skelly, you can’t have under-run bars or else it can’t telescope for 20 footers to be loaded?
Not necessarily, it wouldn’t be too hard to make something a big like the way a hydraulic ram on a tipper works, where it all managed to fit inside each other while the body is down, and extend into 3 or 4 different parts when it’s up.
When I had my old six wheeler with a Hiab they failed it on the last MOT we put it through, we had to box in round the legs on crane.
It had passed all 10 or so previous MOTs with the side rails as per the picture. It’s a bit daft when they allow tippers and the like to not require them.
It depends on the job they are designed for, forestry used to be the one, no mud guards or sideguards, basically just a skelly with side posts, or even earlier was a single tube trailer. Tankers didn’t need them originally.
exemptions, there are more, but basically
vehicle being driven or towed to a place where by previous arrangement a sideguard is to be fitted so that it complies with this regulation
vehicle designed solely for use and used solely in connection with street cleansing, collection or disposal of refuse or collection or disposal of the contents of gullies or cesspits
trailer designed and constructed, and not merely adapted, to carry round timber, beams or girders of exceptional length;
motor car or heavy motor car constructed or adapted to form part of an articulated vehicle
vehicle designed and constructed, and not merely adapted, to carry other vehicles loaded onto it from the front or back
vehicle specially designed, and not merely adapted, for the carriage and mixing of liquid concrete
some construction vehicles
Wheel Nut:
It depends on the job they are designed for, forestry used to be the one, no mud guards or sideguards, basically just a skelly with side posts, or even earlier was a single tube trailer. Tankers didn’t need them originally.
exemptions, there are more, but basically
vehicle being driven or towed to a place where by previous arrangement a sideguard is to be fitted so that it complies with this regulation
vehicle designed solely for use and used solely in connection with street cleansing, collection or disposal of refuse or collection or disposal of the contents of gullies or cesspits
trailer designed and constructed, and not merely adapted, to carry round timber, beams or girders of exceptional length;
motor car or heavy motor car constructed or adapted to form part of an articulated vehicle
vehicle designed and constructed, and not merely adapted, to carry other vehicles loaded onto it from the front or back
vehicle specially designed, and not merely adapted, for the carriage and mixing of liquid concrete
some construction vehicles
We used to have disagreements years ago with our timber carriages at Shrewsbury testing station who insisted that we had to have sideguards and spray suppression even though the book said as quoted above by Wheel Nut there.
Funny thing is,when we started using Llandod test station instead they would pass it.
Side guard exemptions , page 60 HERE
Denis F:
Side guard exemptions , page 60 HERE
Good link Denis.
The side guard exemption has been around forever and I am talking a good while ago when we had arguments with Shrewsbury but they insisted this is what they want,no matter what the book said. We used Llandod as I said and it would pass but it was a trek for us to go there whereas Salop was 16 mile/40 minutes down the road.
In the end made up the guards that coulds slide in and out and take off the wheel guards for when we dragged the wagon across the fields to the wood and back.
Tis a bit like when you take a wagon for test and it fails on the rollers but take it again without doing anything and it passes,no consistency with them…but they expect it from you.
Anyway,I’ve gone off a bit and it wasn’t meant to be a rant but it it’s way it is.
we had the same issue with shrewsbury test centre Bri , a couple of hiab flatbeds had to have the gap between the cab and front hiab leg filled in with side rails . This was despite them passingthe mot fine for years before 
cheers Mike
Mikey D:
we had the same issue with shrewsbury test centre Bri , a couple of hiab flatbeds had to have the gap between the cab and front hiab leg filled in with side rails . This was despite them passingthe mot fine for years before
cheers Mike
had something similar with my DAF, at the third time they tested it they decided the side guards were 1" too high from the ground ,( they were the same as when built ) all we got when queried it was " the rules have changed "
I think it happens when the tester looks at a tired but roadworthy motor and thinks that it’s time the operator renewed his fleet as it is otherwise borderline. Suddenly things that get overlooked or are good enough on better vehicles get picked on to fill a quota of fails.