Tyre tread law ? BIB opinion please

[saaby93]

Red Devil said:

I don't see what the argument is about. Vonhosen's post on Page 2 makes it perfectly clear that the 'continuous groove' requirement doesn't apply to passenger vehicles with fewer than 8 seats + driver.

the regs said:

(i) passenger vehicles other than
'motor cycles constructed or adapted to carry no more than 8 seated passengers in addition to the driver'

the regs said:

first used on or after 3 January 1993.

perfectly clear

[spinbo]

www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q405.htm

[Deva Link]

spinbo said:

www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q405.htm

Send them a correction.

[onboard]

Hi,
It is very worrying indeed, if a police officer responsible, for traffic regulations and is deemed as an expert by the CPS cannot correctly interpret the basic legislation to do with tyres, then there is a bit of a problem for joe public! Especially if said police officer cannot admit he/she is not correct and say so on this forum, most would think more of him/her if they did.

I have also had a few run-ins with dealerships where they have called me to get authorisation to get front tyres changed, saying they were illegal, as the outside edge is below the legal minimum. Little did they know that we get our drivers to do weekly vehicle checks and record many things including the tyre depths and in these instances the tyres have had 4 to 6mm tread in central 3/4 and have been 1 to 2mm in the outer edge.

The garage seemed surprised that I knew what the legalities were and immediately backed down although on one instance I had to go into the dealership and show the service manager the tread was well and truly legal.

Brian

[speed rules]

onboard said:

Hi,
It is very worrying indeed, if a police officer responsible, for traffic regulations and is deemed as an expert by the CPS cannot correctly interpret the basic legislation to do with tyres, then there is a bit of a problem for joe public! Especially if said police officer cannot admit he/she is not correct and say so on this forum, most would think more of him/her if they did.

I have also had a few run-ins with dealerships where they have called me to get authorisation to get front tyres changed, saying they were illegal, as the outside edge is below the legal minimum. Little did they know that we get our drivers to do weekly vehicle checks and record many things including the tyre depths and in these instances the tyres have had 4 to 6mm tread in central 3/4 and have been 1 to 2mm in the outer edge.

The garage seemed surprised that I knew what the legalities were and immediately backed down although on one instance I had to go into the dealership and show the service manager the tread was well and truly legal.

Brian

The attitude of the officer you are quoting is sadly getting more common, having had my car impounded by an officer with similar attitude who was policing his opinion rather than the law. My car was released foc of cause with a big stamp on release papers "vehicle seized in error by police".

[fluffnik]

speed rules said:

The attitude of the officer you are quoting is sadly getting more common, having had my car impounded by an officer with similar attitude who was policing his opinion rather than the law. My car was released foc of cause with a big stamp on release papers "vehicle seized in error by police".

I trust you will press to have the officer in question disciplined and retrained.

[14-7]

fluffnik said:

I trust you will press to have the officer in question disciplined and retrained.

If that's what you truly believe then people making minor errors like travelling above the posted speed limit should also be disciplined and retrained.

[fluffnik]

14-7 said:

fluffnik said:

I trust you will press to have the officer in question disciplined and retrained.

If that's what you truly believe then people making minor errors like travelling above the posted speed limit should also be disciplined and retrained.

A police which enforces non-existent laws and inconveniences the public is worse than useless.

[flemke]

14-7 said:

fluffnik said:

I trust you will press to have the officer in question disciplined and retrained.

If that's what you truly believe then people making minor errors like travelling above the posted speed limit should also be disciplined and retrained.

That's presuming that one was travelling above the posted speed limit in error.
Is it not usually intentional?

[fluffnik]

flemke said:

That's presuming that one was travelling above the posted speed limit in error.
Is it not usually intentional?

A good point, well made.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

fluffnik said:

14-7 said:

fluffnik said:

I trust you will press to have the officer in question disciplined and retrained.

If that's what you truly believe then people making minor errors like travelling above the posted speed limit should also be disciplined and retrained.

A police which enforces non-existent laws and inconveniences the public is worse than useless.

A police that makes mistakes is a police that allows and gives discretion.

If you demand the police never make mistakes or errors, then you start making officers think that if they cannot make mistakes or errors, then maybe the public should be held to just as strict account.

The police are reflective of society as such errors will occur. What is more important is the swift and effective rectification of that error and that those making the error learn from it.

[speed rules]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

fluffnik said:

14-7 said:

fluffnik said:

I trust you will press to have the officer in question disciplined and retrained.

If that's what you truly believe then people making minor errors like travelling above the posted speed limit should also be disciplined and retrained.

A police which enforces non-existent laws and inconveniences the public is worse than useless.

A police that makes mistakes is a police that allows and gives discretion.

If you demand the police never make mistakes or errors, then you start making officers think that if they cannot make mistakes or errors, then maybe the public should be held to just as strict account.

The police are reflective of society as such errors will occur. What is more important is the swift and effective rectification of that error and that those making the error learn from it.

Its not the mistakes, hey we are all human, its the attitude of still believing they were correct, even after my car was released the officer in question was still chasing to take me to court, it was obviously not taken any further due to the fact he was 100% wrong, but he still now believes he was right, as I know officers who work with him.


Also when he dropped me off at the next junction along on the motorway his driving was shocking and he was speeding throughout with me in the car.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

speed rules said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

fluffnik said:

14-7 said:

fluffnik said:

I trust you will press to have the officer in question disciplined and retrained.

If that's what you truly believe then people making minor errors like travelling above the posted speed limit should also be disciplined and retrained.

A police which enforces non-existent laws and inconveniences the public is worse than useless.

A police that makes mistakes is a police that allows and gives discretion.

If you demand the police never make mistakes or errors, then you start making officers think that if they cannot make mistakes or errors, then maybe the public should be held to just as strict account.

The police are reflective of society as such errors will occur. What is more important is the swift and effective rectification of that error and that those making the error learn from it.

Its not the mistakes, hey we are all human, its the attitude of still believing they were correct, even after my car was released the officer in question was still chasing to take me to court, it was obviously not taken any further due to the fact he was 100% wrong, but he still now believes he was right, as I know officers who work with him.


Also when he dropped me off at the next junction along on the motorway his driving was shocking and he was speeding throughout with me in the car.

Not being there its hard to comment on the last. Does he believe he was right to take your car in the circumstances as he knew them or that you should not have got your car back?

Where did your official complaint go?

[speed rules]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

speed rules said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

fluffnik said:

14-7 said:

fluffnik said:

I trust you will press to have the officer in question disciplined and retrained.

If that's what you truly believe then people making minor errors like travelling above the posted speed limit should also be disciplined and retrained.

A police which enforces non-existent laws and inconveniences the public is worse than useless.

A police that makes mistakes is a police that allows and gives discretion.

If you demand the police never make mistakes or errors, then you start making officers think that if they cannot make mistakes or errors, then maybe the public should be held to just as strict account.

The police are reflective of society as such errors will occur. What is more important is the swift and effective rectification of that error and that those making the error learn from it.

Its not the mistakes, hey we are all human, its the attitude of still believing they were correct, even after my car was released the officer in question was still chasing to take me to court, it was obviously not taken any further due to the fact he was 100% wrong, but he still now believes he was right, as I know officers who work with him.


Also when he dropped me off at the next junction along on the motorway his driving was shocking and he was speeding throughout with me in the car.

Not being there its hard to comment on the last. Does he believe he was right to take your car in the circumstances as he knew them or that you should not have got your car back?

Where did your official complaint go?

He believed he was right to take my car and still does, even though he was incorrect. It was his opinion he believed was law, he took my car but was wrong, its the fact that he still believes he was right which is dangerous.

TBH I did not complain, as I did not have the time, girlfriend was 8 1/2 months pregnant at that point and when baby arrived all things trivial faded into insignificance.

[deeps]

Mg6b said:

Deva Link said:

^Slider^ said:

Deev,

my referance is from hughes guide to traffic law, makes no referance to supply of used tyres. However it is a requirement for the supply along with min tread depth so the supply basically says that they must be legal.

As mg6b says, it is an offence in it's own right. Also speaking to other officers this is indeed the case.

Based on the corrections posted by VH, I trust you'll now be apprising your colleagues of the CORRECT law?

I am correct.
You need to read the whole of Vonhosens post and interpret it correctly.

Having an MOT next week so I thought I'd do a search on tyre laws, as my N/S front is wearing and wondered whether it would pass ok.

If I understand Von correctly, normal passenger cars (after Jan 93) do not need to have visible tread on outer edges, but cars before that do (how bizzare and absolutely unfathomable - as if pre 1993 magically gives you more grip!) yet mgb6 states this is not the case and that all normal passenger cars need to have visible tread or will be committing an offence?

So who is correct please? I assume Von is (as usual) and if so how many officers are out there issuing tickets illegally?

[GC8]

Seeing as one has to be correct and the other incorrect - Id suggest the VH was correct. The reason simply being that ones posts in a more factual and less emotive/argumentative manner referring to facts rather than opinion.

Edited by GC8 on Friday 9th April 12:51

[monthefish]

saaby93 said:

Three quarters has quite a wide tolerance so could be anything from around say 70% to 80%

Eh?

[jagracer]

deeps said:

Mg6b said:

Deva Link said:

^Slider^ said:

Deev,

my referance is from hughes guide to traffic law, makes no referance to supply of used tyres. However it is a requirement for the supply along with min tread depth so the supply basically says that they must be legal.

As mg6b says, it is an offence in it's own right. Also speaking to other officers this is indeed the case.

Based on the corrections posted by VH, I trust you'll now be apprising your colleagues of the CORRECT law?

I am correct.
You need to read the whole of Vonhosens post and interpret it correctly.

Having an MOT next week so I thought I'd do a search on tyre laws, as my N/S front is wearing and wondered whether it would pass ok.

If I understand Von correctly, normal passenger cars (after Jan 93) do not need to have visible tread on outer edges, but cars before that do (how bizzare and absolutely unfathomable - as if pre 1993 magically gives you more grip!) yet mgb6 states this is not the case and that all normal passenger cars need to have visible tread or will be committing an offence?

So who is correct please? I assume Von is (as usual) and if so how many officers are out there issuing tickets illegally?

I don't know where the 3rd Jan 1993 comes from but as far as your MOT goes it's 2nd Jan 1933 so you will be OK providing you have 1.6mm or more across 75% of the central section of the tyre.

Edited by jagracer on Friday 9th April 13:55

[GC8]

monthefish said:

saaby93 said:

Three quarters has quite a wide tolerance so could be anything from around say 70% to 80%

Eh?

Yes: Id argue that three quarters was exactly 75% with a tolerance of 0%. I suppose that whats meant is that itll be a subjective judgement, because accurately measuring 75% of a tyres width would be difficult.

[jagracer]

GC8 said:

monthefish said:

saaby93 said:

Three quarters has quite a wide tolerance so could be anything from around say 70% to 80%

Eh?

Yes: Id argue that three quarters was exactly 75% with a tolerance of 0%. I suppose that whats meant is that itll be a subjective judgement, because accurately measuring 75% of a tyres width would be difficult.

It's not actually 75% of the tyre's width, it's 75% of the tyre's contact patch with the road under normal conditions.