3 points and 100 fine for tyre on 1.5.7

[blueg33]

Mk3Spitfire said:

blueg33 said:

My car can turn new rear tyres info slicks in 6000 miles. It's easy to get from perfectly legal to illegal in the space of 2 weeks. Last time it took a week to get tyres delivered as they were on back order.

2 weeks is plenty of time to realise your car is no longer legal.

Wear rate is circa 1.6 mm per month for me, I have never driven with illegal tyres, but have got close.

[BritishRacinGrin]

blueg33 said:

Wear rate is circa 1.6 mm per month for me, I have never driven with illegal tyres, but have got close.

You're wearing out three sets of tyres per year? What on earth are you doing to them?

[blueg33]

BritishRacinGrin said:

blueg33 said:

Wear rate is circa 1.6 mm per month for me, I have never driven with illegal tyres, but have got close.

You're wearing out three sets of tyres per year? What on earth are you doing to them?

I do 20k miles per year and the soft OEM P zeros on the back of an Evora last about 6k miles. Fronts last for ever.

[Spangles]

Nigel Worc's said:

They still look good to me when they hit the wear bars (which is 2mm, not 1.6).

Well 2 seconds Googling shows you're wrong for at least one major manufacturer.

http://www.hankooktire-eu.com/service/tyre-mainten...

[BritishRacinGrin]

blueg33 said:

I do 20k miles per year and the soft OEM P zeros on the back of an Evora last about 6k miles. Fronts last for ever.

Carry more speed in then

Spangles said:

Well 2 seconds Googling shows you're wrong for at least one major manufacturer.

http://www.hankooktire-eu.com/service/tyre-mainten...

2mm tread wear markers are quite normal. Almost standard, in fact. If you've ever taken a depth gauge to a tyre where the wear bars have just about been worn flush you'll see this for yourself (Yes, I'm sure there are probably exceptions to this).

[BertBert]

Bigends said:

In this case the arsey behaviour of the cops has achieved nothing other than bad feeling. A friendly word and VDRS would have had much more positive results and this matter would never have been posted

One of the problems is that we only have one view of how the event proceeded. I'm not convinced it's an impartial balanced telling of the tale.
Bert

[Foliage]

ging84 said:

Foliage said:

grow up, suck it up.

1.57mm is less than 1.6mm, your tyre is illegal.

i disagree, i would say 1.57mm is equal to 1.6mm

it is certainly less than 1.60mm but without a stated tolerance it is generally assumed to be +/- 0.5 of the last digit quoted, and 1.57 i well within that tolerance

sigh, if you mean -0.05mm then firstly get it right, secondly that's not the law the only thing that matters is that its less than 1.6,

Why people are defending the op god only knows, in the original post the OP states that the tyre was also measured at one point as 1.3mm which is clearly illegal..

[ging84]

Foliage said:

sigh, if you mean -0.05mm then firstly get it right, secondly that's not the law the only thing that matters is that its less than 1.6,

Why people are defending the op god only knows, in the original post the OP states that the tyre was also measured at one point as 1.3mm which is clearly illegal..

What I have tried multiple times to say is what simply that 1.57mm is equally to 1.6mm not less than it. No one seems to be able to get there head around the concept of taking measurements to different levels of accuracy. The law makers were more than capable of understanding that if they wanted even 0.01mm under they could have made it abundantly clear by putting 1.60mm, but they did not, we cannot assume that was an over sight so we must assume that it was deliberate and that they only wanted to class tyres as illegal when they were less than 1.6mm taken to the nearest 0.1mm, to me that is what is black and white. For all we know there could have been a debate about should it be 1.6 or 1.60 and the law makers did not want the police to be able to whip out a more acurate gague and effectively make a good half of all 1.6mm tyres illegal which was not the intention at all
I'd like to see some case law on a similar issue of measurement which has been ruled the other way.

[Spangles]

BritishRacinGrin said:

Spangles said:

Well 2 seconds Googling shows you're wrong for at least one major manufacturer.

http://www.hankooktire-eu.com/service/tyre-mainten...

2mm tread wear markers are quite normal. Almost standard, in fact. If you've ever taken a depth gauge to a tyre where the wear bars have just about been worn flush you'll see this for yourself (Yes, I'm sure there are probably exceptions to this).

http://www.bridgestone.co.uk/auto/your-journey/tyre-safety/

http://www.michelin.co.uk/tyres/learn-share/care-g...

Not that standard then.

[WinstonWolf]

ging84 said:

Foliage said:

sigh, if you mean -0.05mm then firstly get it right, secondly that's not the law the only thing that matters is that its less than 1.6,

Why people are defending the op god only knows, in the original post the OP states that the tyre was also measured at one point as 1.3mm which is clearly illegal..

What I have tried multiple times to say is what simply that 1.57mm is equally to 1.6mm not less than it. No one seems to be able to get there head around the concept of taking measurements to different levels of accuracy. The law makers were more than capable of understanding that if they wanted even 0.01mm under they could have made it abundantly clear by putting 1.60mm, but they did not, we cannot assume that was an over sight so we must assume that it was deliberate and that they only wanted to class tyres as illegal when they were less than 1.6mm taken to the nearest 0.1mm, to me that is what is black and white. For all we know there could have been a debate about should it be 1.6 or 1.60 and the law makers did not want the police to be able to whip out a more acurate gague and effectively make a good half of all 1.6mm tyres illegal which was not the intention at all
I'd like to see some case law on a similar issue of measurement which has been ruled the other way.

1.57 < 1.60 unless a tolerance is stated.

The worst tyre was 1.29, considerably less than 1.60...

[BertBert]

I think we get the levels of accuracy thing. However I don't think your assertion is necessarily correct that by writing 1.6 they meant that explicitly to be 1 DP. They might buy might not. I agree though that if it were just that measurement you'd be able to argue that the .01mm was outside of the level of accuracy.

Hewever the 1.3 trumps it if it was measured in the right place.

Bert

[Nigel Worc's]

Spangles said:

BritishRacinGrin said:

Spangles said:

Well 2 seconds Googling shows you're wrong for at least one major manufacturer.

http://www.hankooktire-eu.com/service/tyre-mainten...

2mm tread wear markers are quite normal. Almost standard, in fact. If you've ever taken a depth gauge to a tyre where the wear bars have just about been worn flush you'll see this for yourself (Yes, I'm sure there are probably exceptions to this).

http://www.bridgestone.co.uk/auto/your-journey/tyre-safety/

http://www.michelin.co.uk/tyres/learn-share/care-g...

Not that standard then.

It is quite "standard", as it's an EU thing, tyres are made for the EU market, and as ever, we have to be bloody different, why I don't know.

You can get on a ferry here with legal tyres, and get off in France with illegal tyres.

EU min depth seems to be 2mm.

[Spangles]

Nigel Worc's said:

It is quite "standard", as it's an EU thing, tyres are made for the EU market, and as ever, we have to be bloody different, why I don't know.

You can get on a ferry here with legal tyres, and get off in France with illegal tyres.

EU min depth seems to be 2mm.

'Seems to be'? It isn't, Europe wide it's 1.6mm. I stand to be corrected but Tyre Wear Indicators on the vast majority of tyres sold in the
UK for passenger cars are at 1.6mm.

[Nigel Worc's]

Spangles said:

Nigel Worc's said:

It is quite "standard", as it's an EU thing, tyres are made for the EU market, and as ever, we have to be bloody different, why I don't know.

You can get on a ferry here with legal tyres, and get off in France with illegal tyres.

EU min depth seems to be 2mm.

'Seems to be'? It isn't, Europe wide it's 1.6mm. I stand to be corrected but Tyre Wear Indicators on the vast majority of tyres sold in the
UK for passenger cars are at 1.6mm.

I don't do it anymore, but for years I worked one week in France, one in the UK.

My opposite numbers always told me 2mm was the min, as they were aware it was less in the UK.

It is possible that the EU have dropped to the UK limit, or I was advised wrongly by my counterparts.

[Vaud]

Spangles said:

I stand to be corrected but Tyre Wear Indicators on the vast majority of tyres sold in the UK for passenger cars are at 1.6mm.

1.6: http://www.hankooktire-eu.com/service/tyre-mainten...
Continental: 1.6 for regular tyres, 4mm for cold weather tyres.
Same for Michelin.

[Foliage]

ging84 said:

Foliage said:

sigh, if you mean -0.05mm then firstly get it right, secondly that's not the law the only thing that matters is that its less than 1.6,

Why people are defending the op god only knows, in the original post the OP states that the tyre was also measured at one point as 1.3mm which is clearly illegal..

What I have tried multiple times to say is what simply that 1.57mm is equally to 1.6mm not less than it. No one seems to be able to get there head around the concept of taking measurements to different levels of accuracy. The law makers were more than capable of understanding that if they wanted even 0.01mm under they could have made it abundantly clear by putting 1.60mm, but they did not, we cannot assume that was an over sight so we must assume that it was deliberate and that they only wanted to class tyres as illegal when they were less than 1.6mm taken to the nearest 0.1mm, to me that is what is black and white. For all we know there could have been a debate about should it be 1.6 or 1.60 and the law makers did not want the police to be able to whip out a more acurate gague and effectively make a good half of all 1.6mm tyres illegal which was not the intention at all
I'd like to see some case law on a similar issue of measurement which has been ruled the other way.

Seriously... 1.6mm and 1.60mm are the same, 1.57mm is not 1.6mm, in your primary school maths class of rounding up and down it probably is BUT in the real world engineers and designers (of which I'm both) decide how to round the measurement and in this case as its a area of with a safety concern 1.57mm would be rounded down to 1.5mm if it was deemed that the measuring device wasn't accurate enough.

Why is this such a problem for you to understand? I fully understand what your saying BUT your wrong, putting yourself and others at risk because of semantics is simply short sighted.

[Nigel Worc's]

Foliage said:

Seriously... 1.6mm and 1.60mm are the same, 1.57mm is not 1.6mm, in your primary school maths class of rounding up and down it probably is BUT in the real world engineers and designers (of which I'm both) decide how to round the measurement and in this case as its a area of with a safety concern 1.57mm would be rounded down to 1.5mm if it was deemed that the measuring device wasn't accurate enough.

Why is this such a problem for you to understand? I fully understand what your saying BUT your wrong, putting yourself and others at risk because of semantics is simply short sighted.

I realise there has to be a cut off point, and I'm an engineer too, but lets not overplay the risk bit eh ?

Many of us were driving when the 1mm limit was in force, it still is for almost everything else except cars.

How did we survive ?

[ORD]

Foliage said:

ging84 said:

Foliage said:

sigh, if you mean -0.05mm then firstly get it right, secondly that's not the law the only thing that matters is that its less than 1.6,

Why people are defending the op god only knows, in the original post the OP states that the tyre was also measured at one point as 1.3mm which is clearly illegal..

What I have tried multiple times to say is what simply that 1.57mm is equally to 1.6mm not less than it. No one seems to be able to get there head around the concept of taking measurements to different levels of accuracy. The law makers were more than capable of understanding that if they wanted even 0.01mm under they could have made it abundantly clear by putting 1.60mm, but they did not, we cannot assume that was an over sight so we must assume that it was deliberate and that they only wanted to class tyres as illegal when they were less than 1.6mm taken to the nearest 0.1mm, to me that is what is black and white. For all we know there could have been a debate about should it be 1.6 or 1.60 and the law makers did not want the police to be able to whip out a more acurate gague and effectively make a good half of all 1.6mm tyres illegal which was not the intention at all
I'd like to see some case law on a similar issue of measurement which has been ruled the other way.

Seriously... 1.6mm and 1.60mm are the same, 1.57mm is not 1.6mm, in your primary school maths class of rounding up and down it probably is BUT in the real world engineers and designers (of which I'm both) decide how to round the measurement and in this case as its a area of with a safety concern 1.57mm would be rounded down to 1.5mm if it was deemed that the measuring device wasn't accurate enough.

Why is this such a problem for you to understand? I fully understand what your saying BUT your wrong, putting yourself and others at risk because of semantics is simply short sighted.

The second chap is almost certainly right. A statutory measurement is absolute. The accuracy of the measuring device would just tell you whether or not it can confidently be said that the limit has or has not been exceeded. If the measurement is 1.599999999999999999mm and is accurate, the tyre is illegal.

[allergictocheese]

The worlds of safety and law are not necessarily the same.

Criminal law requires that to be guilty someone must be so 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The law allows for 1.6mm and it is only illegal if the measurement is actually lower than that. If the measuring device has an inaccuracy, then the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused, meaning it should round up rather than round down, otherwise you could not be sure the offence had been committed.

[speedking31]

A speed limit sign showing 30 mph is obviously rounded to the nearest 10 mph increment, therefore a speed of 34 mph is quite legal