Police tweet aftermath of accident, blame dodgy tyres
Discussion
V8RX7 said:
loskie said:
Perhaps the pathetic 1.6mm minimum tread in the UK needs to be raised. This is after all a very wet country!
You do know why the tread depth requirement was raised from IIRC - visible thread to 1.1mm to now 1.6mm ?I had nothing to do with road safety.
That apart, you do know it's now 25 years since the tread depth was increased from 1mm (not 1.1mm) to 1.6mm, right? And that that 1mm requirement was introduced in 1978, at the VERY latest? (I can't easily find the predecessor to the 1978 C&U regs online, for some reason...)
So anyway, go on - which conspiracy theory is this going to be?
TooMany2cvs said:
V8RX7 said:
loskie said:
Perhaps the pathetic 1.6mm minimum tread in the UK needs to be raised. This is after all a very wet country!
You do know why the tread depth requirement was raised from IIRC - visible thread to 1.1mm to now 1.6mm ?I had nothing to do with road safety.
That apart, you do know it's now 25 years since the tread depth was increased from 1mm (not 1.1mm) to 1.6mm, right? And that that 1mm requirement was introduced in 1978, at the VERY latest? (I can't easily find the predecessor to the 1978 C&U regs online, for some reason...)
So anyway, go on - which conspiracy theory is this going to be?
But if there was a typo - who cares ?
See the IIRC - 0.1mm OH NO ! Won't someone think of the children !
Google it you ignoramus
You may have to google that too !
V8RX7 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
V8RX7 said:
visible thread
THE WORD IS TREAD, NOT THREAD.But it wasn't specifically aimed at you. Gawd knows how many people in this tread - ooops, sorry - thread have used the entirely wrong word.
Anyway, back to this conspiracy theory b
ks... Did you forget to explain that bit?V8RX7 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Anyway, back to this conspiracy theory bks... Did you forget to explain that bit?
No ks... Did you forget to explain that bit?I told you to google it
sim72 said:
More to the point, is that you can aquaplane with brand new top quality tyres on ( I know - it's happened to me). I very much doubt that the worn inner of this chap's tyres contributed significantly to his accident.
Absolutely - I wrote off a 5 month old E class back in November when I aquaplaned on the M62 and bounced off a couple of barriers (and unbelievable didn't hit anyone else - though I very neatly speared the car between two lorries 
).Obviously quite new premium tyres on a car with no worn suspension components, stability control etc. I didn't even hit standing water, the car just veered into the barrier.
Luckily for me on the nagging front the OH was in the car with me and knows I wasn't speeding etc.
This is something that scares the bejesus out of me watching the speed some people travel in the wet - if you can manage a crash like mine in a new car on newish premium tyres at 70mph then how the hell do all these cars and vans on tyres like ^^^ that, ditchfinders, remoulds etc who are all steaming along at 80+ not all have monumental crashes. I don't get it.
And FWIW - I wouldn't drive on it, but that tyre in the OP is still legal. It's just s
t.Trabi601 said:
Wonder what brand they are, as a cheapie Chinese tyre would be much more likely to cause issues, even if mostly legal.
Not in that case - if you're aquaplaning then it makes no odds whether you are on chariot wheels or Veyron tyres, the rubber isn't touching the ground anyway. And cheapo Chinese tyres are generally made using older, discontinued moulds from the "Premium" manufacturers.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff