Tyres below legal limit, car parked on public highway

[Pica-Pica]

Quoting law cases is all well and good, but if those cases are to be definitive, then more general and more widely available advice needs to be described for the general public. ‘Using’ and ‘driving’ will be understood in their lay sense to most people.

[SS2.]

Pica-Pica said:

Quoting law cases is all well and good, but if those cases are to be definitive, then more general and more widely available advice needs to be described for the general public. ‘Using’ and ‘driving’ will be understood in their lay sense to most people.

Martin asked for something which confirmed 'use' of a vehicle with defective tyres was not restricted to those times only when the vehicle was being driven.

Hence the quoted cases.

How the relevant legislation is worded is out of my hands.

[MBVitoria]

Good on you for being cautious but I really wouldn't worry about it OP as the chances of getting caught are virtually nil.

[martinbiz]

MBVitoria said:

Good on you for being cautious but I really wouldn't worry about it OP as the chances of getting caught are virtually nil.

This of course is the reality irrespective of all the legal technicalities

[fidzer]

martinbiz said:

correct, defective tyres, brakes and lots of other things are moving traffic offence so would only apply if the vehicle is being driven. Using is a broad term and it would apply to some document offences such as no insurance even if the vehicle is parked and not being driven

You would still fall foul of Section 144A of the Road Traffic Act though for no insurance.

[Pica-Pica]

SS2. said:

Pica-Pica said:

Quoting law cases is all well and good, but if those cases are to be definitive, then more general and more widely available advice needs to be described for the general public. ‘Using’ and ‘driving’ will be understood in their lay sense to most people.

Martin asked for something which confirmed 'use' of a vehicle with defective tyres was not restricted to those times only when the vehicle was being driven.

Hence the quoted cases.

How the relevant legislation is worded is out of my hands.

I understand it is out of your hands (!), but logically and equitably it should be clarified within documentation that is readily accessible to the layperson.

[martinbiz]

fidzer said:

martinbiz said:

correct, defective tyres, brakes and lots of other things are moving traffic offence so would only apply if the vehicle is being driven. Using is a broad term and it would apply to some document offences such as no insurance even if the vehicle is parked and not being driven

You would still fall foul of Section 144A of the Road Traffic Act though for no insurance.

Read the whole thread, it may make more sense then

[Derek Smith]

Regardless of the definition of 'use', the vehicle did not magically appear in that position on a road. It was driven there.

As pointed out earlier, the likelihood of a patrolling police officer seeing the defective tyre and reporting it is near zero.

[Pica-Pica]

‘Driving’; ‘Using’; ‘In charge of’;
All need to be precisely defined. Someone who is over the drink-drive limit, but is walking along with his car keys in his pocket with friends, is he ‘in charge of’?, especially as his friends may have the exact intention to take him home in another car.

[Forester1965]

Life isn't binary.

[tele_lover]

Derek Smith said:

Regardless of the definition of 'use', the vehicle did not magically appear in that position on a road. It was driven there.

But you don't know "when" it was driven there.

[Cat]

tele_lover said:

Derek Smith said:

Regardless of the definition of 'use', the vehicle did not magically appear in that position on a road. It was driven there.

But you don't know "when" it was driven there.

...or by "who", or if it was actually driven there at all and not just hiab'ed off the back of a flat bed.

Cat

[fidzer]

martinbiz said:

fidzer said:

martinbiz said:

correct, defective tyres, brakes and lots of other things are moving traffic offence so would only apply if the vehicle is being driven. Using is a broad term and it would apply to some document offences such as no insurance even if the vehicle is parked and not being driven

You would still fall foul of Section 144A of the Road Traffic Act though for no insurance.

Read the whole thread, it may make more sense then

I did?

s144A creates the offence for the registered keeper of a vehicle to have no insurance in place, even if the vehicle is not being used on a road or other public place. Otherwise it should be declared as SORN with the DVLA.

So in your hypothetical that I've quoted, even if the vehicle were parked and not being driven, the registered keeper may still be liable for a knock on the door. Use, driven or attempted to be driven if you like would not even need considering.

[Yellow Lizud]

fidzer said:

martinbiz said:

fidzer said:

martinbiz said:

correct, defective tyres, brakes and lots of other things are moving traffic offence so would only apply if the vehicle is being driven. Using is a broad term and it would apply to some document offences such as no insurance even if the vehicle is parked and not being driven

You would still fall foul of Section 144A of the Road Traffic Act though for no insurance.

Read the whole thread, it may make more sense then

I did?

s144A creates the offence for the registered keeper of a vehicle to have no insurance in place, even if the vehicle is not being used on a road or other public place. Otherwise it should be declared as SORN with the DVLA.

So in your hypothetical that I've quoted, even if the vehicle were parked and not being driven, the registered keeper may still be liable for a knock on the door. Use, driven or attempted to be driven if you like would not even need considering.

What the hell are you talking about?
Where has the OP said anything about the car not having insurance.?

[Forester1965]

I'd imagine anyone with a copy of Wilkinsons would be able to get a reasonable answer.

In some traffic law 'use' seems to be interpreted as 'have use of'. Whether that extends to offences such as tyres, lights etc I don't know.

[Super Sonic]

Yellow Lizud said:

What the hell are you talking about?
Where has the OP said anything about the car not having insurance.?

Isn't there a clause in most insurance policies that the car has to be roadworthy or something?

[cashmax]

Super Sonic said:

Yellow Lizud said:

What the hell are you talking about?
Where has the OP said anything about the car not having insurance.?

Isn't there a clause in most insurance policies that the car has to be roadworthy or something?

The OP states that the car is taxed and insured. Does everyone stopped with a bald tyre end up with a further 6 points for no insurance?

[e-honda]

Derek Smith said:

Regardless of the definition of 'use', the vehicle did not magically appear in that position on a road. It was driven there.

As pointed out earlier, the likelihood of a patrolling police officer seeing the defective tyre and reporting it is near zero.

Yes they could prosecute the last person to drive it, and could require the keeper to identify the driver
However without a date / time that it was last driven they might struggle to use section 172, and after all how is the OP to know it's not been taken for a joy ride by someone with access to the keys and put back in the same spot with bald tyres. That used to my parents occasionally when I was younger.

[Mont Blanc]

omniflow said:

martinbiz said:

correct, defective tyres, brakes and lots of other things are moving traffic offence so would only apply if the vehicle is being driven. Using is a broad term and it would apply to some document offences such as no insurance even if the vehicle is parked and not being driven

Are you 100% sure about this?

If so, has it always been this way?

I distinctly remember my Dad getting done for bald tyres, and that was from a policeman walking down the road checking all the cars and the car was parked at the time.

Exactly the same happened to a friend of mine, albeit about 18 years ago.

Police officer walking down a terraced street saw a car parked on the road with a bald front tyre on the kerb side, PNC check over the radio revealed the car was registered to the house that it was parked outside of, knocked on the door, friend answers, officer proceeds to write him a ticket for the tyres despite protestations that it isn't being driven.

[cashmax]

Mont Blanc said:

omniflow said:

martinbiz said:

correct, defective tyres, brakes and lots of other things are moving traffic offence so would only apply if the vehicle is being driven. Using is a broad term and it would apply to some document offences such as no insurance even if the vehicle is parked and not being driven

Are you 100% sure about this?

If so, has it always been this way?

I distinctly remember my Dad getting done for bald tyres, and that was from a policeman walking down the road checking all the cars and the car was parked at the time.

Exactly the same happened to a friend of mine, albeit about 18 years ago.

Police officer walking down a terraced street saw a car parked on the road with a bald front tyre on the kerb side, PNC check over the radio revealed the car was registered to the house that it was parked outside of, knocked on the door, friend answers, officer proceeds to write him a ticket for the tyres despite protestations that it isn't being driven.

Your "friend" would have needed to admit he was the driver of the car. They couldn't prosecute the keeper for bald tyres on a parked car unless he admitted he drove it there, since the offence is "using a car with a tread depth below 1.6mm" not owning a car. I am unsure if keeping a car on the road with illigal tyres constitutes using it either.