Tyres below legal limit, car parked on public highway
Discussion
I noticed on a tyre check this morning that my rear tyres are well below the legal limit. Life has been incredibly busy for me lately, and although not an excuse, I've let my normal periodic check slip, mainly because I'm using the car infrequently these days.
Not a great issue in terms of replacing them - I've got a mobile guy booked in for 9am Tuesday and will not be driving the car before then.
My concern is that it is parked on the public road. The offence of a CU30 is 'Using a vehicle with defective tyres'. Operative word being 'using'.
Am I right in thinking that it's OK to be parked there (taxed, insured and otherwise legal) and I could only be prosecuted if I tried to drive it?
Not a great issue in terms of replacing them - I've got a mobile guy booked in for 9am Tuesday and will not be driving the car before then.
My concern is that it is parked on the public road. The offence of a CU30 is 'Using a vehicle with defective tyres'. Operative word being 'using'.
Am I right in thinking that it's OK to be parked there (taxed, insured and otherwise legal) and I could only be prosecuted if I tried to drive it?
8IKERDAVE said:
I would think it is only an offence if you are driving it. I could be wrong, if there's a way to lump a fine on the motorist usually a way is found!
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 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.
The word 'use' relating to the Road Traffic Act and Construction and use regulations covers a vehicle being stationary and unattended on the road so you are committing an offence however the chances of a patrolling officer spotting it are about the same as you winning the top prize on the National Lottery, don't worry just replace it asap
I think now you know about it you are doing the right thing and getting new tyres fitted.
It would be better to have the vehicle off the public road but in lieu of that don't make it look anymore obvious and don't use it till sorted.
If someone has reported it there isn't much more you can do than you are already doing. I suspect no one has noticed.
It would be better to have the vehicle off the public road but in lieu of that don't make it look anymore obvious and don't use it till sorted.
If someone has reported it there isn't much more you can do than you are already doing. I suspect no one has noticed.
Kevin-2g5x2 said:
The word 'use' relating to the Road Traffic Act and Construction and use regulations covers a vehicle being stationary and unattended on the road so you are committing an offence however the chances of a patrolling officer spotting it are about the same as you winning the top prize on the National Lottery, don't worry just replace it asap
Not saying you are wrong but can you find a source that states that, I can't, just the requirement for VED, current MOT and Insurancemartinbiz said:
Kevin-2g5x2 said:
The word 'use' relating to the Road Traffic Act and Construction and use regulations covers a vehicle being stationary and unattended on the road so you are committing an offence however the chances of a patrolling officer spotting it are about the same as you winning the top prize on the National Lottery, don't worry just replace it asap
Not saying you are wrong but can you find a source that states that, I can't, just the requirement for VED, current MOT and Insurancemartinbiz said:
8IKERDAVE said:
I would think it is only an offence if you are driving it. I could be wrong, if there's a way to lump a fine on the motorist usually a way is found!
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 A few years ago I picked up a puncture, was on a main (but relatively quiet) road, as I was changing the tyre a police car pulled up alongside to check everything was ok. Have to admit I was a little nervous as I knew the tyres were borderline close to the legal limit, but they could see I was alright and didn't get out and check anything.
How likely is it that the police will stop and check the tyres on a random parked car...? I am guessing very unlikely. I think the OP will be ok.
How likely is it that the police will stop and check the tyres on a random parked car...? I am guessing very unlikely. I think the OP will be ok.
martinbiz said:
Kevin-2g5x2 said:
The word 'use' relating to the Road Traffic Act and Construction and use regulations covers a vehicle being stationary and unattended on the road so you are committing an offence however the chances of a patrolling officer spotting it are about the same as you winning the top prize on the National Lottery, don't worry just replace it asap
Not saying you are wrong but can you find a source that states that, I can't, just the requirement for VED, current MOT and Insuranceomniflow said:
martinbiz said:
8IKERDAVE said:
I would think it is only an offence if you are driving it. I could be wrong, if there's a way to lump a fine on the motorist usually a way is found!
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 If you take other construction and use offences such as a cracked windscreen which will come under the blanket of CU20 for anything else considered dangerous excluding tyres, steering and brakes. Do you really think the act of being parked on the road with a broken windscreen makes you liable for prosecution?
SS2. said:
martinbiz said:
Kevin-2g5x2 said:
The word 'use' relating to the Road Traffic Act and Construction and use regulations covers a vehicle being stationary and unattended on the road so you are committing an offence however the chances of a patrolling officer spotting it are about the same as you winning the top prize on the National Lottery, don't worry just replace it asap
Not saying you are wrong but can you find a source that states that, I can't, just the requirement for VED, current MOT and Insurancemartinbiz said:
..and show something which supports the fact that someone is committing that specific offence when the vehicle is not being driven..
There's a few examples of relevant case law, this being one:Pumbien v Vines [1996] RTR37 said:
(1) A motor vehicle which is mobile at least to the extent that its wheels will rotate must be insured and there must be an appropriate test certificate in force in respect of it before it can lawfully be parked on a road: Elliott v Grey [1960] 1 QB 367 ; Gosling v Howard (Note) [1975] RTR 429 .
(2) A motor vehicle which is immobile at least to the extent that its wheels will not rotate does not require a current test certificate before it can lawfully be parked on a road: Hewer v Cutler [1974] RTR 155 .
It is to be observed that in Hewer v Cutler the judgment of Bridge J did not turn on the reason for the immobility of the vehicle. Nor was the ease with which the vehicle could be restored to mobility a relevant consideration. The decision of the court was founded simply upon the de facto position on the relevant date. In Eden v Mitchell [1975] RTR 425 this court rejected the contention that a settled intention not to make use of the vehicle could be equated with the physical immobility of the vehicle. The court in that case (applying Elliott v Grey ) allowed the prosecutor's appeal against the dismissal of an information which alleged contraventions of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1973 (SI 1973 No 24) namely, that two of the tyres on the vehicle had treads of insufficient depth. Kilner Brown J having cited both Elliott v Grey and Hewer v Cutler said, at p 428C–H:
‘In Hewer v Cutler [1974] RTR 155 this court came to a decision that, on the facts of the case, there was in effect an impossibility of use. The reason why the court came to that decision, agreeing with the view of the Crown Court, was that there was a mechanical immobilisation. The car had so been dealt with that it could not in fact be driven … Just as in Elliott v Grey [1960] 1 QB 367 the court held that there on the facts the vehicle was capable of being used, so in the present case in my view the justices should have found that the vehicle was capable of being used.
This was not a case where there had been a complete mechanical immobilisation. The intention of the defendant was really immaterial. The true test which they should have applied was whether or not such steps had been taken as to make it impossible for anyone to use this vehicle.
They did not apply that test.’
(2) A motor vehicle which is immobile at least to the extent that its wheels will not rotate does not require a current test certificate before it can lawfully be parked on a road: Hewer v Cutler [1974] RTR 155 .
It is to be observed that in Hewer v Cutler the judgment of Bridge J did not turn on the reason for the immobility of the vehicle. Nor was the ease with which the vehicle could be restored to mobility a relevant consideration. The decision of the court was founded simply upon the de facto position on the relevant date. In Eden v Mitchell [1975] RTR 425 this court rejected the contention that a settled intention not to make use of the vehicle could be equated with the physical immobility of the vehicle. The court in that case (applying Elliott v Grey ) allowed the prosecutor's appeal against the dismissal of an information which alleged contraventions of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1973 (SI 1973 No 24) namely, that two of the tyres on the vehicle had treads of insufficient depth. Kilner Brown J having cited both Elliott v Grey and Hewer v Cutler said, at p 428C–H:
‘In Hewer v Cutler [1974] RTR 155 this court came to a decision that, on the facts of the case, there was in effect an impossibility of use. The reason why the court came to that decision, agreeing with the view of the Crown Court, was that there was a mechanical immobilisation. The car had so been dealt with that it could not in fact be driven … Just as in Elliott v Grey [1960] 1 QB 367 the court held that there on the facts the vehicle was capable of being used, so in the present case in my view the justices should have found that the vehicle was capable of being used.
This was not a case where there had been a complete mechanical immobilisation. The intention of the defendant was really immaterial. The true test which they should have applied was whether or not such steps had been taken as to make it impossible for anyone to use this vehicle.
They did not apply that test.’
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff