Legal requirement to calibrate equipment
Discussion
VonSenger said:
Not sure if anyone knows but is there a legal obligation to calibrate all police measuring tools as they do with speed guns etc? I'm thinking tyre pressure and tread depth gauges.
Cheers
Been involved in something that means your vehicle has been seized & subject to examination by any chance?Cheers
Colleague of mine was a vehicle examiner & tyre pressures & tread were noted as part of the examinations but I can't remember if any of the equipment was calibrated or not. I do know that he was a time served & well qualified mechanic.
Edited by paintman on Thursday 14th April 20:03
Not sure for Police equipment but MOT tread depth gauges must be from the 'approved' list and be periodically checked for calibration.
There arent strict rules about calibrating them but using a bit of plate glass or other known flat surface and checking the gauge reads zero is enough to satisfy the vague requirements.
If there is an issue with tread depths I'd take it too an MOT station for a second opinion and be honest with the guys there about it, a tester trumps the Police in this regard and a written statement that from one would go a long way.
If the tyres were inspected by a DVSA inspector you are f
ked, they know the rules and won't make mistakes.
There arent strict rules about calibrating them but using a bit of plate glass or other known flat surface and checking the gauge reads zero is enough to satisfy the vague requirements.
If there is an issue with tread depths I'd take it too an MOT station for a second opinion and be honest with the guys there about it, a tester trumps the Police in this regard and a written statement that from one would go a long way.
If the tyres were inspected by a DVSA inspector you are f
ked, they know the rules and won't make mistakes.Edited by Jimmyarm on Thursday 14th April 20:24
A ruler stamped with an approval mark (no a BS mark if memory serves) was a requirement in my day. Even then it could be challenged in court, as can anything, but if it was approved the court would accept it unless there was evidence to convince otherwise.
As a rather keen PC in my day I asked for a marked ruler from the job and they refused, stating that I should buy my own. After that I would use paper and mark the length of an item on the paper, then get the offender to sign it. So if I was challenged as to whether it was a third for instance or how long it was, I could produce the evidence. That said, once I started including it in my statements, I was not asked.
I've posted this before, so apologies to those with a long memory: I once reported the driver of a 140 Volvo for defective tyre. He pleaded NG and brought a wheel and tyre to court. I asked to examine it before court and he refused. In court I gave my evidence in chief and then he produced the wheel and tyre in evidence. I asked the clerk if I could examine it and was allowed to.
I pointed out that it could not have been the tyre in question as it was not defective. Further, it was a different make. I saved the best to last. With some drama I pointed out to their worships that the wheel was 14", as fitted to 240 Volvos, but that those fitted to a 140 were 15".
There was a certain silence and the clerk then spoke with the bench. They were not convinced at first but eventually agreed.
The chair asked the defendant if he had, as he had said under oath, removed this wheel from the front offside of the vehicle that he'd been driving at the time of the stop.
The chap looked at me and I just raised my eyebrows. After a while he said that he'd brought the wheel and tyre along as it was in identical condition to the one on his car. He did not look the bench in the eye.
Despite it being the chap's first offence in 3 years, they hit him with the maximum fine.
As a rather keen PC in my day I asked for a marked ruler from the job and they refused, stating that I should buy my own. After that I would use paper and mark the length of an item on the paper, then get the offender to sign it. So if I was challenged as to whether it was a third for instance or how long it was, I could produce the evidence. That said, once I started including it in my statements, I was not asked.
I've posted this before, so apologies to those with a long memory: I once reported the driver of a 140 Volvo for defective tyre. He pleaded NG and brought a wheel and tyre to court. I asked to examine it before court and he refused. In court I gave my evidence in chief and then he produced the wheel and tyre in evidence. I asked the clerk if I could examine it and was allowed to.
I pointed out that it could not have been the tyre in question as it was not defective. Further, it was a different make. I saved the best to last. With some drama I pointed out to their worships that the wheel was 14", as fitted to 240 Volvos, but that those fitted to a 140 were 15".
There was a certain silence and the clerk then spoke with the bench. They were not convinced at first but eventually agreed.
The chair asked the defendant if he had, as he had said under oath, removed this wheel from the front offside of the vehicle that he'd been driving at the time of the stop.
The chap looked at me and I just raised my eyebrows. After a while he said that he'd brought the wheel and tyre along as it was in identical condition to the one on his car. He did not look the bench in the eye.
Despite it being the chap's first offence in 3 years, they hit him with the maximum fine.
Retroman said:
Not sure if you can calibrate a tyre depth gauge any more than you can calibrate a ruler.
I'm assuming they'd use digital ones like this these days:
Either way, you could easily perform a calibration check by measuring a known standard at cardinal points, with 1.6mm obviously being the most important.
I doubt if they are user adjustable for span, but the zero is clearly adjustable and you'd know if it was out of tolerance and not fit for use.
Retroman said:
Not sure if you can calibrate a tyre depth gauge any more than you can calibrate a ruler.
You can calibrate a ruler and you can also calibrate depth gauges which are similar to tyre depth gauges. So I can't see why they shouldn't be calibrated. I am pretty sure I have seen some calibrated.The Police are not going to fit someone up over dodgy tyres.
I have a great deal of respect for nearly all police officers. And even the WORST that i've met or heard about would not do this. (And by worst I mean the types who will bend the rules to get convictions against the guilty, I've never personally met an innocent person who has been stitched up).
I have a great deal of respect for nearly all police officers. And even the WORST that i've met or heard about would not do this. (And by worst I mean the types who will bend the rules to get convictions against the guilty, I've never personally met an innocent person who has been stitched up).
We were issued with a rolled paper tape measure at the time of joining. Used it for years together with a printed ruler scale on the back of our process books - never had a measurement queried. In relation to tyres - rarely processed them unless there was pretty much no tread visible so measurements were never an issue
Monty Python said:
For a tyre they only need to look at the wear indicators in the tread to see if it's below the legal limit.
TWI's shouldn't be used to definitively prove a tyre is below the legal limit as some manufacturers make them slightly higher than 1.6mm to indicate when the tyre is nearing the legal limit. Cat
BertBert said:
Monty Python said:
For a tyre they only need to look at the wear indicators in the tread to see if it's below the legal limit.
How far below the legal limit is the wear indicator set?Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff