Certain tyres older than 10 years banned
Discussion
Scotty2 said:
Not if you have a classic coach that would need 8 changing!
Especially if only limited mileage and the tyres are checked at the MOT. Mind you I don't need an MOT anyway now on the old girl.
If you are not an "Operator" will it still apply?
It's not about tread depth / cord showing, it's about degradation of the tyre due to age.Especially if only limited mileage and the tyres are checked at the MOT. Mind you I don't need an MOT anyway now on the old girl.
If you are not an "Operator" will it still apply?
I feel for those who are diligent and who will have to fork out, I can imagine 8x coach tyres aren't cheap.
Good question on operators though, didn't read the leg. detailed enough to know to whom it applies.
Came about after a mother's campaign against them-
"Ms Molloy's 18-year-old son Michael died in 2012 after a 19-year-old tyre on a coach he was on blew out."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-5...
"Ms Molloy's 18-year-old son Michael died in 2012 after a 19-year-old tyre on a coach he was on blew out."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-5...
According to the amendment, it only applies to wheels forward of the chassis mid-point, and only wheels connected to a steering mechanism. So for the average coach, that's two tyres, maybe four for larger ones. Certainly not eight.
There's also an exemption for vehicles over 40 years old, of historical interest and not used in a commercial capacity. So classic bus collectors would be exempt from that rule.
There's also an exemption for vehicles over 40 years old, of historical interest and not used in a commercial capacity. So classic bus collectors would be exempt from that rule.
echazfraz said:
A good thing.
I'm not sure it is.Why is there no legislation for budget tyres which are provably more dangerous (up to, for example, 30 meter extra stopping distance from 70mph in the wet). You know, LING LONGS, TRIANGLE, WANLI and the type.
I'm sure if the budget market (I'd guess 30-40% of cars have budgets on) was wiped out then premium tyre manufacturers could reduce their price from the extra sales.
There are also cheaper tyres such as Falken and Uniroyal which while not as good as premium brands certainly at least of a "suitable quality".
Not sure why the Government is getting involved on this TBH.
320d is all you need said:
I'm not sure it is.
Why is there no legislation for budget tyres which are provably more dangerous (up to, for example, 30 meter extra stopping distance from 70mph in the wet). You know, LING LONGS, TRIANGLE, WANLI and the type.
I'm sure if the budget market (I'd guess 30-40% of cars have budgets on) was wiped out then premium tyre manufacturers could reduce their price from the extra sales.
There are also cheaper tyres such as Falken and Uniroyal which while not as good as premium brands certainly at least of a "suitable quality".
Not sure why the Government is getting involved on this TBH.
The whys and wherefores of the government getting involved are interesting - as someone else said a campaign launched by the mother of a child killed seems to have been the catalyst but for years it's been known that old tyres were an issue (on any vehicle). Should it take this sort of thing for known issues to be acted on? Probably not. Should legislation be the answer? Again, questionable.Why is there no legislation for budget tyres which are provably more dangerous (up to, for example, 30 meter extra stopping distance from 70mph in the wet). You know, LING LONGS, TRIANGLE, WANLI and the type.
I'm sure if the budget market (I'd guess 30-40% of cars have budgets on) was wiped out then premium tyre manufacturers could reduce their price from the extra sales.
There are also cheaper tyres such as Falken and Uniroyal which while not as good as premium brands certainly at least of a "suitable quality".
Not sure why the Government is getting involved on this TBH.
New tyres, whatever brand, are covered by type approval and usage legislation, the latter just covers age now too.
Tyre performance tests are really subjective, and by the logic set out in the argument of linglong vs michelin, you'd only ever be allowed to use the one tyre that came out top in the tests. Every other tyre is "less safe". Which is why there are no stopping distance requirements in the legislation.
LunarOne said:
According to the amendment, it only applies to wheels forward of the chassis mid-point, and only wheels connected to a steering mechanism. So for the average coach, that's two tyres, maybe four for larger ones. Certainly not eight.
There's also an exemption for vehicles over 40 years old, of historical interest and not used in a commercial capacity. So classic bus collectors would be exempt from that rule.
Interesting, and thanks for taking the time to read the legislation (never fun) - I didn't know that those were the limitations to the law. There's also an exemption for vehicles over 40 years old, of historical interest and not used in a commercial capacity. So classic bus collectors would be exempt from that rule.
And in fact I am surprised as I'd have thought that the rear of a vehicle, over which the driver has no directional control breaking loose would be more dangerous than the front, steered axle in most cases (hence tyre companies suggesting most tread goes on rear wheels).
echazfraz said:
LunarOne said:
According to the amendment, it only applies to wheels forward of the chassis mid-point, and only wheels connected to a steering mechanism. So for the average coach, that's two tyres, maybe four for larger ones. Certainly not eight.
There's also an exemption for vehicles over 40 years old, of historical interest and not used in a commercial capacity. So classic bus collectors would be exempt from that rule.
Interesting, and thanks for taking the time to read the legislation (never fun) - I didn't know that those were the limitations to the law. There's also an exemption for vehicles over 40 years old, of historical interest and not used in a commercial capacity. So classic bus collectors would be exempt from that rule.
And in fact I am surprised as I'd have thought that the rear of a vehicle, over which the driver has no directional control breaking loose would be more dangerous than the front, steered axle in most cases (hence tyre companies suggesting most tread goes on rear wheels).
Edited by mac96 on Monday 2nd November 12:30
As usual it's not quite like what is being discussed on here!
The ban on 10 year old tyres will be for commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles and will apply only to the steering axle.
It's supposed to be coming in from Feb 2021.
It will not apply to re moulded tyres or re treaded tyres if the date on the casing is older than the remould/retread date which should also be stamped on.
As a haulier, I feel 12 to 15 years old for a steering axle would be acceptable but no retread or remoulds allowed on a steering axle ever.
We don't see degradation until the tyres are 15 at least but re treads are a constant source of problems. This would potentially let you use 19 or 20 year old casings with a 10 year old retread job. Madness! They are s
t when freshly done.
The ban on 10 year old tyres will be for commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles and will apply only to the steering axle.
It's supposed to be coming in from Feb 2021.
It will not apply to re moulded tyres or re treaded tyres if the date on the casing is older than the remould/retread date which should also be stamped on.
As a haulier, I feel 12 to 15 years old for a steering axle would be acceptable but no retread or remoulds allowed on a steering axle ever.
We don't see degradation until the tyres are 15 at least but re treads are a constant source of problems. This would potentially let you use 19 or 20 year old casings with a 10 year old retread job. Madness! They are s
t when freshly done. echazfraz said:
320d is all you need said:
I'm not sure it is.
Why is there no legislation for budget tyres which are provably more dangerous (up to, for example, 30 meter extra stopping distance from 70mph in the wet). You know, LING LONGS, TRIANGLE, WANLI and the type.
I'm sure if the budget market (I'd guess 30-40% of cars have budgets on) was wiped out then premium tyre manufacturers could reduce their price from the extra sales.
There are also cheaper tyres such as Falken and Uniroyal which while not as good as premium brands certainly at least of a "suitable quality".
Not sure why the Government is getting involved on this TBH.
The whys and wherefores of the government getting involved are interesting - as someone else said a campaign launched by the mother of a child killed seems to have been the catalyst but for years it's been known that old tyres were an issue (on any vehicle). Should it take this sort of thing for known issues to be acted on? Probably not. Should legislation be the answer? Again, questionable.Why is there no legislation for budget tyres which are provably more dangerous (up to, for example, 30 meter extra stopping distance from 70mph in the wet). You know, LING LONGS, TRIANGLE, WANLI and the type.
I'm sure if the budget market (I'd guess 30-40% of cars have budgets on) was wiped out then premium tyre manufacturers could reduce their price from the extra sales.
There are also cheaper tyres such as Falken and Uniroyal which while not as good as premium brands certainly at least of a "suitable quality".
Not sure why the Government is getting involved on this TBH.
New tyres, whatever brand, are covered by type approval and usage legislation, the latter just covers age now too.
Tyre performance tests are really subjective, and by the logic set out in the argument of linglong vs michelin, you'd only ever be allowed to use the one tyre that came out top in the tests. Every other tyre is "less safe". Which is why there are no stopping distance requirements in the legislation.
I just think a blanket rule that a tyre at 9 years and 364 days is OK, but at 10 years it's illegal, combined with the fact many budgets are I would class dangerous so.. I guess it's just my take on it
320d is all you need said:
Of course things are subjective but when you have 10 or 15 tyres which can stop within <15m of each other, when there are two or three standouts who are over 25m for example......
I just think a blanket rule that a tyre at 9 years and 364 days is OK, but at 10 years it's illegal, combined with the fact many budgets are I would class dangerous so.. I guess it's just my take on it
That's a really fair point, and is the major drawback with blanket rules.I just think a blanket rule that a tyre at 9 years and 364 days is OK, but at 10 years it's illegal, combined with the fact many budgets are I would class dangerous so.. I guess it's just my take on it
There will be 10 year old tyres that are fine and 7 year old tyres that are accidents waiting to happen, for example.
Legislation will always frustrate some, it's the nature of the beast, and it's almost always a compromise that is designed to be best fit.
Getragdogleg said:
As usual it's not quite like what is being discussed on here!
The ban on 10 year old tyres will be for commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles and will apply only to the steering axle.
It's supposed to be coming in from Feb 2021.
It will not apply to re moulded tyres or re treaded tyres if the date on the casing is older than the remould/retread date which should also be stamped on.
As a haulier, I feel 12 to 15 years old for a steering axle would be acceptable but no retread or remoulds allowed on a steering axle ever.
We don't see degradation until the tyres are 15 at least but re treads are a constant source of problems. This would potentially let you use 19 or 20 year old casings with a 10 year old retread job. Madness! They are st when freshly done.
Interesting to hear your experience as a haulier.The ban on 10 year old tyres will be for commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles and will apply only to the steering axle.
It's supposed to be coming in from Feb 2021.
It will not apply to re moulded tyres or re treaded tyres if the date on the casing is older than the remould/retread date which should also be stamped on.
As a haulier, I feel 12 to 15 years old for a steering axle would be acceptable but no retread or remoulds allowed on a steering axle ever.
We don't see degradation until the tyres are 15 at least but re treads are a constant source of problems. This would potentially let you use 19 or 20 year old casings with a 10 year old retread job. Madness! They are s
t when freshly done. I thought that remoulds / retreads were industry norm now and accepted - are they really still that bad?
320d is all you need said:
Why is there no legislation for budget tyres which are provably more dangerous (up to, for example, 30 meter extra stopping distance from 70mph in the wet). You know, LING LONGS, TRIANGLE, WANLI and the type.
Are they dangerous when compared to the 50 year old braking distances in the highway code? probably not. Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff