Old tyres bill blocked again
Discussion
Banning tyres for being 10 years old is a stupid idea. Why? Because it's an arbitrary limit with no basis on the actual characteristics of a particular tyre and no link to factors like storage.
You could crack down on minimum performance characteristics to ban ditch finders.
You could limit the scope for retreads on commercial vehicles.
You could introduce an expiry date on tyres determined by the manufacturer given their knowledge of the materials and construction.
You could do all sorts of things.
But just banning them for being a certain age is simplistic nonsense.
You could crack down on minimum performance characteristics to ban ditch finders.
You could limit the scope for retreads on commercial vehicles.
You could introduce an expiry date on tyres determined by the manufacturer given their knowledge of the materials and construction.
You could do all sorts of things.
But just banning them for being a certain age is simplistic nonsense.
ChemicalChaos said:
So WHY THE f
k was the bill blocked for the 3RD TIME in the commons last night by the Conservatives? What is this "more research needed" that they cited as an excuse?
Because generally speaking government doesn't make law on the basis of a single very upset mother and her circumstances brought to parliament through a Private Members' Bill.k was the bill blocked for the 3RD TIME in the commons last night by the Conservatives? What is this "more research needed" that they cited as an excuse? Such bills are very rarely taken into law; they are almost always used as a way of opening debate on a matter in order to bring it to the government's attention and get them to take action on it.
As we can see in this case the government has allocated funding to do some research into the subject, so it could be said that although the bill has not become law it has succeeded in the main aim of putting dangerous tyres on the government's agenda.
I'm not quite sure why Maria Eagle is responding as she is; she's been in the game long enough to know how this works, and suggesting otherwise is likely causing quite some upset to the victim's family.
Jonesy23 said:
Banning tyres for being 10 years old is a stupid idea. Why? Because it's an arbitrary limit with no basis on the actual characteristics of a particular tyre and no link to factors like storage.
You could crack down on minimum performance characteristics to ban ditch finders.
You could limit the scope for retreads on commercial vehicles.
You could introduce an expiry date on tyres determined by the manufacturer given their knowledge of the materials and construction.
You could do all sorts of things.
But just banning them for being a certain age is simplistic nonsense.
The general concensus from manufacturers is 10 years max then replace, irrespective of how they may look.You could crack down on minimum performance characteristics to ban ditch finders.
You could limit the scope for retreads on commercial vehicles.
You could introduce an expiry date on tyres determined by the manufacturer given their knowledge of the materials and construction.
You could do all sorts of things.
But just banning them for being a certain age is simplistic nonsense.
Some say 6 years.
Tyres are the things keeping you on the road - why take any chances with something so important for a relatively small outlay ?
If you can't afford new tyres every 10 years what else are you prepared to scrimp on ? Brakes ?
In Dubai, tyres have a life of 3 years from manufacture due to the heat screwing them up.
The unforeseen consequence of this is that you can hire tyres by the hour from back street places so you can get your car or truck registered every year.
These would be the same vehicles that would then cause massive accidents.
I've never been anywhere else where every journey you'll pass multiples of vehicles with punctures or blowouts.
I lived there for over 13 years and never had one, but I followed the rules.
The unforeseen consequence of this is that you can hire tyres by the hour from back street places so you can get your car or truck registered every year.
These would be the same vehicles that would then cause massive accidents.
I've never been anywhere else where every journey you'll pass multiples of vehicles with punctures or blowouts.
I lived there for over 13 years and never had one, but I followed the rules.
Red 4 said:
The general concensus from manufacturers is 10 years max then replace, irrespective of how they may look.
Some say 6 years.
Tyres are the things keeping you on the road - why take any chances with something so important for a relatively small outlay ?
If you can't afford new tyres every 10 years what else are you prepared to scrimp on ? Brakes ?
Brilliant.Some say 6 years.
Tyres are the things keeping you on the road - why take any chances with something so important for a relatively small outlay ?
If you can't afford new tyres every 10 years what else are you prepared to scrimp on ? Brakes ?
But why legislate and set a period of 10 years? As a number it's backed by nothing. It's just a convenient thing someone has grabbed onto.
The argument about scrimping on stuff is facile. It's nothing to do with that.
The issue is setting a number based on nothing at all that if anything sets a false impression that a tyre less than that age is OK. If there really is an issue with time expiry of tyres then have something intelligent like expiry dates, temperature and UV exposure tell tales. Not another bit of crude reactionary legislation that doesn't actually fix anything at all.
I wouldn't be too happy with a blanket 10 years. I have quite a large collection of cars, and some of them don't do a huge mileage, so I'm often replacing tyres long before they're worn out.
My cars are all stored inside, most of them in a building without windows, so sunlight isn't a big problem. As some of the cars are only used to potter about and on low-speed classic car runs, I'm not to worried about the consequences of a blow-out. I replace tyres on the faster cars as they wear out, and I check the others regularly for signs of cracking/perishing.
My cars are all stored inside, most of them in a building without windows, so sunlight isn't a big problem. As some of the cars are only used to potter about and on low-speed classic car runs, I'm not to worried about the consequences of a blow-out. I replace tyres on the faster cars as they wear out, and I check the others regularly for signs of cracking/perishing.
sunbeam alpine said:
I wouldn't be too happy with a blanket 10 years. I have quite a large collection of cars, and some of them don't do a huge mileage, so I'm often replacing tyres long before they're worn out.
My cars are all stored inside, most of them in a building without windows, so sunlight isn't a big problem. As some of the cars are only used to potter about and on low-speed classic car runs, I'm not to worried about the consequences of a blow-out. I replace tyres on the faster cars as they wear out, and I check the others regularly for signs of cracking/perishing.
See my comments earlier about my own experience with 10yo+ Michs back-to-back with new ones.My cars are all stored inside, most of them in a building without windows, so sunlight isn't a big problem. As some of the cars are only used to potter about and on low-speed classic car runs, I'm not to worried about the consequences of a blow-out. I replace tyres on the faster cars as they wear out, and I check the others regularly for signs of cracking/perishing.
ChemicalChaos said:
there would be even be a boost to the economy from increased tyre sales.
I don't particularly disagree with the principle of replacing old tyres - though the age is clearly arbitrary. But please not this nonsense - how is it a boost to the economy (and whose economy ?), when all it does is shift money from the coach passenger's pocket into the tyre manufacturer's ? And add to the recycling burden/costs. I suggest it would have a net negative effect on GDP given that most (/all ?) tyres are manufactured outside the UK.sunbeam alpine said:
I wouldn't be too happy with a blanket 10 years. I have quite a large collection of cars, and some of them don't do a huge mileage, so I'm often replacing tyres long before they're worn out.
My cars are all stored inside, most of them in a building without windows, so sunlight isn't a big problem. As some of the cars are only used to potter about and on low-speed classic car runs, I'm not to worried about the consequences of a blow-out. I replace tyres on the faster cars as they wear out, and I check the others regularly for signs of cracking/perishing.
The problem is that even if you are keeping your car in a nice dry garage, the degradation of the tyre is unstoppable. Even the air around them will be weakening them and making the rubber go hard and brittle as they sit.My cars are all stored inside, most of them in a building without windows, so sunlight isn't a big problem. As some of the cars are only used to potter about and on low-speed classic car runs, I'm not to worried about the consequences of a blow-out. I replace tyres on the faster cars as they wear out, and I check the others regularly for signs of cracking/perishing.
If as you say, you replace sets of tyres on your cars earlier than 10 years due to them wearing out, then a '10 year rule' would be no problem. As for the others, I find it hard to believe that you would be too tight to buy a set of tyres every 10 years just for peace of mind and improved road holding and ride.
I quote from CarThrottle:
Considering tyres are your car’s only contact patch with the road surface, it’s safe to say they should never be taken for granted or forgotten about. Take into account the sheer amount of beating that those circles of rubber have to take day after day - it is not difficult to realise tyres will degrade over time.
So what causes tyres to reach that stage of degradation? Let’s take a look at the construction of a tyre first of all. With the major ingredient obviously being rubber, there are also layers of metallic ‘beading’ that strengthen the walls of the tyre but still allow for a given amount of flex in the compound.
In terms of degradation, we must remember that rubber is an organic material taken from trees and therefore will naturally want to biodegrade. Although the rubber is reinforced and mixed with other polymers to make it suitable to hold high pressure and deal with the load that a car can apply, at its core it is a natural substance that wants to change state after a period of time.
You may notice that as tyres degrade, the compound becomes stiffer and therefore more brittle. Go up to that sleeping classic car and try to kick its tyres; you better be wearing your steel-capped boots. This is due to a process called vulcanisation. Despite sounding like a sci-fi torture method, vulcanisation is a manufacturing process of hardening rubber using sulphur or other ‘accelerators’ which creates further bonding between the molecules that make up the rubber compound, making it suitable for the required loads to be applied across it by adding strength and flexibility.
This is accomplished by heat and pressure at the tyre factory but as the tyre absorbs energy through light, heat and friction over the years, the compound continues to vulcanise over time and amounts to the tyre eventually stiffening to a point where cracks appear.
Next on the list of degradation causes is oxidisation of the rubber. The combination of oxygen and ozone compromises the strength and flexibility of the rubber, along with the bond between the beading and the rubber compound. The coupling of heat and oxygen results in crosslinking between the rubber polymers which again hardens the compound to a point where the outer edges become brittle and cracked.
The last natural cause of tyre death comes in the form of water. Rubber is deemed as waterproof, but after years of use water can permeate into the tyre, bonding with the metallic areas within the tyre and therefore causing the bond with the surrounding rubber to deteriorate. This will all lead to a lack of heat resistance and strength within the compound and will ultimately result in a damaged tyre.
The attack of nature on a tyre will cause them to degrade with tyre life-expectancy estimated to be around six to ten years from new.
Companies like Bridgestone and Pirelli will advise you to change any tyre showing signs of degradation which include cracking in the tyre side walls and cracking within the tread itself, showing areas of weakness in a tyre which could potentially have up to 40 psi barely contained within.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 24th February 14:09
Lord Marylebone said:
If as you say, you replace sets of tyres on your cars earlier than 10 years due to them wearing out, then a '10 year rule' would be no problem. As for the others, I find it hard to believe that you would be too tight to buy a set of tyres every 10 years just for peace of mind and improved road holding and ride.
Quite.Let's say there's a £600 set of tyres that you'd have on the car for 15 years without any intervention. £40/year for rubber.
So you have to change 'em after 10 years instead. £60/year for rubber.
Is £20/year REALLY a bank-breaker on a toy that gets so little use that £150/corner tyres last until they crack...?
TooMany2cvs said:
Quite.
Let's say there's a £600 set of tyres that you'd have on the car for 15 years without any intervention. £40/year for rubber.
So you have to change 'em after 10 years instead. £60/year for rubber.
Is £20/year REALLY a bank-breaker on a toy that gets so little use that £150/corner tyres last until they crack...?
I think the argument against what you post is the average ownership is 3years ish so an age limit tyre will in that crude case hit the 4th owner 1 year in assuming that somehow they had not worn out in the preceding 9 years......Let's say there's a £600 set of tyres that you'd have on the car for 15 years without any intervention. £40/year for rubber.
So you have to change 'em after 10 years instead. £60/year for rubber.
Is £20/year REALLY a bank-breaker on a toy that gets so little use that £150/corner tyres last until they crack...?
Personally our tyres (as in whole set) appear to be worn out in 5 years max. We also go for Michelin always a bit more to buy but over 4-5 years it’s marginal extra plus great wet stopping distance
Jonesy23 said:
Brilliant.
But why legislate and set a period of 10 years? As a number it's backed by nothing. It's just a convenient thing someone has grabbed onto.
The argument about scrimping on stuff is facile. It's nothing to do with that.
The issue is setting a number based on nothing at all that if anything sets a false impression that a tyre less than that age is OK. If there really is an issue with time expiry of tyres then have something intelligent like expiry dates, temperature and UV exposure tell tales. Not another bit of crude reactionary legislation that doesn't actually fix anything at all.
It's not backed by nothing.But why legislate and set a period of 10 years? As a number it's backed by nothing. It's just a convenient thing someone has grabbed onto.
The argument about scrimping on stuff is facile. It's nothing to do with that.
The issue is setting a number based on nothing at all that if anything sets a false impression that a tyre less than that age is OK. If there really is an issue with time expiry of tyres then have something intelligent like expiry dates, temperature and UV exposure tell tales. Not another bit of crude reactionary legislation that doesn't actually fix anything at all.
It's what the tyre manufacturers recommend. Replace on age irrespective of tread depth or visible appearance.
If you ain't changing your tyres - you are scrimping.
Here's what the manufacturers say;
https://www.continental-tires.com/car/technology/t...
https://www.michelin.co.uk/tyres/learn-share/buyin...
Tyres also need to be in use to prolong longevity due to the chemicals they release.
Garage queens and old tyres don't mix.
Welshbeef said:
I think the argument against what you post is the average ownership is 3years ish so an age limit tyre will in that crude case hit the 4th owner 1 year in assuming that somehow they had not worn out in the preceding 9 years......
More fool them for not looking at the tyres when they bought it, just as if they were bald or cracked.Jonesy23 said:
Banning tyres for being 10 years old is a stupid idea. Why? Because it's an arbitrary limit with no basis on the actual characteristics of a particular tyre and no link to factors like storage.
You could crack down on minimum performance characteristics to ban ditch finders.
You could limit the scope for retreads on commercial vehicles.
You could introduce an expiry date on tyres determined by the manufacturer given their knowledge of the materials and construction.
You could do all sorts of things.
But just banning them for being a certain age is simplistic nonsense.
Indeed. You could crack down on minimum performance characteristics to ban ditch finders.
You could limit the scope for retreads on commercial vehicles.
You could introduce an expiry date on tyres determined by the manufacturer given their knowledge of the materials and construction.
You could do all sorts of things.
But just banning them for being a certain age is simplistic nonsense.
I’m not aware of hordes of people being killed because of old tyres. I’ve not heard of any people being killed by bald tyres, but I suppose it must happen. Most people are killed because one person is not looking out of the big pane of glass in front of them.
People with old tyres probably do low mileage, and probably don’t drive anywhere near the limits of their tyres. I changed the rear tyres on my mum’s Vectra a few weeks ago - they probably came with the car, 18 years ago. They’ve done 60k, because she doesn’t exactly cane it. Enforcing some age limit is just a staggering waste of resources - of course the tyre companies are supportive, they’ll sell more tyres.
If we’re going to do anything with tyres, i’d rather have some ISO standard grip test so we can see how bad the ditchfinders are.
Red 4 said:
It's what the tyre manufacturers recommend. Replace on age irrespective of tread depth or visible appearance.
This is where I can't understand peoples reasoning.Sensible people will pay a premium for tyres from a known manufacturer v ling longs because they accept they're buying a better product that is the result of millions spend on R&D.
Yet when the manufacturer of that product, who spends millions on R&D, suggests it has a finite lifespan they can't be trusted as it's a scam just to sell more tyres and those sensible people believe they know best
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff