We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Highway Code, why the mishmash?
Options
cyclonebri1
Posts: 12,827 Forumite
Why different regulations regarding tyre wear for differing classes of vehicle?
May be I was being anal but I came across this in the highway code the other day in section 6 of the annex
Vehicle maintenance safety and security, the highlights are per the HC;
Tyres MUST be correctly inflated to the vehicle manufacturers specification for the load being carried.
Cars, light vans and trailers MUST have a tread depth of at least 1.6mm across the central three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and around the entire circumference.
Motorcycles, large vehicles and passenger- carrying vehicles MUSThave a tread depth of at least 1mm across three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and in a continuous band around the entire circumference
Mopeds should have visible tread
Now look in detail at the differences in the requirements, ie the use of the word continuous, the actual depth measurement, the phrase passengers carrying- vehicles and most strangely of all the lack of any depth of tread requirement for moped.?
Even weirder the use the word MUST and should , especially as on page 4 it clearly states “The Highway Code may be used in evidence under the traffic acts (see page 124) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as 'should/should not'
Designed to be clear? I think not :wall::wall::wall::wall:
Edited to add, that I have just highlighted the pink bit as it seems to escape the police.
May be I was being anal but I came across this in the highway code the other day in section 6 of the annex
Vehicle maintenance safety and security, the highlights are per the HC;
Tyres MUST be correctly inflated to the vehicle manufacturers specification for the load being carried.
Cars, light vans and trailers MUST have a tread depth of at least 1.6mm across the central three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and around the entire circumference.
Motorcycles, large vehicles and passenger- carrying vehicles MUSThave a tread depth of at least 1mm across three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and in a continuous band around the entire circumference
Mopeds should have visible tread
Now look in detail at the differences in the requirements, ie the use of the word continuous, the actual depth measurement, the phrase passengers carrying- vehicles and most strangely of all the lack of any depth of tread requirement for moped.?
Even weirder the use the word MUST and should , especially as on page 4 it clearly states “The Highway Code may be used in evidence under the traffic acts (see page 124) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as 'should/should not'
Designed to be clear? I think not :wall::wall::wall::wall:
Edited to add, that I have just highlighted the pink bit as it seems to escape the police.
I like the thanks button, but ,please, an I agree button.
Will the grammar and spelling police respect I do make grammatical errors, and have carp spelling, no need to remind me.;)
Always expect the unexpected:eek:and then you won't be dissapointed
Will the grammar and spelling police respect I do make grammatical errors, and have carp spelling, no need to remind me.;)
Always expect the unexpected:eek:and then you won't be dissapointed
0
Comments
-
Not sure what your beef is?
The required level of tread between vehicles varies......0 -
davetrousers wrote: »Not sure what your beef is?
The required level of tread between vehicles varies.
Ok, why the difference between bikes and mopeds?
Why the use of should and must when both rules can be used to procecute?
And what is a passenger vehicle?
And it's not a beef with the rules it's the form they are written in, although I must admit I didn't know off all these subtle differences, in the words of Michael Caine "not a lot of people know that"
I like the thanks button, but ,please, an I agree button.
Will the grammar and spelling police respect I do make grammatical errors, and have carp spelling, no need to remind me.;)
Always expect the unexpected:eek:and then you won't be dissapointed0 -
Because the law on tread for a motorbike is different to that of a moped. Isn't it the law you should be querying and not the highway code?cyclonebri1 wrote: »Ok, why the difference between bikes and mopeds?
Because MUST means its the law and SHOULD is just a recommendation. That is explained at the beginning of the code. There's no minimum legal tread depth for a moped so that's why it says "should" show visible tread and not "must".cyclonebri1 wrote: »Why the use of should and must when both rules can be used to procecute?cyclonebri1 wrote: »And what is a passenger vehicle?
It seems like it should be the other way round to me.cyclonebri1 wrote: »And it's not a beef with the rules it's the form they are written in0 -
Because the law on tread for a motorbike is different to that of a moped. Isn't it the law you should be querying and not the highway code?
Because MUST means its the law and SHOULD is just a recommendation. That is explained at the beginning of the code. There's no minimum legal tread depth for a moped so that's why it says "should" show visible tread and not "must".
Ok bait taken.
To the layman the highway code is the law, disagree?
It seems like it should be the other way round to me.
Should and must have the same meaning in the code, check again, or tell me I'm wrong. I quoted accurately.
And I will ask again, as all the law abiding sitizens on this forum cannot explain to me why a motorcycle on 1.5mm tread is illegal, when a moped at 30mpg with no tread is in the clear??
They both have issues with the road surface and the speed is the same, ?I like the thanks button, but ,please, an I agree button.
Will the grammar and spelling police respect I do make grammatical errors, and have carp spelling, no need to remind me.;)
Always expect the unexpected:eek:and then you won't be dissapointed0 -
Just when I'm worried that I have too much time on my hands someone else comes along with a post like this and makes it all better.
"What is a passenger vehicle?"
Goodness me...
0 -
You think?cyclonebri1 wrote: »May be I was being anal...0 -
cyclonebri1 wrote: »And I will ask again, as all the law abiding sitizens on this forum cannot explain to me why a motorcycle on 1.5mm tread is illegal, when a moped at 30mpg with no tread is in the clear??
The main reason for the tread is to displace water. In dry weather, the best grip comes from a bald tyre (think formula 1).
A motorcycle tends to have narrower tyres than a car, and with 1.5mm of tread IS legal - motorbikes are allowed to drop to 1mm. Don't forget that bike tyres also have a round profile - there isn't a huge amount in touch with the road, and its likely that the extra tread depth makes only a small difference. I don't know for sure - I've never let mine get anywhere near that low!
A moped tends to have very skinny tyres, also rounded profile, so its possible that the tread makes almost no difference. Its also restricted to 30 mph, which is well below aquaplaning speed.
There is no tread requirement for a pushbike as far as I'm aware - but that can go almost as fast as a moped.0 -
cyclonebri1 wrote: »
And I will ask again, as all the law abiding sitizens on this forum cannot explain to me why a motorcycle on 1.5mm tread is illegal, when a moped at 30mpg with no tread is in the clear??
They both have issues with the road surface and the speed is the same, ?
The motorbikes not illegal at 1.5mm (but I know what you mean).
It's probably back to the time when if you had a car licence, you could just jump on a moped. No training, no L plates. How could you do this? Because they were treated differently from motorbikes.0 -
Sandoval, convince me that you are not a complete !!!!!!, oh sorry you can't. And, for fs sake change your text/print or whatever it's called to something in line with everyone else, ie, defaultJust when I'm worried that I have too much time on my hands someone else comes along with a post like this and makes it all better.
"What is a passenger vehicle?"
Goodness me...
You ask "What is a passenger vehicle? " go on then, what is it?, car? a taxi? a bus?, psv? a tandem? I'm waiting plank
And edited to say "all from a guy that can't comprehend carp is a polite way of saying "crap". poor chap.:whistle:I like the thanks button, but ,please, an I agree button.
Will the grammar and spelling police respect I do make grammatical errors, and have carp spelling, no need to remind me.;)
Always expect the unexpected:eek:and then you won't be dissapointed0 -
cyclonebri1 wrote: »Should and must have the same meaning in the code, check again, or tell me I'm wrong. I quoted accurately.
Well you only accurately quoted half of the relevant text.Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
Definitely not the same. "Establish liability" does not mean "establish guilt for a criminal offence", although the first can lead to the second depending on the circumstances. So for starters, can you cite what offence is being committed (or inferred) by breaching the moped rule?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards