Highway Code, why the mishmash?

cyclonebri1

Thanks for the sensible replies, even if they have been explained it's nice to see a few others can't actually see the logic in the differences.


So we have a situation where there is one set of rules for cars and one set for taxis. This is what I was actually reading into the issue, just wanted somelse to confirm it. So why? There is every chance a car will spend the same proportion of it's travelling time with passengers as a taxi will, granted the mileage is less but...?

And no I'm not winding anyone up, (with the exception of Sadoval), I was drawing attention to differences that I was not aware of, not arguing against them just looking for sense in reason behind it. Cars can have a bald band if they have 1.6mm elsewhere, taxis can't but they only have to have 1.0mm :eek:, don't try telling me taxi don't drive fast or in the wet. :A

shuaibf

tbh how did you manage to pas your theory .. and if you do have a problem with it ask a traffic officer he/she should sort you out

cyclonebri1

shuaibf wrote: »

tbh how did you manage to pas your theory .. and if you do have a problem with it ask a traffic officer he/she should sort you out

Dead helpfull, you obviously dont have a clue either. Maybe I'm should ask a taxi driver;)
And you also as are many others are missing the whole point of this topic that I started. It was intended as a straight question of why the rules were written like that, ie, the differences, not any criticism of rules their selves. This information was not given in the copy of the HC that I passed my driving test under, infact the 1,6mm rule didn't even exist.

Rules are just that, rules, but it does help to fully understand them :wave:

Quentin

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

And you also as are many others are missing the whole point of this topic that I started. It was intended as a straight question of why the rules were written like that, ie, the differences, not any criticism of rules their selves.

Not just another of your trolling pastimes? It seems so. We shouldn't really feed trolls!

(How can anybody here tell you "why the rules are written like that"?)

cyclonebri1

Quentin wrote: »

Not just another of your trolling pastimes? It seems so. We shouldn't really feed trolls!

(How can anybody here tell you "why the rules are written like that"?)

But maybe someone could, and infact they have, explain certain differences that I hadn't considered. Go away if you have nothing to offer.

Well just maybe someone can understand/explain why a taxi with passengers has a different rule/reg, (excuse my legal ignorance Quentin).to a asimilarly loaded car?
Oh, and you still haven't explained to me and others how you feel qualified to reply in such a forward manor to legal/law issues and questions, to feed your ego? I think so.


You are the personification of the barackroom lawyer, and yes, as last time, please feel free to have the last word, but remember one day, it will be:T

If you do want the last word you can use it/them to explain to me what a troll is, buy your understanding that is. If you don't feel free to ignore, I'm sure there's a button something you can press.

marlot

goldspanners wrote: »

so going on this assumption then why is it that lorry tyres (more contact with the road than car tyres) are allowed to go down to 1mm aswell?

what your saying is, motorbikes have little contact with road so 1mm is fine.
cars have more contact with road so need more tread to displace more water,so have a limit of 1.6mm
lorries have even more contact with road so should need to displace even more water but they only have 1mm of tread just like bikes.

Lorries are normally limited to 90Kph or so, and 1mm is probably enough to prevent aquaplaning at that speed.

sebdangerfield

Hopefully I can explain.

Firstly, we need to look at the legal definitions of the vehicles we're talking about as they differ greatly from those used in common language. (all shortened considerably)

Firstly, Motor Car. This is straight forward, 'A mechanically propelled vehicle, not being a motor cycle or an invalid carrage which is constructed itself to carry a load or passengers and cannot exeed 3500kg in weight. Cars come into this catergory, as do taxis, vans less than 3500kg in most cases.

A motor car must have a minimum tread depth of at least 1.6 mm accross the centre of the tyre whether it's a taxi, personal car or whatever.

A motorcyle. A motorcycle is an MPV, not being an invalid carriage and having less than four wheels and the weight of which unladen does not exeed 410 kg. (yes, for those of you not bored yet, this does include some three wheelers and street sweepers because of the open definition).

The minimum tread depth for a motorcycle is 1mm accross the central 3/4 of the width of the tyre and visible tread on the remaining 1/4.

Moped. This is defined as an MPV with fewer than four wheels and (in the post 1977 version) an engine capacity not exeeding 50cc and a top speed not exeeding 29mph.

The minimum tread depth for Mopeds is a visible and clear tread all the way around the tyre.

I know it seems a mess but there's some reasoning to it;

Tread does not give grip, tyre surface area in contact with the road does. Tread simply makes a tyre more efficient at displacing water in wet conditions therefore giving more tyre in contact with the road surface. HGVs only need 1mm of tread because they have more wheels and therfore a much greater surface area in contact with the road therby substancially reducing the chances of aquaplaning. Motorcycles have curved wheel profiles and they have a greater efficiency of displacing water underneath the tyre as a result. Same with mopeds but the limited speed is also a factor.

I noticed in one of the threads above people saying a taxi only needs 1mm. This is not the case if the taxi is a car/hackney carriage. (Local council license requirements may differ but we're talking law). If the taxi was huge and weighed more than 3500kg then other rules would apply.

Lum

sebdangerfield wrote: »

I noticed in one of the threads above people saying a taxi only needs 1mm. This is not the case if the taxi is a car/hackney carriage. (Local council license requirements may differ but we're talking law). If the taxi was huge and weighed more than 3500kg then other rules would apply.

Indeed, a taxi is merely a vehicle of some kind that is licensed to carry passengers for money.

If a Vauxhall Vectra is used as a taxi, the car rules that originally applied to that Vectra would still apply.

Passenger Carrying Vehicles, PCVs have their own definition, for get exactly what it is but it includes minibuses and coaches and the like.

A PCV could also be used as a taxi (usually in the form of a converted Ford Transit), but the PCV rules still apply to that vehicle.

Sandoval

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

You are the personification of the barackroom lawyer, and yes, as last time, please feel free to have the last word, but remember one day, it will be:T

What's a barackroom lawyer?

Is that what Barack Obama was before he was president?

Sandoval

shuaibf wrote: »

tbh how did you manage to pas your theory...

By being very nice to the examiner.

Very nice...