12 points!

mrbadexample

Lum wrote: »

Given that the original tyre has been disposed of, you are basically advocating perjury here. You might want to edit that.

I stand by my comments, and I'm not advocating perjury. The original tyre will be lying in some fitter's yard at this point, and could potentially be recovered. My point was that if the officer cannot identify the tyre, then he's a wee bit short of evidence.

Altarf

mrbadexample wrote: »

Agreed, the tyre is just the last straw, so to speak. He might get away without a ban if he's really lucky, but I'm willing to bet he'll be a damn sight more careful in future.

Lucky!

This is the bloke who was 'unlucky' on three speeding occasions, and was 'unlucky' enough to have a friend inspect the car prior to the MOT, who didn't notice that the tyre was borderline, 'unlucky' enough to buy three tyres prior to the MOT from a tyre depot who didn't spot the 4th was borderline, 'unlucky' enough to use an MOT centre who who didn't spot the 4th was borderline, and then 'unlucky' enough 8 weeks later to be spotted by a PC who thought he wasn't wearing a seatbelt when he was, and then 'unlucky' enough for the PC to inspect his car and spot the tyre that nobody had spotted being borderline 8 weeks ago, now being horribly illegal at 1mm.

If I was them, I wouldn't be buying a lottery ticket this week.

Hammyman

evs50 wrote: »

I'm sorry Gene but you are being naive. Look out your window tomorrow and watch for an hour at people leaving for work. Count how many carry out daily checks then get back to us.

I check mine once a week. I used to check my lorry every day, even if I'd been the last person to be in it. Mileage wise, both the lorry and the car ended up getting checked about the same - 300 to 500 miles.

Altarf

mrbadexample wrote: »

I stand by my comments, and I'm not advocating perjury. The original tyre will be lying in some fitter's yard at this point, and could potentially be recovered. My point was that if the officer cannot identify the tyre, then he's a wee bit short of evidence.

All the evidence the officer needs is in his notebook. Chance of you producing a tyre in court and arguing that the officer was mistaken, ummm, well let's just say you have more chance of being elected president of the moon.

mrbadexample

Altarf wrote: »

and was 'unlucky' enough to have a friend inspect the car prior to the MOT, who didn't notice that the tyre was borderline, 'unlucky' enough to buy three tyres prior to the MOT from a tyre depot who didn't spot the 4th was borderline, 'unlucky' enough to use an MOT centre who who didn't spot the 4th was borderline, and then 'unlucky' enough 8 weeks later to be spotted by a PC who thought he wasn't wearing a seatbelt when he was, and then 'unlucky' enough for the PC to inspect his car and spot the tyre that nobody had spotted being borderline 8 weeks ago, now being horribly illegal at 1mm.

Which is why I think the OP should be making damned sure the PC was right. :whistle:

Hammyman

Altarf wrote: »

And presumably the tyre depot checked all the tyres as well and decided that you only needed three. So three people have checked your tyres, and you have managed to go from an utterly legal, no problem whatsoever tyre, to one so bald you are nicked, in 8 weeks.

Is there a reason for that? Because it doesn't make much sense to me.

In two days I once did 1800 miles on a trip from East Yorks to Loire valley in France and back. Tyres typically last around 12-15000 miles so in two days, I'd used more than 1/10th of their lifespan. Tyres on my car can easily go from MOT passable to 1mm in 8 weeks.

mrbadexample

Altarf wrote: »

All the evidence the officer needs is in his notebook. Chance of you producing a tyre in court and arguing that the officer was mistaken, ummm, well let's just say you have more chance of being elected president of the moon.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time it's been tried. The offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Introduce that doubt, and you increase the chance of getting off. In all probability, the officer who checked the tyre has done everything properly, but one of those things is identifying the tyre.

Altarf

Hammyman wrote: »

In two days I once did 1800 miles on a trip from East Yorks to Loire valley in France and back. Tyres typically last around 12-15000 miles so in two days, I'd used more than 1/10th of their lifespan. Tyres on my car can easily go from MOT passable to 1mm in 8 weeks.

Which was why at the beginning of this thread I asked the OP if that had done a monster mileage (or if there was any other reason for the tyre wear). The OP has not answered, so I assume that they had not.

mrbadexample wrote: »

Well, it wouldn't be the first time it's been tried. The offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Introduce that doubt, and you increase the chance of getting off. In all probability, the officer who checked the tyre has done everything properly, but one of those things is identifying the tyre.

So if there is a difference between the details the officer has in their notebook and the tyre you produce in court, the court will believe that the officer was wrong.

It must be nice to have such an optimistic view of the world.

Gene_Hunt_2

mrbadexample wrote: »

Well, it wouldn't be the first time it's been tried. The offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Introduce that doubt, and you increase the chance of getting off. In all probability, the officer who checked the tyre has done everything properly, but one of those things is identifying the tyre.

You have an apt usermane.

You don't understand any of the rules of evidence.

mrbadexample

Altarf wrote: »

So if there is a difference between the details the officer has in their notebook and the tyre you produce in court, the court will believe that the officer was wrong.

No, they will believe that you have a different tyre. In your scenario, the officer is able to identify the tyre. In my previous posts I was suggesting that if he has not noted the tyre details, then he may be unable to identify the tyre.