12 points!

Gene_Hunt_2

mrbadexample wrote: »

Neither does an officer have to issue a PG9 to prevent the driver from continuing his journey. "You'll have to get a fitter out sunshine, you can't go any further on that" would work pretty well - who's going to argue?

If the OP says 'fcuk you' and drives off what can he do?

Altarf

mrbadexample wrote: »

That's a pity. You are now relying on mitigation and pleading hardship, which of course you should do. As far as I see it, you have a couple of things which could be regarded as mitigation:

1. You have had the vehicle MOTd relatively recently.
2. You can show that you do generally maintain your vehicle, as you've recently fitted 3 tyres, and had the other replaced as soon as the defect was pointed out to you.
3. The tyre was not so worn that you were prevented from continuing your journey.

1 - An MOT shows it is legal on that day, not 8 weeks later.
2 - And the first question will be, why didn't they get 4 fitted, given the one not replaced wore out in less than 8 weeks.
3 - Irrelevant. You are either legal or not.

Gene_Hunt_2

Altarf wrote: »

3 - Irrelevant. You are either legal or not.

He struggles to understand that.

Altarf

Anyway, why would the police issue a prohibition notice for a single tyre being illegal, as it could immediately be rectified by putting on the spare. Only if you had more than one defective tyre would it make any sense.

mrbadexample

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

Have I?

!!!!!! you are dense.

Either the tyre is defective or it isn't. If it's defective it's an offence to use the vehilce so whether it be below the tread depth or down to the cord makes no odds.

How can an officer stop the OP from driving off if he has no power to do so? That power comes from being PG9 trained. I know slightly more about it than you appear to.

You obviously don't live in the real world. There's a difference between a tyre that is illegal, with tread at 1.5mm, and one that has the cords exposed and presents an immediate danger. They are often (and correctly) treated differently.

You clearly know a lot less about it than you pretend.

mrbadexample

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

If the OP says 'fcuk you' and drives off what can he do?

He can get in his car with the pretty blue lights and go and fetch him.

mrbadexample

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

He struggles to understand that.

I understand that perfectly well. I think it is you who has, throughout the thread, demonstrated a lack of understanding of how these things work. To be honest, I'm bored of explaining things to you, as you don't seem to have the mental capacity to grasp the fundamentals. :doh:

Gene_Hunt_2

mrbadexample wrote: »

You obviously don't live in the real world. There's a difference between a tyre that is illegal, with tread at 1.5mm, and one that has the cords exposed and presents an immediate danger. They are often (and correctly) treated differently.

You clearly know a lot less about it than you pretend.

If it makes you happy I'll agree with you.

Whats the difference between the two?

Oh yes tread depth less than 1.6mm £60 and 3 points and cord or ply exposed er......... £60 and 3 points.

I see they really hammer you with the immediate danger aspect of the offence.

Gene_Hunt_2

mrbadexample wrote: »

I understand that perfectly well. I think it is you who has, throughout the thread, demonstrated a lack of understanding of how these things work. To be honest, I'm bored of explaining things to you, as you don't seem to have the mental capacity to grasp the fundamentals. :doh:

Well if you spoke in either facts or actual points of law instead of the 5h1te you do then maybe you'd have a point.

mrbadexample

Altarf wrote: »

Anyway, why would the police issue a prohibition notice for a single tyre being illegal, as it could immediately be rectified by putting on the spare. Only if you had more than one defective tyre would it make any sense.

Because they get Brownie points for issuing the prohibition. If they just tell the driver to put the spare on, there's no record of how wonderful their hit rate is.