20p Tyre Tread Test

sillygoose

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The fact 1.6mm is legal doesn't give a defence in itself. Plenty of things that are perfectly legal but can lead to manslaughter charges if they lead to death from a known, or reasonably knowable, risk.

Seeing as every man and his dog is told repeatedly that the performance of tyres reduces dramatically under 3mm, a company that has a policy of using them to 2mm simply to save costs would need to be able to show that such widely known performance loss wasn't a significant factor in any subsequent fatalities. The lease companies and their insurers will have the figures to show that.

Will have to agree to differ.

Iceweasel

Absolutely loads of things to comment on.

First the tread depth limit in Germany is the same as in the rest of the EU - namely 1.6mm.

However several countries - Austria and the Czech Republic for example require that Winter tyres (which are compulsory from 1st November until 15th April irrespective of the weather) have a minimum of 4mm tread - that is why the UK is flooded with part-worn Winter tyres.

Next - we (the UK) went metric in 1970 - at least all schools in the UK were supposed to adopt the SI system in 1970 - I was teaching in Scotland in August 1970 and all the text books were replaced with metric unit ones for the start of the academic year 1970/71. Of course some older teachers couldn't cope and continued with Imperial for a year or so until they were found out.

Some of them went for early retirement the next year (February 1971) when we introduced decimal currency - I remember one old boy was telling the kids that 12 new pence was a 'New Shilling'. LOL

The reason we have 1.6mm tread depth indicators and we adopted the minimum depth of 1.6mm is due to the USA - their tread depth minimum is 1/16th of an inch which became the tyre industry standard.

1/16" X 25.4 = 1.5875mm

Please: - none of the usual angry replies saying I'm a pedantic twit - I'm simply quoting historical fact.

ChumLee

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The fact 1.6mm is legal doesn't give a defence in itself. Plenty of things that are perfectly legal but can lead to manslaughter charges if they lead to death from a known, or reasonably knowable, risk.

How can a lease company be found guilty of manslaughter if a car is running on legal tyres?

A causation factor in a fatal collision would need to be a vehicle defect or else there would be varying degrees of blame as tyres wear down.

ChumLee

Iceweasel wrote: »

Absolutely loads of things to comment on.

First the tread depth limit in Germany is the same as in the rest of the EU - namely 1.6mm.

However several countries - Austria and the Czech Republic for example require that Winter tyres (which are compulsory from 1st November until 15th April irrespective of the weather) have a minimum of 4mm tread - that is why the UK is flooded with part-worn Winter tyres.

Next - we (the UK) went metric in 1970 - at least all schools in the UK were supposed to adopt the SI system in 1970 - I was teaching in Scotland in August 1970 and all the text books were replaced with metric unit ones for the start of the academic year 1970/71. Of course some older teachers couldn't cope and continued with Imperial for a year or so until they were found out.

Some of them went for early retirement the next year (February 1971) when we introduced decimal currency - I remember one old boy was telling the kids that 12 new pence was a 'New Shilling'. LOL

The reason we have 1.6mm tread depth indicators and we adopted the minimum depth of 1.6mm is due to the USA - their tread depth minimum is 1/16th of an inch which became the tyre industry standard.

1/16" X 25.4 = 1.5875mm

Please: - none of the usual angry replies saying I'm a pedantic twit - I'm simply quoting historical fact.

Imperial was still being taught in mid to late 70s in England.

Iceweasel

ChumLee wrote: »

Imperial was still being taught in mid to late 70s in England.

That's my point - it shouldn't have been - it was against the Government Ministry of Education requirements - but several authorities said they could't meet the deadlines to change the text-books with the funding they had.

Another cover up, sweep it under the carpet job.

Teacher's Unions school reps were 'asked' to keep quiet about it IIRC.

Joe_Horner

ChumLee wrote: »

How can a lease company be found guilty of manslaughter if a car is running on legal tyres?

Because manslaughter doesn't need an otherwise illegal act to be manslaughter. For example, I have a shotgun licence and it's perfectly legal for me to shoot on land for which I have permission. But, if I do so recklessly and kill someone as a result, it's manslaughter.

The graph posted by someone above shows that tyre performance (in terms of stopping distance) drops significantly below 3mm. If that drop in performance led to a correspondingly higher risk of accidents then a company who's main business involves running vehicles (so would be expected to know and understand the risk factors) would be acting recklessly by extending use beyond 3mm in order to save money regardless of what the "legal" minimum is.

ChumLee

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Because manslaughter doesn't need an otherwise illegal act to be manslaughter. For example, I have a shotgun licence and it's perfectly legal for me to shoot on land for which I have permission. But, if I do so recklessly and kill someone as a result, it's manslaughter.

The graph posted by someone above shows that tyre performance (in terms of stopping distance) drops significantly below 3mm. If that drop in performance led to a correspondingly higher risk of accidents then a company who's main business involves running vehicles (so would be expected to know and understand the risk factors) would be acting recklessly by extending use beyond 3mm in order to save money regardless of what the "legal" minimum is.

So is the person who sold you the shotgun guilty too? No, same as the lease company would not be guilty of manslaughter if the vehicle's tyres were legal.

If it were reckless to run a car on tyres below 3mm then 3mm would be the limit not 1.6mm.

Joe_Horner

ChumLee wrote: »

So is the person who sold you the shotgun guilty too? No, same as the lease company would not be guilty of manslaughter if the vehicle's tyres were legal.

This sub-thread was in relation to company cars where the lease company specifies when the tyres can be changed (so fully maintained leases). As a side note, Motability use the same criteria. Hence it would be their recklessness if their decision to keep tyres to 2mm just in order to save money caused a significant increase in risk.

The simple fact is that the sudden change at 3mm on that "scary graph of stopping distances" doesn't translate to a corresponding change in risk. The fleet companies know it, and they'd be able to prove it if needed.

ChumLee

Joe_Horner wrote: »

This sub-thread was in relation to company cars where the lease company specifies when the tyres can be changed (so fully maintained leases). As a side note, Motability use the same criteria. Hence it would be their recklessness if their decision to keep tyres to 2mm just in order to save money caused a significant increase in risk.

The simple fact is that the sudden change at 3mm on that "scary graph of stopping distances" doesn't translate to a corresponding change in risk. The fleet companies know it, and they'd be able to prove it if needed.

Reckless in what respect? Not reckless in securing a conviction for corporate manslaughter.

konark

Schools in the 70s still taught feet and inches.

Actually they still do.