Pot Hole Claim M6 J3 Northbound February 2020

Sandtree

Scrapit said:
More rubbish. The roads of Britain should be suitable for the vehicles of Britain. A low profiled tyre that is legal should expect to drive around without issue in most cases. In this case an issue was encountered by the OP however unfortunately the HE have dismissed it as they have carried out their due diligence. They have not dismissed it on the grounds of the tyre size, they don't appear to have considered that at all. Others should pay for the damage to a perfect good vehicle if they are proven negligent. In this case they haven't been, and the tyre size is irrelevant. Fair enough. If they had been negligent then they should be paying, again irrespective of the tyre size.

Still no rubbish... just because its legal doesnt mean its sensible or that it has to be catered for. Its legal to make a pair of clogs from ice but its not sensible to then cross the road wearing them... the roads of Britain don’t have to be made suitable for people wearing ice clogs to cross despite it being legal though.

DiddyDavies

Scrapit said:

More rubbish. The roads of Britain should be suitable for the vehicles of Britain.

And people shouldn't be dying of Covid, cancer, in accidents etc and everyone should have enough money to survive on.
Meanwhile, in the real world (the one I live in rather than the pretend one you appear to call home), people do die of Covid, cancer and in accidents, people do go hungry and many of the roads are in a poor condition.

Scrapit

Sandtree said:

Scrapit said:
More rubbish. The roads of Britain should be suitable for the vehicles of Britain. A low profiled tyre that is legal should expect to drive around without issue in most cases. In this case an issue was encountered by the OP however unfortunately the HE have dismissed it as they have carried out their due diligence. They have not dismissed it on the grounds of the tyre size, they don't appear to have considered that at all. Others should pay for the damage to a perfect good vehicle if they are proven negligent. In this case they haven't been, and the tyre size is irrelevant. Fair enough. If they had been negligent then they should be paying, again irrespective of the tyre size.

Still no rubbish... just because its legal doesnt mean its sensible or that it has to be catered for. Its legal to make a pair of clogs from ice but its not sensible to then cross the road wearing them... the roads of Britain don’t have to be made suitable for people wearing ice clogs to cross despite it being legal though.

Yeah, complete rubbish. Clogs made from ice arent at all practical or useful or serve any purpose. You might not like people having nicer wheels than you but they are practical, fit for purpose and a bit showy. At no point is the consumer at fault. Maybe worst case the manufacturer shouldn't make them if they are such a liability-but lets be honest, there's loads of them out there and not everyone is having trouble with them so its not the manufacturers at fault. The highway in this case has been repaired in what is considered a reasonable amount of time however its its clearly the faulty road surface that is to blame-thats why it got repaired, obviously. If it had been maintained or built better it quite simply wouldn't have happened. You cannot say that about a different tyre size. The road surface is the problem here, absolutely nothing else at all.

Scrapit

DiddyDavies said:

Scrapit said:

More rubbish. The roads of Britain should be suitable for the vehicles of Britain.

And people shouldn't be dying of Covid, cancer, in accidents etc and everyone should have enough money to survive on.
Meanwhile, in the real world (the one I live in rather than the pretend one you appear to call home), people do die of Covid, cancer and in accidents, people do go hungry and many of the roads are in a poor condition.

Random. Whats that gotta do with the price of fish? Yes the roads are in poor condition but the people who maintain the roads can compensate those who come a cropper due to that. In fact there's even a guide to how to go about claiming for it on this very page.

Dr_Crypto

Except the claim has been rejected. 

Scrapit

Dr_Crypto said:

Except the claim has been rejected. 

Yes, because they (HE) have maintained the road in a sufficient time. Nothing at all to do with the size of tyre. I wonder if that even got raised in the discussion.

Sandtree

Scrapit said:
You might not like people having nicer wheels than you but they are practical, fit for purpose and a bit showy. At no point is the consumer at fault. Maybe worst case the manufacturer shouldn't make them if they are such a liability-but lets be honest, there's loads of them out there and not everyone is having trouble with them so its not the manufacturers at fault.

I have no issues with them, in deed my car had 285/30 R19 at the back, but I accepted that there are consequences of the low profile tyre (though its the factory default in my car’s case so no real options) of which one of them was that they’d be more prone to damage.

Liability on manufactures is always a challenge; predominately they are meeting customer demand and there will always be an element of assumption on consumer knowledge.

Consumers also have to accept some responsibility for their actions; we all laugh at the woman trying to run for the bus in her Louboutin stilettos  (or look impressed at the ones that can do it) because its the wrong choice of shoes for the circumstances. We all know the state of British roads which is better than some other countries and worse than others and yet in these circumstances some seem to be looking to blame others rather than the buyer who bought something thats not an ideal match. Those same options are sold by manufacturers in other countries with much worse roads but people’s approach is generally to laugh at the owner who breaks their car for buying something so daft rather than looking elsewhere.

ontheroad1970

It's a bit like walking barefoot on the prom.  It's possibly nice to do, but you cannot guarantee that you won't get cut by broken glass from a bottle or similar.  You know the risks before you set out.  Yes someone is responsible for breaking the bottle and for cleaning the street, but you measure your risks accordingly. My wife had 21 inch low profile tyres on her X5.  Clucking expensive they were too.  The ride... she never had a blow out on them though...

Scrapit

Quite simply; the road surface shouldnt damage your vehicle. And thats why the people responsible for roads give compensation when appropriate if it does.

Dr_Crypto

Why shouldn’t it? It should only be maintained to a minimum standard not a exceptional standard that protects all vehicles. If you want to drive a Mono about then you take the risks.