Stopped by police, Problems with producer HO/RT10

Keith

mrbadexample wrote: »

Keith, can I ask how you came by this information? A police officer's opinion is not evidence of an offence in a situation like this where there is a clearly defined limit. Measurement of the tread depth is. You can't look at a tyre and see (reliably) the difference between 1.5mm and 1.7mm of tread.

If the officer suspects you have been drinking, a calibrated instrument is used to determine the level of alcohol in your blood. He can't go to court and say "well, he smelled a bit boozy". It's no different with the tyre.

This tyre is defective, nothing is needed to measure it.



It is possible to see that a tyre is defective and it can be defective in a number of ways.

Summary of the Law

Tyres may be defective under the law in a number of different ways:

1. the tyre may be unsuitable for the use which the vehicle is being put to or for the other tyres on the vehicle;

2. the tyre may be over- or under-inflated

3. the tyre may have a cut beyond a certain size

4. the tyre may have a lump, bulge or tear

5. the tyre may have its interior construction exposed

6. the tyre may be bald or have insufficient tread pattern

7. the tyre may be not maintained so as to be fit for its purpose

8. the tyre may have any defect which might cause damage to the road

9. the tyre may have any defect which might cause damage to anyone

dee_mum_of_3

this is none of my business and i havent had time to sift through the replies BUT on xmas eve my husband was stopped just as part of a target scheme i think,the policeman said it was showing up as having no insurance husband proceeded to show him all the documents including insurance (its a relatively new to me car husband was borrowing it -but i drive on his policy anyway ....detracted from story a bit there sorry)the policeman said he couldnt check the documents over the fone as it was xmas eve no one would be there hubs said what will u do give me a producer? oh no said policeman we dont need those anymore all our vehicles are able to check it out on the spot ........is it just manchester then that doesnt issue producers? as apparently they are outdated??

dee_mum_of_3

CarUser wrote: »

There no need for my cousin to sign over the car to me, im using it for a couple of months tops. The cars his so the V5 stays in his name.

The reason for using temp cover is so i can switch it on and off. Im working in central london so i cant drive to work and therefore use the tubes. So i only pay insurance when i need the car on my cover days. It only cost £11 a day and saves me paying the annual amount.

£11 a day!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bjesus this is a money saving forum ......,goes straight for a lie down>:eek:

Murtle

dee_mum_of_3 wrote: »

£11 a day!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bjesus this is a money saving forum ......,goes straight for a lie down>:eek:

:eek: that's what I was thinking too....I would check the cost of being a named driver on your cousins insurance as that is quite a lot if you are using it as often as is suggested by your posts

mrbadexample

Keith wrote: »

This tyre is defective, nothing is needed to measure it.

You're quite correct. As is shown by your photographic evidence. The OP has indicated that no photographs were taken. No measurement, no photo, no details of the make / serial number of the tyre = no evidence of the offence. I stated in my first two posts that if the tyre was so worn as to leave the metal cords exposed, a measurement may not be required. If (as it sounds), it is a case of the tread being just below the legal limit of 1.6mm, a measurement is essential to secure a conviction.

anewman

dee_mum_of_3 wrote: »

£11 a day!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bjesus this is a money saving forum ......,goes straight for a lie down>:eek:

Yep if purchased for every day of the year, that's £6985. I wouldn't expect a years insurance to be any more than £1,500 depending on the driver's history. So if he uses it more than about 78 days a year, he's paying way over the odds.

Also changing it over to your name while you use the car isn't an issue. Just fill in the V5, post it off, when cousin wants his car back fill it in again - but from what you say he wants to get rid of it anyway so it's in his interest to sign it over to you and leave you to deal with scrapping?!

tomstickland

He started off saying that the police pulled him because he was young and now he is an optician using a company car. I just fell off my laughing at that one.

Laughing at your lack of clarity? There are young opticians. He didn't say it was a company car, he said it was previously used as a company car and his cousin gave it to him provided he sorted the tax and MOT.

Conor_3

CarUser wrote: »

So i only pay insurance when i need the car on my cover days. It only cost £11 a day and saves me paying the annual amount.

Where is the vehicle parked when you're not using it and it's not insured?

CarUser_2

it was left in his garage.

philhuff

anewman wrote: »

Yep if purchased for every day of the year, that's £6985.

You'll find it's closer to £4,000

anewman wrote: »

I wouldn't expect a years insurance to be any more than £1,500 depending on the driver's history. So if he uses it more than about 78 days a year, he's paying way over the odds.

I once paid in excess of £3,000 for insurance, and I've always had a clean licence. Admittedly it wasn't for a Vectra (or whatever this car is - the thread's so long I've forgotten), but it's perfectly feasible to be paying insurance measured in thousands.

Assuming he uses the car twice a week, that's a cost of £1,144. For a young guy in London, I assume with no NCD, that's not too unreasonable.