Advice insufficient tyre tread?

[onestressedwoman]

Hi wonder if you can help/advise

 

My daughter was stopped for no reason back in October - and one of her tyres was measured and deemed to be below legal tread limit

 

She received a single justice procedure notice on 18/03/2017 - which she is only addressing now:mad2: they day it has to be returned

 

However on reading this document is seems that there was a fault in the procedure - maybe I'm just misreading it?

 

This document says section RC86027 states that the tyre needed to be less than 1.6mm throughout a continuous band comprising the central three-quarters of breath of tyre and round the entire circumference of tyre

 

However, the officer did not check the whole tyre he just turned the wheels out himself and measured one point on the tyre?

 

She was intending on pleading guilty as she was shaken up about the whole thing she is only 18 - but how can she plead guilty for something that isn't factually correct?

 

They only give 3 options on this form

 

Guilty via single justice Procedure - Guilty with court hearing - Not guilty they do not offer an option that says submit plead at

 

 

Also the police witness statement is written by a female officer and she didn't measure the tyre a male officer did? extra info not of any pertinence I don't think?

 

It a pain because only the week before she had gone and had her tyres checked at a garage and they said she only needed one tyre changing and they changed that tyre.

 

Thoughts?

[BankFodder]

Well if she is not guilty then that's what she should plead.

 

Maybe she could go back to the garage and show them the same tyre and if they agree that is still within the rules, maybe they can give a written opinion on that. That could be tendered in evidence

[onestressedwoman]

I'm sending her to the garage now to see if they will at least write a confirmation that she had come into have the other tyre changed -

[Hammy1962]

Only my thoughts (probably get deleted anyway) and I'm not trying to judge here, but, rather than effectively trying to 'get your daughter off' driving with a defective tyre, wouldn't your energy be better spent advising said daughter of the dangers of driving with a defective tyre and maybe get the garage to show her how to check her own tyres so as to avoid a potential accident.

 

http://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/checking-tyre-tread/

 

H

[onestressedwoman]

Hammy 1962 - If the tyre was deemed by a garage the week earlier as fit for purpose and the police did not carry out legally require tests to check the tyre then I am not trying to "get my daughter off"

Legal requirements are indeed that. Which also goes for the procedures in which the police should carry out.

 

She nor I should judge the suitability of a tyre - the garage is the one who is qualified to make this call thus a regular maintenance check is what is needed and indeed was what she had done the week before.

 

And the point stands that there is a question in itself whether this tyre was defective or not in the first place.

 

Maybe you missed my first comment that states she was planning on pleading guilty in the first instance - I would not plead guilty to something I was not sure I was guilty of would you?

[Hammy1962]

I didn't miss it, that wasn't the point of my post.

 

Never mind.

 

H

[Raykay]

This document says section RC86027 states that the tyre needed to be less than 1.6mm throughout a continuous band comprising the central three-quarters of breath of tyre and round the entire circumference of tyre

However, the officer did not check the whole tyre he just turned the wheels out himself and measured one point on the tyre?

 

The requirement is a minimum tread depth of 1.5mm in a continuous band, so if the point where the tyre was checked the depth is less than 1.5mm, it will not be a continuous band of 1.5mm, and so not be compliant.

[BazzaS]

 

This document says section RC86027 states that the tyre needed to be less than 1.6mm throughout a continuous band comprising the central three-quarters of breath of tyre and round the entire circumference of tyre

 

However, the officer did not check the whole tyre he just turned the wheels out himself and measured one point on the tyre?

........

 

Thoughts?

 

She can pay the penalty or elect to go to court & have the evidence [the statement of the officer(s) tested]

 

I think you are reading the tread depth requirement incorrectly.

It seems from your reading that you seem to think the tyre can be bald except for one area where the tread depth meets or exceeds exceeds 1.6 mm, so the officer has to measure all of the tyre to be sure there isn't an area where the depth is 1.6 mm or more. This isn't the case.

 

 

All of the tyre must be 1.6mm tread depth (or more) for the central 75% of the width that should have tread pattern, and this must be for all of the circumference of that central 75%.

 

If the officer found a single point of less than 1.6mm tread depth within that 75% : that is enough - they don't have to measure the rest of the central 75% (either around the circumference or across the rest of the central 75% of that visible area of the tyre)

 

"He didn't check the whole tyre" won't stop the court believing the officer saying "One point on the (relevant, central area of the) tyre had less than 1.6mm tread depth"

 

The tyres passing an MOT a week before might be useful to cast doubt if your claim is the officer was mistaken but on its own isn't sufficient evidence : the court would be asked to consider if the offence was commited on the date stated, not the week before.

[ericsbrother]

You have misread the rwquirements. The tread needs to be MORE than 1.mm deep around its total circumference. If the tyre has insufficient tread on the small part of it they examined then it fails, it doesnt need the rest of the tyre examining. Same goes if one of your headlights is out, they dont need to check the indicators and brake lights to issue a ticket for that offence. The MOT pass should make you go back to the MOT station and ask them about this and if they cant answer for at least giving an advisory on the tread you should report them to the DoT but that still doesnt stop the driver at the time being responsible for the state of the vehicle. If it was a hire car she wouldm still be the one prosecuted.

[onestressedwoman]

Thanks ALL !!!! thank you! No, it was Kwik Fit that deemed all bar the one she had changed as OK - But I will now complete this form as Guilty :/ although she was maintaining her car as she should

 

Thank You for information !

[sameagle]

I was talking to an RAC man recently, and he told me that "Motability" use KF for all their clients' tyre repairs, etc.

 

As a driver of a "Motability" car for a disabled lady who lives about eight miles from me, my blood ran cold!

 

Sam

[onestressedwoman]

Sam, I have a motability car and KF changed my tyre last year 4 days later the tyre blew up when I complained they said I had bashed the kerb with it - and that it was impact damage - I didn't have the energy to complain any further - I should have told my daughter to go anywhere but KF

[renegadeimp]

I'd be forming a complaint to kwikfit as well. Have a check of the forums and youll see how bad they are. But be aware, they will try and say you caused damage in the week after they checked them.

[Man in the middle]

You have your interpretation of the law the wrong way round.

 

The minimum tread depth is 1.6mm across the centre three-quarters of the tyre as you say. But it must meet this minimum requirement around the entire circumference. In other words, it does not have to be below 1.6mm around the entire circumference to fail. It has to be 1.6mm or above around the entire circumference to pass. You are reading the law that the tyre must be deficient around its complete circumference to fail. This is not correct and the officer would not have to examine the entire circumference of the tyre but could make out the offence when he or she detected just one deficient patch. Your daughter should examine the tyre in the light of what I’ve said to establish if she believes she is guilty or not.

 

The issue of the officer’s statement is of no consequence. I do wonder why your daughter was not offered a fixed penalty (£200 and 3 points) for the offence. It may have been worth a phone call to the officer’s station to see if she could establish why one was not offered but it's too late for that now as she needs to respond to the SJPN. If she pleads not guilty in response to it the matter will be taken out of the Single Justice process and a hearing in the normal Magistrates’ Court will be listed where the matter will proceed to trial. The price of an unsuccessful defence is high. She will face an income related fine, a surcharge and at least £300 costs (as well as 3 points).

[onestressedwoman]

This SJPN says that penalty is £100 & 3 points with 33% reduction for pleading guilty via online pleading

 

not really fair to her as she did what she thought was right by taking it to KF to check tyres ok but its happened now and we can't turn back time

 

She isn't employed at the moment just finished uni looking for a job and not claiming benefits so all her bills are covered by us not that she has many - She paid for her insurance in one so she can't drive after next week as it expires and I dread to think how much new insurance will cost her with the points added : jaw:

 

Although I agree in higher premiums for young drivers the premiums are bordering on ridiculous - her premium was £1500 for last year I suppose she can expect double that with the points added

[renegadeimp]

insurance price depends on the contavention code . Like speeding with 3 points is declarable but a lot of insurers dont increase costs.

[Mr.P]

not really fair to her as she did what she thought was right by taking it to KF to check tyres ok but its happened now and we can't turn back time

 

A tip from someone that used to earn their living from riding and driving vehicles: Don't wear tires down to the limit and get them replaced when the tread is down to 2-3mm.

 

The tread is there to disperse water in wet conditions. With minimal tread depth, there is a very real risk of skidding out of control or aquaplaning. It is also worth paying a bit more for good quality tires rather than cheap Chinese non-stick brands.

[ericsbrother]

stop saying it isnt fair. She is responsible for driving an unroadworthy vehicle. Why that was is not the business of the law. As already said she may have a reason to complain to KF but unless they have documented the tyre as being OK as in a MOT then they will not be culpable.

[renegadeimp]

I would just plead guilty and be done with it. The police checked and found the tyre wasn't safe. That's all the judge would look at. There are no mitigating circumstances.

 

Even if kwikfit said the tyre was Ok, it's on you to make sure it is. Remember your driving lessons. You should be checking the vehicle before every drive