Vehicle Tyres - 10 year limit ban

[duncanmartin]

Jul 30, 2020 20:50:49 GMT rattlecan said:

Jul 30, 2020 20:34:04 GMT @grumpynorthener said:

You clearly don't understand why this is being done and it begs the question have you actually read the substantiation for the planned implementation (linked at the commencement of the thread) but I shall post it here just in case you cant be bothered to go looking for it

www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/government-to-ban-old-tyres-on-buses-and-trucks-in-bid-to-up-safety/ar-BB175oQM?ocid=msedgntp

Now dare I say that you would have a very different view & opinion to the one that you have quoted above had you lost a family member / loved one / relative / close friend to a accident where it had been proven that a aged tyre was a direct factor of the accident in the first place

Don’t tell me what I clearly know or don’t know. I know exactly what it’s about, it was all orchestrated initially by Frances Malloy a Mother from Liverpool who lost her Son in a coach accident, said vehicle apparently had a 19 yr old tyre on. Not good, I can’t imagine what it must be like, most of us never will, hopefully. But that does not mean we need legislation on a particular aspect.
Next thing you know our beloved pass time will be under threat & cars lets say pre 1960 will be banned cos they’re too slow for modern traffic & where will you’re Jowett’s be then?
This could be argued till the cows come home, as could is it safe in a car with a wooden frame, about 20bhp & sh1t brakes

It seems like you are objecting to legislation to stop coach companies running >10yo tyres on the basis that it will mean that pre-1960 cars will be banned. I don't understand.

[jikovron]

It's common sense, I wouldn't say a 12 year old set of tyres in decent looking nick was dangerous but then it's an unknown question mark regarding the state of its internal cords etc and at least the law sets a generous limit that is easy to follow, it's not a vast expense to swap tyres per decade and if a car does that little miles is it really worth having the thing!

[Darkspeed]

Jul 31, 2020 10:10:50 GMT jikovron said:

It's common sense

first order Oxymoron that one.

[pseudonymous]

Jul 31, 2020 10:10:50 GMT jikovron said:

It's common sense, I wouldn't say a 12 year old set of tyres in decent looking nick was dangerous but then it's an unknown question mark regarding the state of its internal cords etc and at least the law sets a generous limit that is easy to follow, it's not a vast expense to swap tyres per decade and if a car does that little miles is it really worth having the thing!

#devilsadvocate

Part of the problem, as with anything to do with government, is the seemingly arbitrary nature of the limit. Why 10 years? Why not 5, or 11? Is there any valid research into compound degredation etc in place, in connection with tyre manufacturers that has led to the 10 year limit? Does it take usage, storage, quality of original product and design or any other contributory factor into account or is it just a load of pseudo-science?

Many will just see this as yet another reactionary target plucked from thin air in order to 'be seen to be doing something' which is something that a fairly jaded public see governments as being particularly prone to.

If it's supported by fact, in conjunction with the tyre industry, I cannot imagine anyone having an issue with it but if it's yet another exercise in the illusion of safety, then it's just further expense to the motoring consumer for no genuine benefit or enhanced safety.

[duncanmartin]

Jul 31, 2020 11:32:52 GMT pseudonymous said:

If it's supported by fact, in conjunction with the tyre industry, I cannot imagine anyone having an issue with it but if it's yet another exercise in the illusion of safety, then it's just further expense to the motoring consumer for no genuine benefit or enhanced safety.

It's not an expense for the motoring consumer. It's legislation aimed at any "lorry, bus, coach or minibus".

[pseudonymous]

Jul 31, 2020 11:43:56 GMT duncanmartin said:

Jul 31, 2020 11:32:52 GMT pseudonymous said:

If it's supported by fact, in conjunction with the tyre industry, I cannot imagine anyone having an issue with it but if it's yet another exercise in the illusion of safety, then it's just further expense to the motoring consumer for no genuine benefit or enhanced safety.

It's not an expense for the motoring consumer. It's legislation aimed at any "lorry, bus, coach or minibus".

Ok, poorly worded.

To the consumer/end user. Anyone buying a tyre, commercial or otherwise is a consumer. There's a financial cost to someone. Nobody sane minds additional cost, at least in principle of not practice, if the benefit is clear. My post merely alluded to whether the 10 year limit is based on data, or just the whim of a government department.

Just to point out, I'm not against an age limit, certainly when it comes to commercial vehicles that carry passengers. The state of some coaches I see on the road is genuinely appalling.

[stealthstylz]

Same as a lot of legislation or rules it has to play to the lowest common denominator - most people say stupidity but in the vast majority of cases it's greed. Even the most arbitrary rules fall foul of it - if everybody had bought a couple of packs of bog roll when the lockdown was announced there'd have been plenty to go round and no rules about it, but because some knob head buys a trolley full others get the "they're being greedy so I need to be" mentality and do the same, then they had to start limiting how much people can buy.

Yes some people get caught up in these rules that weren't their intended target, but in most circumstances they're (in full Hot Fuzz mode) for the greater good. The choice you've got is to either abide by them or flout them and hope nobody notices.

[pseudonymous]

Jul 31, 2020 11:58:32 GMT stealthstylz said:

Same as a lot of legislation or rules it has to play to the lowest common denominator - most people say stupidity but in the vast majority of cases it's greed. Even the most arbitrary rules fall foul of it - if everybody had bought a couple of packs of bog roll when the lockdown was announced there'd have been plenty to go round and no rules about it, but because some knob head buys a trolley full others get the "they're being greedy so I need to be" mentality and do the same, then they had to start limiting how much people can buy.

Yes some people get caught up in these rules that weren't their intended target, but in most circumstances they're (in full Hot Fuzz mode) for the greater good. The choice you've got is to either abide by them or flout them and hope nobody notices.

I agree, but the issue I have is that if this is just an arbitrary timeframe that isn't backed by solid data and research, they really aren't addressing the problem and it will just happen again.

Like fitting up a criminal for a crime. The criminal remains at large and all you've done is double your workload, for the sake of being seen to have done something.

I support a law, if its actually going to work.

[duncanmartin]

Jul 31, 2020 11:55:31 GMT pseudonymous said:

Jul 31, 2020 11:43:56 GMT duncanmartin said:

It's not an expense for the motoring consumer. It's legislation aimed at any "lorry, bus, coach or minibus".

Ok, poorly worded.

To the consumer/end user. Anyone buying a tyre, commercial or otherwise is a consumer. There's a financial cost to someone. Nobody sane minds additional cost, at least in principle of not practice, if the benefit is clear. My post merely alluded to whether the 10 year limit is based on data, or just the whim of a government department.

Just to point out, I'm not against an age limit, certainly when it comes to commercial vehicles that carry passengers. The state of some coaches I see on the road is genuinely appalling.

The detail is here:
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-tyres-aged-10-years-and-older

There's an impact assessment, a response to the consultation, and a 51 page "old tyres evidence collection report", which says it's built on a 219 page report titled "Tyre ageing: its effect on material properties and structural integrity". Do you fancy reading it and reporting back if you think the 10 year limit is justified next week?

[pseudonymous]

Jul 31, 2020 14:39:44 GMT duncanmartin said:

Jul 31, 2020 11:55:31 GMT pseudonymous said:

Ok, poorly worded.

To the consumer/end user. Anyone buying a tyre, commercial or otherwise is a consumer. There's a financial cost to someone. Nobody sane minds additional cost, at least in principle of not practice, if the benefit is clear. My post merely alluded to whether the 10 year limit is based on data, or just the whim of a government department.

Just to point out, I'm not against an age limit, certainly when it comes to commercial vehicles that carry passengers. The state of some coaches I see on the road is genuinely appalling.

The detail is here:
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-tyres-aged-10-years-and-older

There's an impact assessment, a response to the consultation, and a 51 page "old tyres evidence collection report", which says it's built on a 219 page report titled "Tyre ageing: its effect on material properties and structural integrity". Do you fancy reading it and reporting back if you think the 10 year limit is justified next week?

No need, I already support the idea

Devils advocate and all that jazz.

[Darkspeed]

The upshot is that there is little evidence to show that a 10 year old tyre is dangerous - if like any other tyre it is maintained and looked after. What has been done here to look into the cost impact of introducing a mandatory age limit - The result being that the cost impact is actually minimal due to most commercial stakeholders users chewing through tyres far quicker than that.

Nowhere in any of the reports is there any indication that it will be rolled out further than commercial operations - There is even mention of VHI exemptions for Historic commercials in private ownership - plus this is only steering - no remoulds on steering etc. etc. etc.

Basically they have looked at the implications of the costs to business for this law and concluded it has minimal impact as the vast majority do not use tyres that old - Just as any other law it will be broken and people will die and the penalties will hopefully be in place to make those responsible pay with their liberty. Will its save lives unlikely - but there will be a process in place for prosecution.

In effect sod all to do with us and never likely to be.

[rattlecan]

Jul 31, 2020 10:03:00 GMT duncanmartin said:

Jul 30, 2020 20:50:49 GMT rattlecan said:

Don’t tell me what I clearly know or don’t know. I know exactly what it’s about, it was all orchestrated initially by Frances Malloy a Mother from Liverpool who lost her Son in a coach accident, said vehicle apparently had a 19 yr old tyre on. Not good, I can’t imagine what it must be like, most of us never will, hopefully. But that does not mean we need legislation on a particular aspect.
Next thing you know our beloved pass time will be under threat & cars lets say pre 1960 will be banned cos they’re too slow for modern traffic & where will you’re Jowett’s be then?
This could be argued till the cows come home, as could is it safe in a car with a wooden frame, about 20bhp & sh1t brakes

It seems like you are objecting to legislation to stop coach companies running >10yo tyres on the basis that it will mean that pre-1960 cars will be banned. I don't understand.

No I’m not, I couldn’t give two hoots what they do. What I’m saying (& if you read my post I said it) is there is plenty of tyre legislation atm, an age limit is not required. My next point was to all who think putting age limits on things need to think because very soon you could find cars of a certain age are then deemed dangerous in view of modern vehicles & therefore banned. It’s how it all starts

[carledo]

50 years experience in the motor repair trade would tend to support the theory that the government, whether by accident or design, have picked a sensible and reasonable limit in 10 years.

A friend who is an ardent caravanner and member of the caravan club was moaning to me recently that HIS insurance company INSISTS his caravan tyres be replaced every 3 years or cover will be withdrawn. Now caravans have their own problems, long term storage out in the elements in a fixed position and often underinflated or flat from standing all contribute to shortening their service life, but 3 years? REALLY?

If the govt were to impose such a limit on car tyres, I would suspect some of it's members of being in the pocket of the manufacturers! But 10 years seems a fair time limit given my experience with many older tyres and most manufacturers are in cautious agreement.

This seems OK to me, unlike the (blessedly un-legislated) advice from shock absorber companies about replacing your shox every 2 years and always in pairs, which is a blatant attempt to sell more shox!

My sympathy does lie a LITTLE with the unwitting victims of the legislation, the classic commercial and bus owners who will now be faced with big tyre bills and possibly severe difficulties in actually GETTING the correct tyres. But honestly, it's only a little, because if I owned such a multi ton deadly weapon i'd want it to be at least as safe as my road car!

Steve

[duncanmartin]

Jul 31, 2020 15:13:41 GMT rattlecan said:

Jul 31, 2020 10:03:00 GMT duncanmartin said:

It seems like you are objecting to legislation to stop coach companies running >10yo tyres on the basis that it will mean that pre-1960 cars will be banned. I don't understand.

No I’m not, I couldn’t give two hoots what they do. What I’m saying (& if you read my post I said it) is there is plenty of tyre legislation atm, an age limit is not required. My next point was to all who think putting age limits on things need to think because very soon you could find cars of a certain age are then deemed dangerous in view of modern vehicles & therefore banned. It’s how it all starts

I still don't understand your point. Are you saying that an old tyre that is unsafe from an internal ageing process would be obvious it was dangerous by looking at it and therefore covered by current legislation?
I think the report (here www.gov.uk/government/publications/tyre-ageing-its-effect-on-material-properties-and-structural-integrity ) says otherwise, and that the deterioration of the steel belt(s) within the tyre cannot be seen from a regular inspection. According to the report, no company that does remoulds will do that to a tyre over 10 years of age - I think that tells you a lot about what they think of the tyre carcass at that point.
Also, you can still run >10yo tyres on the non-steering axles.

IMO, LEZs and other emissions based legislation are much more likely to result in the destruction of the pass-time than any rules applied to tyres on steering axles on coaches.

[rattlecan]

Jul 31, 2020 16:54:41 GMT duncanmartin said:

Jul 31, 2020 15:13:41 GMT rattlecan said:

No I’m not, I couldn’t give two hoots what they do. What I’m saying (& if you read my post I said it) is there is plenty of tyre legislation atm, an age limit is not required. My next point was to all who think putting age limits on things need to think because very soon you could find cars of a certain age are then deemed dangerous in view of modern vehicles & therefore banned. It’s how it all starts

I still don't understand your point. Are you saying that an old tyre that is unsafe from an internal ageing process would be obvious it was dangerous by looking at it and therefore covered by current legislation?
I think the report (here www.gov.uk/government/publications/tyre-ageing-its-effect-on-material-properties-and-structural-integrity ) says otherwise, and that the deterioration of the steel belt(s) within the tyre cannot be seen from a regular inspection. According to the report, no company that does remoulds will do that to a tyre over 10 years of age - I think that tells you a lot about what they think of the tyre carcass at that point.
Also, you can still run >10yo tyres on the non-steering axles.

IMO, LEZs and other emissions based legislation are much more likely to result in the destruction of the pass-time than any rules applied to tyres on steering axles on coaches.

My point is this really, so we start there, then a ten yr old tyre is deemed unsafe (Although it might not be) then on that basis, all ten yr old wheel cylinders ‘must’ be unsafe & servos & master cylinders & calipers & fuel pipe & so on & so on.
Basically anything with rubber in, or are we just saying only a tyre is plums

[Deleted]

Jul 31, 2020 17:19:09 GMT rattlecan said:

Jul 31, 2020 16:54:41 GMT duncanmartin said:

I still don't understand your point. Are you saying that an old tyre that is unsafe from an internal ageing process would be obvious it was dangerous by looking at it and therefore covered by current legislation?
I think the report (here www.gov.uk/government/publications/tyre-ageing-its-effect-on-material-properties-and-structural-integrity ) says otherwise, and that the deterioration of the steel belt(s) within the tyre cannot be seen from a regular inspection. According to the report, no company that does remoulds will do that to a tyre over 10 years of age - I think that tells you a lot about what they think of the tyre carcass at that point.
Also, you can still run >10yo tyres on the non-steering axles.

IMO, LEZs and other emissions based legislation are much more likely to result in the destruction of the pass-time than any rules applied to tyres on steering axles on coaches.

My point is this really, so we start there, then a ten yr old tyre is deemed unsafe (Although it might not be) then on that basis, all ten yr old wheel cylinders ‘must’ be unsafe & servos & master cylinders & calipers & fuel pipe & so on & so on.
Basically anything with rubber in, or are we just saying only a tyre is plums

Your 'If they are going to implement this law / rule then next they will do this' is something of a imaginative mind - its like stating that because face coverings are mandatory for traveling on public transport this week - next week's mandatory requirements will be a hard hat, eye protection, hearing protection,
face covering, gloves & safety boots

[Deleted]

Jul 31, 2020 15:08:37 GMT Darkspeed said:

The upshot is that there is little evidence to show that a 10 year old tyre is dangerous - if like any other tyre it is maintained and looked after. What has been done here to look into the cost impact of introducing a mandatory age limit - The result being that the cost impact is actually minimal due to most commercial stakeholders users chewing through tyres far quicker than that.

Nowhere in any of the reports is there any indication that it will be rolled out further than commercial operations - There is even mention of VHI exemptions for Historic commercials in private ownership - plus this is only steering - no remoulds on steering etc. etc. etc.

Basically they have looked at the implications of the costs to business for this law and concluded it has minimal impact as the vast majority do not use tyres that old - Just as any other law it will be broken and people will die and the penalties will hopefully be in place to make those responsible pay with their liberty. Will its save lives unlikely - but there will be a process in place for prosecution.

In effect sod all to do with us and never likely to be.

Maybe not in your case but it will effect other members on this forum that own commercial vehicles that cover minimal mileage per annum - point in case is Frankenhealey's Goddess transporter but there are others on here - myself included - In effect quite a lot do with some members of this forum rather than your sod all attitude

[Darkspeed]

Jul 31, 2020 19:17:29 GMT @grumpynorthener said:

Jul 31, 2020 15:08:37 GMT Darkspeed said:

The upshot is that there is little evidence to show that a 10 year old tyre is dangerous - if like any other tyre it is maintained and looked after. What has been done here to look into the cost impact of introducing a mandatory age limit - The result being that the cost impact is actually minimal due to most commercial stakeholders users chewing through tyres far quicker than that.

Nowhere in any of the reports is there any indication that it will be rolled out further than commercial operations - There is even mention of VHI exemptions for Historic commercials in private ownership - plus this is only steering - no remoulds on steering etc. etc. etc.

Basically they have looked at the implications of the costs to business for this law and concluded it has minimal impact as the vast majority do not use tyres that old - Just as any other law it will be broken and people will die and the penalties will hopefully be in place to make those responsible pay with their liberty. Will its save lives unlikely - but there will be a process in place for prosecution.

In effect sod all to do with us and never likely to be.

Maybe not in your case but it will effect other members on this forum that own commercial vehicles that cover minimal mileage per annum - point in case is Frankenhealey's Goddess transporter but there are others on here - myself included - In effect quite a lot do with some members of this forum rather than your sod all attitude

Hmmmm - not sure that's my attitude at all - what I write is quite clear - your reason for misreading / misrepresenting it not so much. Clearly stated above what was in the consultation paper regarding instances of VHI commercials in private ownership.

[pseudonymous]

I think everyone needs to ...



... it's only a forum.

I submit a pic of my favourite retro commercial vehicle ever, as penance.

[cjj]

Hows this one for a humdinger on the subject?

www.ebay.co.uk/itm/New-Tyre-Old-Stock-205-50-R16-87V-Continental-Contisportcontact1-Radial-Tubeless/124273841003