Something Strange Happened Today!

(26-09-2012 02:07pm)THEMACS Wrote:  

Christ, he would have me Banged Up For Life!!!!!!

Yep..for sure would of been Crown court not Magistrates..

(26-09-2012 08:25am)speary Wrote:  Regulation 27 section b states "the tyre is not so inflated as to make it fit for the use to which the motor vehicle or trailer is put", however this statement is fairly ambiguous. As there is no indication of at what point an under or over inflated tyre becomes unfit for the use it is being put to.

Did you just copy that exact text from "etyres.com"?

I know you're not being deliberately confrontational (and I hope I'm not too), but not only is it wildly open to interpretation, but Paragraph 2 also does caveat paragraph 1, by saying:

"Paragraph (1) does not prohibit the use on a road of a motor vehicle or trailer by reason only of the fact that a wheel of the vehicle or trailer is fitted with a tyre which is deflated or not fully inflated and which has any of the defects described in sub-paragraph ©, (d) or (e) of paragraph (1), if the tyre and the wheel to which it is fitted are so constructed as to make the tyre in that condition fit for the use to which the motor vehicle or trailer is being put and the outer sides of the wall of the tyre are so marked as to enable the tyre to be identified as having been constructed to comply with the requirements of this paragraph. "

So basically, if you over-inflate past the max pressure as marked on the tyre, yes you're open to it being dangerous.

In reality though, I don't think I have ever ever heard of any prosecutions through tyre inflation... it is far more likely to be an issue the tyre which may or may not be a consequence of the tyre inflation.

That said, I apologise for casting a blanket doubt on your statement.

Pressure is a totally variable thing, Ambient pressure is constantly variable, the gauge on the Tyre machine is infinitely inaccurate and a contained amount of pressurised air is subject to changes in temperature... So setting the Pressure to 1 psi is a pretty subjective thing anyway, is that 36psi at running temperature or when cold, etc etc?

The 36psi was as they were put on cold so to speak. I will check them at the weekend and put a little more pressure in, obviously not enough to get me Banged Up!!

(26-09-2012 03:43pm)RacingSnake Wrote:  Did you just copy that exact text from "etyres.com"?

I know you're not being deliberately confrontational (and I hope I'm not too), but not only is it wildly open to interpretation, but Paragraph 2 also does caveat paragraph 1, by saying:

"Paragraph (1) does not prohibit the use on a road of a motor vehicle or trailer by reason only of the fact that a wheel of the vehicle or trailer is fitted with a tyre which is deflated or not fully inflated and which has any of the defects described in sub-paragraph ©, (d) or (e) of paragraph (1), if the tyre and the wheel to which it is fitted are so constructed as to make the tyre in that condition fit for the use to which the motor vehicle or trailer is being put and the outer sides of the wall of the tyre are so marked as to enable the tyre to be identified as having been constructed to comply with the requirements of this paragraph. "

So basically, if you over-inflate past the max pressure as marked on the tyre, yes you're open to it being dangerous.

In reality though, I don't think I have ever ever heard of any prosecutions through tyre inflation... it is far more likely to be an issue the tyre which may or may not be a consequence of the tyre inflation.

That said, I apologise for casting a blanket doubt on your statement.

The main point i am trying to make here is that an underinflated tyre can be dangerous as it will cause the tyre to overheat and possibly fail. It is underinflation rather than over inflation that is the main problem.
Also with respect just because you or I have never heard of anybody being prosecuted for having under inflated tyres it does not mean that it has not happened.
Please read the case below.
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 place primary obligations upon a company for the inspection and maintenance of equipment used by employees. In Stimpson v (1) Curran (2) Land Rover UK Ltd and (3) Exel Logistics Ltd (2004), Wayne Curran was an employee of Land Rover (UK) Ltd who permitted him to use one of the company’s Defender vehicles for a journey. Curran was carrying a number of passengers, including Paul Stimpson who was injured when the vehicle was involved in a roll-over accident on the M6 motorway. Exel Logistics had previously assembled the front offside wheel and tyre. It was subsequently established that the two rear tyres were under-inflated and the front offside tyre had deflated. The court had to determine firstly the responsibility of Curran and whether he owed a duty to his employers and passengers to ensure that the vehicle was in a safe condition before the journey began and during the journey itself. Curran himself accepted that under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 he did have a duty to check the vehicles tyre pressures before setting off, but claimed that as the vehicle was immaculately maintained by his employer this excused him from his obligation.

As Curran had not noticed any unusual handling characteristics during the journey, the court would not fix him with any liability for the accident.

Post crash inspection found that the rear tyres were at a reduced pressure – 29psi instead of 48. It was argued that in these circumstances Land Rover should have been aware of the dangers posed by under-inflated tyres and as a result, should bear the greatest share of responsibility. However the rear tyres were not the sole cause of the accident. Exel had assembled the offside wheel and tyre. It was found that during this process dirt and grit had found its way between the inner tube and the tyre casing. The court accepted that this had resulted in a split in the inner tube and a partial deflation of the offside tyre just before the accident. The court also accepted that, had the tyre deflation occurred in isolation, there was a chance that Curran may have been able to bring the vehicle to a halt; it was the interaction with the under-inflated rear tyres which led to the fish-tailing and then roll-over. Taking all of these arguments into consideration the court found both Land Rover and Exel 50% each responsible for Stimpson`s injuries.

you cant use a corporate prosectution of unsafe working equipment here, it's a different scenario than joe bloggs driving with 29psi in his tyres , being pulled over and charged - in your example the car rolled over!!! and that was not explicitly down to the tyres.
In fact it explicitly states that the tyres were not the sole cause, and ruled that Exel and their dodgy wheel assembly was more to blame, and if their failure did not occur, he would have been able to control the car.

As I said, I'm not being deliberately confrontational, but thats not a valid example IMO. If there is case law showing where the prosection relied solely upon the under (or over) inflation of tyres then I'd be suprised.

As I said, I'm not disputing the small print or the interpretation of the act, but I sincerely doubt there will have been any prosections about it.