OcUK Crash Investigation Team in review - A547 Abergale

[Glaucus]

The maximum fine for a defective tyre is also £2500 so £60 for each is also rather low.

How often do they give out 2500 as a fine. The tyres WHERE not a contributing factor, therefore a usual fine for the tyres is more than adequate.

 

[Scania]

How often do they give out 2500 as a fine. The tyres WHERE not a contributing factor, therefore a usual fine for the tyres is more than adequate.

Imo, and I'm no expert, I still think the driver was very much in the wrong and should have had the book thrown at him, if nothing more than as an example to other motorists.

Harsh? perhaps, but, so was that drivers attitude to other road users by his driving an obviously unroadworthy vehicle.

£60 per tyre is an insult and hardly likely to put others off if their tyres are like thus.

 

[Glaucus]

£60 per tyre is an insult and hardly likely to put others off if their tyres are like thus.

whys it an insult, I expect they where only just under the limit otherwise it would have been a bigger fine.

The punishment should be proportional to the crime. The only crime commited was driving with deffective tyres, why should he have the book thrown at him?

 

[Scottland]

Imo, and I'm no expert, I still think the driver was very much in the wrong and should have had the book thrown at him, if nothing more than as an example to other motorists.

Harsh? perhaps, but, so was that drivers attitude to other road users by his driving an obviously unroadworthy vehicle.

£60 per tyre is an insult and hardly likely to put others off if their tyres are like thus.

Maybe, but I wonder how many drivers are on the road with tyres under the legal tread limit, unbeknown to the driver.

 

[pinkaardvark]

Imo, and I'm no expert, I still think the driver was very much in the wrong and should have had the book thrown at him, if nothing more than as an example to other motorists.

Harsh? perhaps, but, so was that drivers attitude to other road users by his driving an obviously unroadworthy vehicle.

£60 per tyre is an insult and hardly likely to put others off if their tyres are like thus.

To be fair the less tread the better in this circumstance, in fact if he'd been down to racing slick he would have had more control and that's what I read in another report. I understand the feelings but throwing the book at him achieves nothing and would be a mockery of they criminal justice system. I have no argument that the fine was lenient and by all means argue that the penalty for knowingly driving a defective vehicle should have been higher but that's one to take to you MP I think.

 

[Scania]

whys it an insult, I expect they where only just under the limit otherwise it would have been a bigger fine.

The punishment should be proportional to the crime. The only crime commited was driving with deffective tyres, why should he have the book thrown at him?

As an example to others, our justice system is (imo) too soft with regard to most motoring offences, one tyre bald fair enough,perhaps, we can all make mistakes. But 3 bald tyres?

Maybe, but I wonder how many drivers are on the road with tyres under the legal tread limit, unbeknown to the driver.

Ignorance is no defence, anyway, any halfwit should give his car the once over, if not daily, then weekly to spot such problems before they arise.

 

[Glaucus]

As an example to others, our justice system is (imo) too soft with regard to most motoring offences, one tyre bald fair enough,perhaps, we can all make mistakes. But 3 bald tyres?

Lets not exaggerate, they weren't bold they would have been just under the legal limit, maybe even over legal limit but have cracks in the side wall. If he got caught with 3 tyres one after the other then yes, give a bigger fine cos he hasn't learnt his lesson. But to throw the book at him for his first offence? you got to be kidding. Because, in reality we are talking one offence(albeit it 3 times).

 

[Scania]

Lets not exaggerate, they weren't bold they would have been just under the legal limit, maybe even over legal limit but have cracks in the side wall. If he got caught with 3 tyres one after the other then yes, give a bigger fine cos he hasn't learnt his lesson. But to throw the book at him for his first offence? you got to be kidding. Because, in reality we are talking one offence(albeit it 3 times).

Fair enough, removing exaggeration, he's guilty of 3 defective tyres then. The point is, he should'nt have 1 defective tyre, surely!

 

[Glaucus]

Fair enough, removing exaggeration, he's guilty of 3 defective tyres then. The point is, he should'nt have 1 defective tyre, surely!

No he shouldn't, but £60 fine and points is a good reminder for him in the future to check. Not only is it £60 its also insurance premium as well.
Remember its probably(hopefully) his first offence. With first offences especially as its not a serious offence, the punishment should kick him into checking his tyres. Not making a huge profit or anything else out of it. It should be used as way to make sure he doesn't re-offend. Nothing else.

For most people a fine and points will wake them up.

 

[Scottland]

As an example to others, our justice system is (imo) too soft with regard to most motoring offences, one tyre bald fair enough,perhaps, we can all make mistakes. But 3 bald tyres?


Ignorance is no defence, anyway, any halfwit should give his car the once over, if not daily, then weekly to spot such problems before they arise.

I don't know how bad the tyres were, but to his eye they might have looked fine, and/or they might have been close to the limit - which is what, 1.6mm tread depth? 1.5mm tread depth would look awfully similar to my eye

I wasn't defending it, and I see your point about making an example. But IMO the punishment was suitable.

 

[Scania]

I wasn't defending it, and I see your point about making an example. But IMO the punishment was suitable.

I must have been somebody really vindictive in a previous life!