CDZ Should passenger vehicle inspections be required?

[martybegan]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

you know what a $1500 or $3000 fine would do to some families? And the "coin test" is arbitrary and is something that can go from pass to fail during a single drive.

It also implies that only people that can afford to replace their tires the second they get close to low have the right to drive cars.

 

[martybegan]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

That would be an excellent way of enforcing a requirement, should it be enacted. I like it. No checking when you are in danger, no record keeping needed, it's easily quanifiable, easily enforced, and easily understood.

And would impact people of lesser means more than people that can afford to replace their tires well before even a chance of failing a tread test.

 

[320 Years of History]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

you know what a $1500 or $3000 fine would do to some families? And the "coin test" is arbitrary and is something that can go from pass to fail during a single drive.

It also implies that only people that can afford to replace their tires the second they get close to low have the right to drive cars.

Red:
That may be so; I can see how it could happen. So what?

For example, let's say I need butter for my toast everyday. When I see I'm down to some level that is close to "not enough butter" given my usage habits, I buy butter.

It's no different with car tires. It's a self inspection. of tires. If drive your care, how much of a burden is it to check from time to time? I think the answer to that is "none that is onerous."

The "quarter" and "penny" tire tread tests are hardly arbitrary. To the contrary, they are what folks have used quite effectively for years now. Indeed, they are so simple, quick and effective that even major tire makers advocate using them.

The only thing oldsoul has proposed is that folks be required to check the darn tire tread on a routine and recurring basis. If one cannot be left to one's own devices and judgment to check the damn tread on a tire, I'd question whether one has any business owning a car, much less a driver's license.


Blue:
While implementing my suggested ideas may have that as a consequence, it is not what I was implying. Not even close. My intended implications involve personal responsibility, not personal wealth. The act of owning a car (choosing to do so) implies a level of personal wealth, namely enough wealth to maintain the car one owns.

For example, one may have the means to buy a Bentley. Fine. Buy it. But if one isn't willing or able to pay at least $350 each for tires, or a few grand to get new brakes, one probably should buy a different car.

The concept is no different at any point along the price spectrum. At the very bottom of the price spectrum, the consideration may have to be not what other car to choose, but whether one should own a car at all. In the context of this thread, it doesn't matter what tire you put on your car so long as it has enough tread.

The fact of the matter is that affording a vehicle is affording the maintenance and indirect costs that accompany doing so. The instant one takes ownership of a car, one knows (or damn well should) that the tire tread is going to wear out. Tires aren't the only "consumable" associated with a car...oil, bushings, gaskets, brakes, shocks/struts, light bulbs, etc. If one has just bought a car and the cost of new tires is something one may have to plan for, I suggest setting up a "sinking fund" so that when the time comes, one has the money to buy the tires and/or whatever other consumables one knows will be needed.

All that rigamarole about what money someone may not have when the tread wears out is just a lame excuse for being an irresponsible adult. The fact is that for very few people (if any) in the U.S. is car ownership less expensive than at least one alternative means of transportation. I'm not advocating that one buy a car; I'm saying that if one does, one must be responsible about maintaining it, and that responsibility extends beyond just keeping in good enough order that it will get one from point A to point B. One has a responsibility to maintain it to the extent that one's use of it does not unduly affect others' with whom one must share the road.

 

[320 Years of History]

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

That would be an excellent way of enforcing a requirement, should it be enacted. I like it. No checking when you are in danger, no record keeping needed, it's easily quanifiable, easily enforced, and easily understood.

And would impact people of lesser means more than people that can afford to replace their tires well before even a chance of failing a tread test.

It's not about that at all. It's about planning and being a responsible car owner. The only time one needs to afford one or more new tires is when the tread falls below the minimum requirement. One can perform the replacement when the tread is right at the bare minimum. Nobody's saying one must do so "well before" it's needed. "Just in time" is sufficient, and allows one tens of thousands of miles of driving to save up for the day that will surely come -- the day one's tires need replacing.

 

[martybegan]

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

you know what a $1500 or $3000 fine would do to some families? And the "coin test" is arbitrary and is something that can go from pass to fail during a single drive.

It also implies that only people that can afford to replace their tires the second they get close to low have the right to drive cars.

Red:
That may be so; I can see how it could happen. So what?

For example, let's say I need butter for my toast everyday. When I see I'm down to some level that is close to "not enough butter" given my usage habits, I buy butter.

It's no different with car tires. It's a self inspection. of tires. If drive your care, how much of a burden is it to check from time to time? I think the answer to that is "none that is onerous."

The "quarter" and "penny" tire tread tests are hardly arbitrary. To the contrary, they are what folks have used quite effectively for years now. Indeed, they are so simple, quick and effective that even major tire makers advocate using them.

The only thing oldsoul has proposed is that folks be required to check the darn tire tread on a routine and recurring basis. If one cannot be left to one's own devices and judgment to check the damn tread on a tire, I'd question whether one has any business owning a car, much less a driver's license.


Blue:
While implementing my suggested ideas may have that as a consequence, it is not what I was implying. Not even close. My intended implications involve personal responsibility, not personal wealth. The act of owning a car (choosing to do so) implies a level of personal wealth, namely enough wealth to maintain the car one owns.

For example, one may have the means to buy a Bentley. Fine. Buy it. But if one isn't willing or able to pay at least $350 each for tires, or a few grand to get new brakes, one probably should buy a different car.

The concept is no different at any point along the price spectrum. At the very bottom of the price spectrum, the consideration may have to be not what other car to choose, but whether one should own a car at all. In the context of this thread, it doesn't matter what tire you put on your car so long as it has enough tread.

The fact of the matter is that affording a vehicle is affording the maintenance and indirect costs that accompany doing so. The instant one takes ownership of a car, one knows (or damn well should) that the tire tread is going to wear out. Tires aren't the only "consumable" associated with a car...oil, bushings, gaskets, brakes, shocks/struts, light bulbs, etc. If one has just bought a car and the cost of new tires is something one may have to plan for, I suggest setting up a "sinking fund" so that when the time comes, one has the money to buy the tires and/or whatever other consumables one knows will be needed.

All that rigamarole about what money someone may not have when the tread wears out is just a lame excuse for being an irresponsible adult. The fact is that for very few people (if any) in the U.S. is car ownership less expensive than at least one alternative means of transportation. I'm not advocating that one buy a car; I'm saying that if one does, one must be responsible about maintaining it, and that responsibility extends beyond just keeping in good enough order that it will get one from point A to point B. One has a responsibility to maintain it to the extent that one's use of it does not unduly affect others' with whom one must share the road.

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

 

[oldsoul]

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

you know what a $1500 or $3000 fine would do to some families? And the "coin test" is arbitrary and is something that can go from pass to fail during a single drive.

It also implies that only people that can afford to replace their tires the second they get close to low have the right to drive cars.

Red:
That may be so; I can see how it could happen. So what?

For example, let's say I need butter for my toast everyday. When I see I'm down to some level that is close to "not enough butter" given my usage habits, I buy butter.

It's no different with car tires. It's a self inspection. of tires. If drive your care, how much of a burden is it to check from time to time? I think the answer to that is "none that is onerous."

The "quarter" and "penny" tire tread tests are hardly arbitrary. To the contrary, they are what folks have used quite effectively for years now. Indeed, they are so simple, quick and effective that even major tire makers advocate using them.

The only thing oldsoul has proposed is that folks be required to check the darn tire tread on a routine and recurring basis. If one cannot be left to one's own devices and judgment to check the damn tread on a tire, I'd question whether one has any business owning a car, much less a driver's license.


Blue:
While implementing my suggested ideas may have that as a consequence, it is not what I was implying. Not even close. My intended implications involve personal responsibility, not personal wealth. The act of owning a car (choosing to do so) implies a level of personal wealth, namely enough wealth to maintain the car one owns.

For example, one may have the means to buy a Bentley. Fine. Buy it. But if one isn't willing or able to pay at least $350 each for tires, or a few grand to get new brakes, one probably should buy a different car.

The concept is no different at any point along the price spectrum. At the very bottom of the price spectrum, the consideration may have to be not what other car to choose, but whether one should own a car at all. In the context of this thread, it doesn't matter what tire you put on your car so long as it has enough tread.

The fact of the matter is that affording a vehicle is affording the maintenance and indirect costs that accompany doing so. The instant one takes ownership of a car, one knows (or damn well should) that the tire tread is going to wear out. Tires aren't the only "consumable" associated with a car...oil, bushings, gaskets, brakes, shocks/struts, light bulbs, etc. If one has just bought a car and the cost of new tires is something one may have to plan for, I suggest setting up a "sinking fund" so that when the time comes, one has the money to buy the tires and/or whatever other consumables one knows will be needed.

All that rigamarole about what money someone may not have when the tread wears out is just a lame excuse for being an irresponsible adult. The fact is that for very few people (if any) in the U.S. is car ownership less expensive than at least one alternative means of transportation. I'm not advocating that one buy a car; I'm saying that if one does, one must be responsible about maintaining it, and that responsibility extends beyond just keeping in good enough order that it will get one from point A to point B. One has a responsibility to maintain it to the extent that one's use of it does not unduly affect others' with whom one must share the road.

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

Ok, I see the point. So what if the insurance industry got together and said, "We will not insure a vehicle with insufficient tread depth."? What would your arguement be then? I, in no way, intended for this to be a government program, nessicarily. There are ways, as I just pointed out, that the private sector could institute such a requirement.

 

[martybegan]

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

you know what a $1500 or $3000 fine would do to some families? And the "coin test" is arbitrary and is something that can go from pass to fail during a single drive.

It also implies that only people that can afford to replace their tires the second they get close to low have the right to drive cars.

Red:
That may be so; I can see how it could happen. So what?

For example, let's say I need butter for my toast everyday. When I see I'm down to some level that is close to "not enough butter" given my usage habits, I buy butter.

It's no different with car tires. It's a self inspection. of tires. If drive your care, how much of a burden is it to check from time to time? I think the answer to that is "none that is onerous."

The "quarter" and "penny" tire tread tests are hardly arbitrary. To the contrary, they are what folks have used quite effectively for years now. Indeed, they are so simple, quick and effective that even major tire makers advocate using them.

The only thing oldsoul has proposed is that folks be required to check the darn tire tread on a routine and recurring basis. If one cannot be left to one's own devices and judgment to check the damn tread on a tire, I'd question whether one has any business owning a car, much less a driver's license.


Blue:
While implementing my suggested ideas may have that as a consequence, it is not what I was implying. Not even close. My intended implications involve personal responsibility, not personal wealth. The act of owning a car (choosing to do so) implies a level of personal wealth, namely enough wealth to maintain the car one owns.

For example, one may have the means to buy a Bentley. Fine. Buy it. But if one isn't willing or able to pay at least $350 each for tires, or a few grand to get new brakes, one probably should buy a different car.

The concept is no different at any point along the price spectrum. At the very bottom of the price spectrum, the consideration may have to be not what other car to choose, but whether one should own a car at all. In the context of this thread, it doesn't matter what tire you put on your car so long as it has enough tread.

The fact of the matter is that affording a vehicle is affording the maintenance and indirect costs that accompany doing so. The instant one takes ownership of a car, one knows (or damn well should) that the tire tread is going to wear out. Tires aren't the only "consumable" associated with a car...oil, bushings, gaskets, brakes, shocks/struts, light bulbs, etc. If one has just bought a car and the cost of new tires is something one may have to plan for, I suggest setting up a "sinking fund" so that when the time comes, one has the money to buy the tires and/or whatever other consumables one knows will be needed.

All that rigamarole about what money someone may not have when the tread wears out is just a lame excuse for being an irresponsible adult. The fact is that for very few people (if any) in the U.S. is car ownership less expensive than at least one alternative means of transportation. I'm not advocating that one buy a car; I'm saying that if one does, one must be responsible about maintaining it, and that responsibility extends beyond just keeping in good enough order that it will get one from point A to point B. One has a responsibility to maintain it to the extent that one's use of it does not unduly affect others' with whom one must share the road.

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

Ok, I see the point. So what if the insurance industry got together and said, "We will not insure a vehicle with insufficient tread depth."? What would your arguement be then? I, in no way, intended for this to be a government program, nessicarily. There are ways, as I just pointed out, that the private sector could institute such a requirement.

Which again would require people to regularly go out and check their tread depth, and goes back to my original point, in urban areas you would kill more people accidentally due to their having to stand by their tires and measure, than you would save from more tires not being worn out.

 

[320 Years of History]

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

you know what a $1500 or $3000 fine would do to some families? And the "coin test" is arbitrary and is something that can go from pass to fail during a single drive.

It also implies that only people that can afford to replace their tires the second they get close to low have the right to drive cars.

Red:
That may be so; I can see how it could happen. So what?

For example, let's say I need butter for my toast everyday. When I see I'm down to some level that is close to "not enough butter" given my usage habits, I buy butter.

It's no different with car tires. It's a self inspection. of tires. If drive your care, how much of a burden is it to check from time to time? I think the answer to that is "none that is onerous."

The "quarter" and "penny" tire tread tests are hardly arbitrary. To the contrary, they are what folks have used quite effectively for years now. Indeed, they are so simple, quick and effective that even major tire makers advocate using them.

The only thing oldsoul has proposed is that folks be required to check the darn tire tread on a routine and recurring basis. If one cannot be left to one's own devices and judgment to check the damn tread on a tire, I'd question whether one has any business owning a car, much less a driver's license.


Blue:
While implementing my suggested ideas may have that as a consequence, it is not what I was implying. Not even close. My intended implications involve personal responsibility, not personal wealth. The act of owning a car (choosing to do so) implies a level of personal wealth, namely enough wealth to maintain the car one owns.

For example, one may have the means to buy a Bentley. Fine. Buy it. But if one isn't willing or able to pay at least $350 each for tires, or a few grand to get new brakes, one probably should buy a different car.

The concept is no different at any point along the price spectrum. At the very bottom of the price spectrum, the consideration may have to be not what other car to choose, but whether one should own a car at all. In the context of this thread, it doesn't matter what tire you put on your car so long as it has enough tread.

The fact of the matter is that affording a vehicle is affording the maintenance and indirect costs that accompany doing so. The instant one takes ownership of a car, one knows (or damn well should) that the tire tread is going to wear out. Tires aren't the only "consumable" associated with a car...oil, bushings, gaskets, brakes, shocks/struts, light bulbs, etc. If one has just bought a car and the cost of new tires is something one may have to plan for, I suggest setting up a "sinking fund" so that when the time comes, one has the money to buy the tires and/or whatever other consumables one knows will be needed.

All that rigamarole about what money someone may not have when the tread wears out is just a lame excuse for being an irresponsible adult. The fact is that for very few people (if any) in the U.S. is car ownership less expensive than at least one alternative means of transportation. I'm not advocating that one buy a car; I'm saying that if one does, one must be responsible about maintaining it, and that responsibility extends beyond just keeping in good enough order that it will get one from point A to point B. One has a responsibility to maintain it to the extent that one's use of it does not unduly affect others' with whom one must share the road.

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

Ok, I see the point. So what if the insurance industry got together and said, "We will not insure a vehicle with insufficient tread depth."? What would your arguement be then? I, in no way, intended for this to be a government program, nessicarily. There are ways, as I just pointed out, that the private sector could institute such a requirement.

Which again would require people to regularly go out and check their tread depth, and goes back to my original point, in urban areas you would kill more people accidentally due to their having to stand by their tires and measure, than you would save from more tires not being worn out.

Why do you presume that tire measuring could not be performed in a parking lot, alleyway, garage, or any number of other places safer than the side of the road, or middle of the road if that's what you have in mind?

I live in D.C., downtown in fact. There are lot of safe places for me to check the tire tread. I mentor several kids who live in D.C. in what can only be called "the slums." There are lots of places there as well. Indeed, there are plenty of safe places to perform the check in every residential part of the city.

Nobody is saying one must attempt to measure the tire tread at a stoplight in the middle of the busiest city streets.

At this point, I have to ask, are you in fact a mature adult, or at least 25 years old? I'm beginning to think you are not because your comments sound like the kinds of stuff my kids would say when they were in their teens. If you are indeed not a mature adult, fine, I then understand why you're going down this "road" with your remarks.

I'm going to be frank. I don't willfully engage in discussions like the ones on USMB with minors. There's just no point in my doing so. There's no reasoning with the "infallibility" of a minor. I also don't willfully engage with immature adults, for much the same reason.

 

[martybegan]

you know what a $1500 or $3000 fine would do to some families? And the "coin test" is arbitrary and is something that can go from pass to fail during a single drive.

It also implies that only people that can afford to replace their tires the second they get close to low have the right to drive cars.

Red:
That may be so; I can see how it could happen. So what?

For example, let's say I need butter for my toast everyday. When I see I'm down to some level that is close to "not enough butter" given my usage habits, I buy butter.

It's no different with car tires. It's a self inspection. of tires. If drive your care, how much of a burden is it to check from time to time? I think the answer to that is "none that is onerous."

The "quarter" and "penny" tire tread tests are hardly arbitrary. To the contrary, they are what folks have used quite effectively for years now. Indeed, they are so simple, quick and effective that even major tire makers advocate using them.

The only thing oldsoul has proposed is that folks be required to check the darn tire tread on a routine and recurring basis. If one cannot be left to one's own devices and judgment to check the damn tread on a tire, I'd question whether one has any business owning a car, much less a driver's license.


Blue:
While implementing my suggested ideas may have that as a consequence, it is not what I was implying. Not even close. My intended implications involve personal responsibility, not personal wealth. The act of owning a car (choosing to do so) implies a level of personal wealth, namely enough wealth to maintain the car one owns.

For example, one may have the means to buy a Bentley. Fine. Buy it. But if one isn't willing or able to pay at least $350 each for tires, or a few grand to get new brakes, one probably should buy a different car.

The concept is no different at any point along the price spectrum. At the very bottom of the price spectrum, the consideration may have to be not what other car to choose, but whether one should own a car at all. In the context of this thread, it doesn't matter what tire you put on your car so long as it has enough tread.

The fact of the matter is that affording a vehicle is affording the maintenance and indirect costs that accompany doing so. The instant one takes ownership of a car, one knows (or damn well should) that the tire tread is going to wear out. Tires aren't the only "consumable" associated with a car...oil, bushings, gaskets, brakes, shocks/struts, light bulbs, etc. If one has just bought a car and the cost of new tires is something one may have to plan for, I suggest setting up a "sinking fund" so that when the time comes, one has the money to buy the tires and/or whatever other consumables one knows will be needed.

All that rigamarole about what money someone may not have when the tread wears out is just a lame excuse for being an irresponsible adult. The fact is that for very few people (if any) in the U.S. is car ownership less expensive than at least one alternative means of transportation. I'm not advocating that one buy a car; I'm saying that if one does, one must be responsible about maintaining it, and that responsibility extends beyond just keeping in good enough order that it will get one from point A to point B. One has a responsibility to maintain it to the extent that one's use of it does not unduly affect others' with whom one must share the road.

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

Ok, I see the point. So what if the insurance industry got together and said, "We will not insure a vehicle with insufficient tread depth."? What would your arguement be then? I, in no way, intended for this to be a government program, nessicarily. There are ways, as I just pointed out, that the private sector could institute such a requirement.

Which again would require people to regularly go out and check their tread depth, and goes back to my original point, in urban areas you would kill more people accidentally due to their having to stand by their tires and measure, than you would save from more tires not being worn out.

Why do you presume that tire measuring could not be performed in a parking lot, alleyway, garage, or any number of other places safer than the side of the road, or middle of the road if that's what you have in mind?

I live in D.C., downtown in fact. There are lot of safe places for me to check the tire tread. I mentor several kids who live in D.C. in what can only be called "the slums." There are lots of places there as well. Indeed, there are plenty of safe places to perform the check in every residential part of the city.

Nobody is saying one must attempt to measure the tire tread at a stoplight in the middle of the busiest city streets.

At this point, I have to ask, are you in fact a mature adult, or at least 25 years old? I'm beginning to think you are not because your comments sound like the kinds of stuff my kids would say when they were in their teens. If you are indeed not a mature adult, fine, I then understand why you're going down this "road" with your remarks.

I'm going to be frank. I don't willfully engage in discussions like the ones on USMB with minors. There's just no point in my doing so. There's no reasoning with the "infallibility" of a minor. I also don't willfully engage with immature adults, for much the same reason.

I'm almost 41. What my problem is I am sick of government heaping more and more crap on us to do, mostly to cover our asses about breaking some ridiculous regulation.

So I have to change my plans to find some place to park every few days to check my tire treads, my air pressure, and whatever other stuff you can dream up for me to do, all in the interest of some perceived increase in safety?

If you propose punishing bad treads or air pressure or anything else it behooves you to check those things every single time you drive, and in NYC finding a spot where you are not at risk from some dunderhead driving too close to parked cars is not always possible.

 

[oldsoul]

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

you know what a $1500 or $3000 fine would do to some families? And the "coin test" is arbitrary and is something that can go from pass to fail during a single drive.

It also implies that only people that can afford to replace their tires the second they get close to low have the right to drive cars.

Red:
That may be so; I can see how it could happen. So what?

For example, let's say I need butter for my toast everyday. When I see I'm down to some level that is close to "not enough butter" given my usage habits, I buy butter.

It's no different with car tires. It's a self inspection. of tires. If drive your care, how much of a burden is it to check from time to time? I think the answer to that is "none that is onerous."

The "quarter" and "penny" tire tread tests are hardly arbitrary. To the contrary, they are what folks have used quite effectively for years now. Indeed, they are so simple, quick and effective that even major tire makers advocate using them.

The only thing oldsoul has proposed is that folks be required to check the darn tire tread on a routine and recurring basis. If one cannot be left to one's own devices and judgment to check the damn tread on a tire, I'd question whether one has any business owning a car, much less a driver's license.


Blue:
While implementing my suggested ideas may have that as a consequence, it is not what I was implying. Not even close. My intended implications involve personal responsibility, not personal wealth. The act of owning a car (choosing to do so) implies a level of personal wealth, namely enough wealth to maintain the car one owns.

For example, one may have the means to buy a Bentley. Fine. Buy it. But if one isn't willing or able to pay at least $350 each for tires, or a few grand to get new brakes, one probably should buy a different car.

The concept is no different at any point along the price spectrum. At the very bottom of the price spectrum, the consideration may have to be not what other car to choose, but whether one should own a car at all. In the context of this thread, it doesn't matter what tire you put on your car so long as it has enough tread.

The fact of the matter is that affording a vehicle is affording the maintenance and indirect costs that accompany doing so. The instant one takes ownership of a car, one knows (or damn well should) that the tire tread is going to wear out. Tires aren't the only "consumable" associated with a car...oil, bushings, gaskets, brakes, shocks/struts, light bulbs, etc. If one has just bought a car and the cost of new tires is something one may have to plan for, I suggest setting up a "sinking fund" so that when the time comes, one has the money to buy the tires and/or whatever other consumables one knows will be needed.

All that rigamarole about what money someone may not have when the tread wears out is just a lame excuse for being an irresponsible adult. The fact is that for very few people (if any) in the U.S. is car ownership less expensive than at least one alternative means of transportation. I'm not advocating that one buy a car; I'm saying that if one does, one must be responsible about maintaining it, and that responsibility extends beyond just keeping in good enough order that it will get one from point A to point B. One has a responsibility to maintain it to the extent that one's use of it does not unduly affect others' with whom one must share the road.

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

Ok, I see the point. So what if the insurance industry got together and said, "We will not insure a vehicle with insufficient tread depth."? What would your arguement be then? I, in no way, intended for this to be a government program, nessicarily. There are ways, as I just pointed out, that the private sector could institute such a requirement.

Which again would require people to regularly go out and check their tread depth, and goes back to my original point, in urban areas you would kill more people accidentally due to their having to stand by their tires and measure, than you would save from more tires not being worn out.

The people stupid enough to not find a safe place to check their tires are likely going to ge killed in some other stupid manner anyway. So, I guess using that logic, we should deny people the ability to lock their car doors too. We should also outlaw windows on the first floor, since they would hinder a persons' egress in an emergency as well. Point is, your arguement carries no weight because there is no requirement as to WHERE the tires are checked, only THAT they are checked. Why do you insist on arguing that people would be killed checking their tires, when there is no reason for a person to put themselves at risk to check? The point is not to protect the stupid from themselves, the point is to protect the rest of us for the negligence of the stupid.

 

[oldsoul]

Red:
That may be so; I can see how it could happen. So what?

For example, let's say I need butter for my toast everyday. When I see I'm down to some level that is close to "not enough butter" given my usage habits, I buy butter.

It's no different with car tires. It's a self inspection. of tires. If drive your care, how much of a burden is it to check from time to time? I think the answer to that is "none that is onerous."

The "quarter" and "penny" tire tread tests are hardly arbitrary. To the contrary, they are what folks have used quite effectively for years now. Indeed, they are so simple, quick and effective that even major tire makers advocate using them.

The only thing oldsoul has proposed is that folks be required to check the darn tire tread on a routine and recurring basis. If one cannot be left to one's own devices and judgment to check the damn tread on a tire, I'd question whether one has any business owning a car, much less a driver's license.


Blue:
While implementing my suggested ideas may have that as a consequence, it is not what I was implying. Not even close. My intended implications involve personal responsibility, not personal wealth. The act of owning a car (choosing to do so) implies a level of personal wealth, namely enough wealth to maintain the car one owns.

For example, one may have the means to buy a Bentley. Fine. Buy it. But if one isn't willing or able to pay at least $350 each for tires, or a few grand to get new brakes, one probably should buy a different car.

The concept is no different at any point along the price spectrum. At the very bottom of the price spectrum, the consideration may have to be not what other car to choose, but whether one should own a car at all. In the context of this thread, it doesn't matter what tire you put on your car so long as it has enough tread.

The fact of the matter is that affording a vehicle is affording the maintenance and indirect costs that accompany doing so. The instant one takes ownership of a car, one knows (or damn well should) that the tire tread is going to wear out. Tires aren't the only "consumable" associated with a car...oil, bushings, gaskets, brakes, shocks/struts, light bulbs, etc. If one has just bought a car and the cost of new tires is something one may have to plan for, I suggest setting up a "sinking fund" so that when the time comes, one has the money to buy the tires and/or whatever other consumables one knows will be needed.

All that rigamarole about what money someone may not have when the tread wears out is just a lame excuse for being an irresponsible adult. The fact is that for very few people (if any) in the U.S. is car ownership less expensive than at least one alternative means of transportation. I'm not advocating that one buy a car; I'm saying that if one does, one must be responsible about maintaining it, and that responsibility extends beyond just keeping in good enough order that it will get one from point A to point B. One has a responsibility to maintain it to the extent that one's use of it does not unduly affect others' with whom one must share the road.

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

Ok, I see the point. So what if the insurance industry got together and said, "We will not insure a vehicle with insufficient tread depth."? What would your arguement be then? I, in no way, intended for this to be a government program, nessicarily. There are ways, as I just pointed out, that the private sector could institute such a requirement.

Which again would require people to regularly go out and check their tread depth, and goes back to my original point, in urban areas you would kill more people accidentally due to their having to stand by their tires and measure, than you would save from more tires not being worn out.

Why do you presume that tire measuring could not be performed in a parking lot, alleyway, garage, or any number of other places safer than the side of the road, or middle of the road if that's what you have in mind?

I live in D.C., downtown in fact. There are lot of safe places for me to check the tire tread. I mentor several kids who live in D.C. in what can only be called "the slums." There are lots of places there as well. Indeed, there are plenty of safe places to perform the check in every residential part of the city.

Nobody is saying one must attempt to measure the tire tread at a stoplight in the middle of the busiest city streets.

At this point, I have to ask, are you in fact a mature adult, or at least 25 years old? I'm beginning to think you are not because your comments sound like the kinds of stuff my kids would say when they were in their teens. If you are indeed not a mature adult, fine, I then understand why you're going down this "road" with your remarks.

I'm going to be frank. I don't willfully engage in discussions like the ones on USMB with minors. There's just no point in my doing so. There's no reasoning with the "infallibility" of a minor. I also don't willfully engage with immature adults, for much the same reason.

I'm almost 41. What my problem is I am sick of government heaping more and more crap on us to do, mostly to cover our asses about breaking some ridiculous regulation.

So I have to change my plans to find some place to park every few days to check my tire treads, my air pressure, and whatever other stuff you can dream up for me to do, all in the interest of some perceived increase in safety?

If you propose punishing bad treads or air pressure or anything else it behooves you to check those things every single time you drive, and in NYC finding a spot where you are not at risk from some dunderhead driving too close to parked cars is not always possible.

Fine, don't check your tires. Then when you cause an accident because of said tires being under/over inflated, or worn out, your insurance company declines your claim. Fine with me, fewer claims mean lower rates for the rest of us.
Please stop with the but what if... crap. This is a serious discussion, if you are unable to take it seriously, please refrain from continuing.

 

[martybegan]

you know what a $1500 or $3000 fine would do to some families? And the "coin test" is arbitrary and is something that can go from pass to fail during a single drive.

It also implies that only people that can afford to replace their tires the second they get close to low have the right to drive cars.

Red:
That may be so; I can see how it could happen. So what?

For example, let's say I need butter for my toast everyday. When I see I'm down to some level that is close to "not enough butter" given my usage habits, I buy butter.

It's no different with car tires. It's a self inspection. of tires. If drive your care, how much of a burden is it to check from time to time? I think the answer to that is "none that is onerous."

The "quarter" and "penny" tire tread tests are hardly arbitrary. To the contrary, they are what folks have used quite effectively for years now. Indeed, they are so simple, quick and effective that even major tire makers advocate using them.

The only thing oldsoul has proposed is that folks be required to check the darn tire tread on a routine and recurring basis. If one cannot be left to one's own devices and judgment to check the damn tread on a tire, I'd question whether one has any business owning a car, much less a driver's license.


Blue:
While implementing my suggested ideas may have that as a consequence, it is not what I was implying. Not even close. My intended implications involve personal responsibility, not personal wealth. The act of owning a car (choosing to do so) implies a level of personal wealth, namely enough wealth to maintain the car one owns.

For example, one may have the means to buy a Bentley. Fine. Buy it. But if one isn't willing or able to pay at least $350 each for tires, or a few grand to get new brakes, one probably should buy a different car.

The concept is no different at any point along the price spectrum. At the very bottom of the price spectrum, the consideration may have to be not what other car to choose, but whether one should own a car at all. In the context of this thread, it doesn't matter what tire you put on your car so long as it has enough tread.

The fact of the matter is that affording a vehicle is affording the maintenance and indirect costs that accompany doing so. The instant one takes ownership of a car, one knows (or damn well should) that the tire tread is going to wear out. Tires aren't the only "consumable" associated with a car...oil, bushings, gaskets, brakes, shocks/struts, light bulbs, etc. If one has just bought a car and the cost of new tires is something one may have to plan for, I suggest setting up a "sinking fund" so that when the time comes, one has the money to buy the tires and/or whatever other consumables one knows will be needed.

All that rigamarole about what money someone may not have when the tread wears out is just a lame excuse for being an irresponsible adult. The fact is that for very few people (if any) in the U.S. is car ownership less expensive than at least one alternative means of transportation. I'm not advocating that one buy a car; I'm saying that if one does, one must be responsible about maintaining it, and that responsibility extends beyond just keeping in good enough order that it will get one from point A to point B. One has a responsibility to maintain it to the extent that one's use of it does not unduly affect others' with whom one must share the road.

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

Ok, I see the point. So what if the insurance industry got together and said, "We will not insure a vehicle with insufficient tread depth."? What would your arguement be then? I, in no way, intended for this to be a government program, nessicarily. There are ways, as I just pointed out, that the private sector could institute such a requirement.

Which again would require people to regularly go out and check their tread depth, and goes back to my original point, in urban areas you would kill more people accidentally due to their having to stand by their tires and measure, than you would save from more tires not being worn out.

The people stupid enough to not find a safe place to check their tires are likely going to ge killed in some other stupid manner anyway. So, I guess using that logic, we should deny people the ability to lock their car doors too. We should also outlaw windows on the first floor, since they would hinder a persons' egress in an emergency as well. Point is, your arguement carries no weight because there is no requirement as to WHERE the tires are checked, only THAT they are checked. Why do you insist on arguing that people would be killed checking their tires, when there is no reason for a person to put themselves at risk to check? The point is not to protect the stupid from themselves, the point is to protect the rest of us for the negligence of the stupid.

I have to assume you are a person that owns a driveway or a garage. IF you require that a car has sufficient tire pressure or tread, and intend to mete out punishment, then prudence would demand that people check this each time they use their vehicle. If I find a parking spot the night before, and as in my neighborhood parking is at a premium and you take the spot you get, what am I supposed to do? Most of the times I park on the main road, and I have already lost 4 driver's side mirrors in 4 years due to idiots driving too close to the parked cars. Am I now supposed to risk driving without checking my tire pressure, considering that as per one of the comments above, I can be fined $1500-$3000 if I somehow get into an accident?

 

[martybegan]

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

Ok, I see the point. So what if the insurance industry got together and said, "We will not insure a vehicle with insufficient tread depth."? What would your arguement be then? I, in no way, intended for this to be a government program, nessicarily. There are ways, as I just pointed out, that the private sector could institute such a requirement.

Which again would require people to regularly go out and check their tread depth, and goes back to my original point, in urban areas you would kill more people accidentally due to their having to stand by their tires and measure, than you would save from more tires not being worn out.

Why do you presume that tire measuring could not be performed in a parking lot, alleyway, garage, or any number of other places safer than the side of the road, or middle of the road if that's what you have in mind?

I live in D.C., downtown in fact. There are lot of safe places for me to check the tire tread. I mentor several kids who live in D.C. in what can only be called "the slums." There are lots of places there as well. Indeed, there are plenty of safe places to perform the check in every residential part of the city.

Nobody is saying one must attempt to measure the tire tread at a stoplight in the middle of the busiest city streets.

At this point, I have to ask, are you in fact a mature adult, or at least 25 years old? I'm beginning to think you are not because your comments sound like the kinds of stuff my kids would say when they were in their teens. If you are indeed not a mature adult, fine, I then understand why you're going down this "road" with your remarks.

I'm going to be frank. I don't willfully engage in discussions like the ones on USMB with minors. There's just no point in my doing so. There's no reasoning with the "infallibility" of a minor. I also don't willfully engage with immature adults, for much the same reason.

I'm almost 41. What my problem is I am sick of government heaping more and more crap on us to do, mostly to cover our asses about breaking some ridiculous regulation.

So I have to change my plans to find some place to park every few days to check my tire treads, my air pressure, and whatever other stuff you can dream up for me to do, all in the interest of some perceived increase in safety?

If you propose punishing bad treads or air pressure or anything else it behooves you to check those things every single time you drive, and in NYC finding a spot where you are not at risk from some dunderhead driving too close to parked cars is not always possible.

Fine, don't check your tires. Then when you cause an accident because of said tires being under/over inflated, or worn out, your insurance company declines your claim. Fine with me, fewer claims mean lower rates for the rest of us.
Please stop with the but what if... crap. This is a serious discussion, if you are unable to take it seriously, please refrain from continuing.

It isn't what if crap, see my previous post. IF you require people to make sure their tires are properly inflated, they have to check them, and IF you want to fine them a ton of money when it is found the pressures were not right if they get into an accident, then they would be idiots not to check every time they got in the car. What I am saying is that requirement, in urban areas, would require people to kneel down around traffic, and unruly traffic at that.

 

[320 Years of History]

Red:
That may be so; I can see how it could happen. So what?

For example, let's say I need butter for my toast everyday. When I see I'm down to some level that is close to "not enough butter" given my usage habits, I buy butter.

It's no different with car tires. It's a self inspection. of tires. If drive your care, how much of a burden is it to check from time to time? I think the answer to that is "none that is onerous."

The "quarter" and "penny" tire tread tests are hardly arbitrary. To the contrary, they are what folks have used quite effectively for years now. Indeed, they are so simple, quick and effective that even major tire makers advocate using them.

The only thing oldsoul has proposed is that folks be required to check the darn tire tread on a routine and recurring basis. If one cannot be left to one's own devices and judgment to check the damn tread on a tire, I'd question whether one has any business owning a car, much less a driver's license.


Blue:
While implementing my suggested ideas may have that as a consequence, it is not what I was implying. Not even close. My intended implications involve personal responsibility, not personal wealth. The act of owning a car (choosing to do so) implies a level of personal wealth, namely enough wealth to maintain the car one owns.

For example, one may have the means to buy a Bentley. Fine. Buy it. But if one isn't willing or able to pay at least $350 each for tires, or a few grand to get new brakes, one probably should buy a different car.

The concept is no different at any point along the price spectrum. At the very bottom of the price spectrum, the consideration may have to be not what other car to choose, but whether one should own a car at all. In the context of this thread, it doesn't matter what tire you put on your car so long as it has enough tread.

The fact of the matter is that affording a vehicle is affording the maintenance and indirect costs that accompany doing so. The instant one takes ownership of a car, one knows (or damn well should) that the tire tread is going to wear out. Tires aren't the only "consumable" associated with a car...oil, bushings, gaskets, brakes, shocks/struts, light bulbs, etc. If one has just bought a car and the cost of new tires is something one may have to plan for, I suggest setting up a "sinking fund" so that when the time comes, one has the money to buy the tires and/or whatever other consumables one knows will be needed.

All that rigamarole about what money someone may not have when the tread wears out is just a lame excuse for being an irresponsible adult. The fact is that for very few people (if any) in the U.S. is car ownership less expensive than at least one alternative means of transportation. I'm not advocating that one buy a car; I'm saying that if one does, one must be responsible about maintaining it, and that responsibility extends beyond just keeping in good enough order that it will get one from point A to point B. One has a responsibility to maintain it to the extent that one's use of it does not unduly affect others' with whom one must share the road.

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

Ok, I see the point. So what if the insurance industry got together and said, "We will not insure a vehicle with insufficient tread depth."? What would your arguement be then? I, in no way, intended for this to be a government program, nessicarily. There are ways, as I just pointed out, that the private sector could institute such a requirement.

Which again would require people to regularly go out and check their tread depth, and goes back to my original point, in urban areas you would kill more people accidentally due to their having to stand by their tires and measure, than you would save from more tires not being worn out.

Why do you presume that tire measuring could not be performed in a parking lot, alleyway, garage, or any number of other places safer than the side of the road, or middle of the road if that's what you have in mind?

I live in D.C., downtown in fact. There are lot of safe places for me to check the tire tread. I mentor several kids who live in D.C. in what can only be called "the slums." There are lots of places there as well. Indeed, there are plenty of safe places to perform the check in every residential part of the city.

Nobody is saying one must attempt to measure the tire tread at a stoplight in the middle of the busiest city streets.

At this point, I have to ask, are you in fact a mature adult, or at least 25 years old? I'm beginning to think you are not because your comments sound like the kinds of stuff my kids would say when they were in their teens. If you are indeed not a mature adult, fine, I then understand why you're going down this "road" with your remarks.

I'm going to be frank. I don't willfully engage in discussions like the ones on USMB with minors. There's just no point in my doing so. There's no reasoning with the "infallibility" of a minor. I also don't willfully engage with immature adults, for much the same reason.

I'm almost 41. What my problem is I am sick of government heaping more and more crap on us to do, mostly to cover our asses about breaking some ridiculous regulation.

So I have to change my plans to find some place to park every few days to check my tire treads, my air pressure, and whatever other stuff you can dream up for me to do, all in the interest of some perceived increase in safety?

If you propose punishing bad treads or air pressure or anything else it behooves you to check those things every single time you drive, and in NYC finding a spot where you are not at risk from some dunderhead driving too close to parked cars is not always possible.

Out of curiosity, how do you know now when you need new tires?

I'll tell you how I know. I take my car in for routine service every year. Every so many years, the service writer says, "Your tire treads are kinda low." I ask him, "How far can I go with the tread that's left?" He tells me, and I make a decision about whether to have them replaced at that time or wait. If I opt to wait, I check the tires myself every month or couple months.

How is it I don't end up driving on "too low" tread? This may surprise you, but it's actually not hard to do, and my financial position has nothing to do with it.

I accomplish it by using my common sense and what I know about my own driving patterns. I have the sense to know that when the service writer told me, say, six months, he's figuring typical driving of ~12K - ~15K miles a year. I know I barely drive 6K miles a year between three cars, so I know damn well that the tread on my tires is easily going to be okay until the same time next year in all likelihood. It's not a matter that I have other cars I can drive; it's that I know about how much I'm going to drive the car in question. There's no fancy math; I just figure out how long it'd take me to drive the quantity of miles the service writer "guestimated" I have left in the tires. Also, since I know my service writer mentioned the tread, I just bother to dig down into my pocket and pull out a handy dandy penny or quarter every few months.

Look at that. I don't end up driving on near-bald tires. I don't spend more than a couple minutes making sure that doesn't happen. I didn't waste time looking for a place to check the tires. Glory be. Must be a miracle!

Red:
More crap? I literally just got up, walked from one end of the house to the other, down the stairs, out the door to the garage, past the cars in the garage and outside to the car in the driveway, checked all four tires with a quarter, and came back. Total time: < 3 minutes per the clock in my system tray, and my house is big enough that walking through it took noticeably longer than checking the tires.

It didn't even take long enough to get cold outside with just a undershirt, shirt and jeans on. I'm sorry, but I just do not see the burden in the proposed requirement and I certainly don't see it as a burden for the overwhelming majority of people in the U.S.


Blue:
Puh-lease! If you insist on being anal retentive about it, that's on you. Nobody is requiring that, but NYC has plenty of therapists who can help you if you have some sort of OCD-thing that compels you to check it daily. I think you are trying to make this simple activity into something that it, quite simply, is not, and the OP-er isn't proposing.

If you are truly saying that you don't have some sensible estimate of how many miles tire tread lasts before wearing too thin or being close to too thin, I suggest you just look or ask. If you buy the via the Internet, you'll see estimated tire life noted with the tire. If you buy them at a retail store, just ask the clerk.


Pink:
Back when I mostly worked in NYC, I had a pied a terre in Manhattan at "The Sevens" on 6th.

One need not lay prone to check the tread depth and nobody expects you to check your tires in the middle of one of the major thoroughfares (avenues/blvds/hwy) in NYC. Surely you periodically find yourself parking on a quiet enough street. Most relevantly, however, a great many of the busy streets in NYC don't allow one to park, at least in Manhattan. The parking rules vary, of course. It's not a given that even locals know what they are everywhere they may want to park, which is why I provided the link in the preceding sentence.

Being a New Yorker, you know as well as I do there are plenty of cross streets that are quiet enough. Moreover, you know as well as I do that if one lives in Manhattan and owns/keeps a car there too, one's car is in a parking facility, and that is a more than adequately safe locale for taking a minute to check the tires.

Lastly, I don't even know why you mentioned NYC because if you live there, you know, just as I do, that over half the people there don't own a car, so why this is even that big a deal to them is a mystery to me. Moreover, if you live in NYC, I'm speculating you moved there from some suburban or rural place. As a lifelong major city dweller-- even when I'm working overseas, I stay at flats or hotels in the centers of London, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Dalian, Singapore, Bangkok, Buenos Aires, and other very busy and very big cities -- I can assure you that the vast majority of New York city car owners are innovative enough to figure out how and when to safely check their tire pressure if their options are "check it and change the tires in a timely manner," or "don't check it and risk a $1500+ ticket and temporary loss of their driver's license." Indeed, if you were having this conversation in person with a long time city dweller, including me, the person would laugh in your face, tell you to "deal with it; figure it out; get over it" and, if you are a particularly nice person, change the topic, or if you aren't a nice person, shut you down and walk away.

That's part of why I asked if you are an adult. I wouldn't do that to a child, but I most certainly will to an adult who's just being ridiculous. Translation: this has been a truly entertaining dialogue, but I'm now done. If you respond as you have been, you will in fact get the last word with me.

 

[martybegan]

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

Ok, I see the point. So what if the insurance industry got together and said, "We will not insure a vehicle with insufficient tread depth."? What would your arguement be then? I, in no way, intended for this to be a government program, nessicarily. There are ways, as I just pointed out, that the private sector could institute such a requirement.

Which again would require people to regularly go out and check their tread depth, and goes back to my original point, in urban areas you would kill more people accidentally due to their having to stand by their tires and measure, than you would save from more tires not being worn out.

Why do you presume that tire measuring could not be performed in a parking lot, alleyway, garage, or any number of other places safer than the side of the road, or middle of the road if that's what you have in mind?

I live in D.C., downtown in fact. There are lot of safe places for me to check the tire tread. I mentor several kids who live in D.C. in what can only be called "the slums." There are lots of places there as well. Indeed, there are plenty of safe places to perform the check in every residential part of the city.

Nobody is saying one must attempt to measure the tire tread at a stoplight in the middle of the busiest city streets.

At this point, I have to ask, are you in fact a mature adult, or at least 25 years old? I'm beginning to think you are not because your comments sound like the kinds of stuff my kids would say when they were in their teens. If you are indeed not a mature adult, fine, I then understand why you're going down this "road" with your remarks.

I'm going to be frank. I don't willfully engage in discussions like the ones on USMB with minors. There's just no point in my doing so. There's no reasoning with the "infallibility" of a minor. I also don't willfully engage with immature adults, for much the same reason.

I'm almost 41. What my problem is I am sick of government heaping more and more crap on us to do, mostly to cover our asses about breaking some ridiculous regulation.

So I have to change my plans to find some place to park every few days to check my tire treads, my air pressure, and whatever other stuff you can dream up for me to do, all in the interest of some perceived increase in safety?

If you propose punishing bad treads or air pressure or anything else it behooves you to check those things every single time you drive, and in NYC finding a spot where you are not at risk from some dunderhead driving too close to parked cars is not always possible.

Out of curiosity, how do you know now when you need new tires?

I'll tell you how I know. I take my car in for routine service every year. Every so many years, the service writer says, "Your tire treads are kinda low." I ask him, "How far can I go with the tread that's left?" He tells me, and I make a decision about whether to have them replaced at that time or wait. If I opt to wait, I check the tires myself every month or couple months.

How is it I don't end up driving on "too low" tread? This may surprise you, but it's actually not hard to do, and my financial position has nothing to do with it.

I accomplish it by using my common sense and what I know about my own driving patterns. I have the sense to know that when the service writer told me, say, six months, he's figuring typical driving of ~12K - ~15K miles a year. I know I barely drive 6K miles a year between three cars, so I know damn well that the tread on my tires is easily going to be okay until the same time next year in all likelihood. It's not a matter that I have other cars I can drive; it's that I know about how much I'm going to drive the car in question. There's no fancy math; I just figure out how long it'd take me to drive the quantity of miles the service writer "guestimated" I have left in the tires. Also, since I know my service writer mentioned the tread, I just bother to dig down into my pocket and pull out a handy dandy penny or quarter every few months.

Look at that. I don't end up driving on near-bald tires. I don't spend more than a couple minutes making sure that doesn't happen. I didn't waste time looking for a place to check the tires. Glory be. Must be a miracle!

Red:
More crap? I literally just got up, walked from one end of the house to the other, down the stairs, out the door to the garage, past the cars in the garage and outside to the car in the driveway, checked all four tires with a quarter, and came back. Total time: < 3 minutes per the clock in my system tray, and my house is big enough that walking through it took noticeably longer than checking the tires.

It didn't even take long enough to get cold outside with just a undershirt, shirt and jeans on. I'm sorry, but I just do not see the burden in the proposed requirement and I certainly don't see it as a burden for the overwhelming majority of people in the U.S.


Blue:
Puh-lease! If you insist on being anal retentive about it, that's on you. Nobody is requiring that, but NYC has plenty of therapists who can help you if you have some sort of OCD-thing that compels you to check it daily. I think you are trying to make this simple activity into something that it, quite simply, is not, and the OP-er isn't proposing.

If you are truly saying that you don't have some sensible estimate of how many miles tire tread lasts before wearing too thin or being close to too thin, I suggest you just look or ask. If you buy the via the Internet, you'll see estimated tire life noted with the tire. If you buy them at a retail store, just ask the clerk.


Pink:
Back when I mostly worked in NYC, I had a pied a terre in Manhattan at "The Sevens" on 6th.

One need not lay prone to check the tread depth and nobody expects you to check your tires in the middle of one of the major thoroughfares (avenues/blvds/hwy) in NYC. Surely you periodically find yourself parking on a quiet enough street. Most relevantly, however, a great many of the busy streets in NYC don't allow one to park, at least in Manhattan. The parking rules vary, of course. It's not a given that even locals know what they are everywhere they may want to park, which is why I provided the link in the preceding sentence.

Being a New Yorker, you know as well as I do there are plenty of cross streets that are quiet enough. Moreover, you know as well as I do that if one lives in Manhattan and owns/keeps a car there too, one's car is in a parking facility, and that is a more than adequately safe locale for taking a minute to check the tires.

Lastly, I don't even know why you mentioned NYC because if you live there, you know, just as I do, that over half the people there don't own a car, so why this is even that big a deal to them is a mystery to me. Moreover, if you live in NYC, I'm speculating you moved there from some suburban or rural place. As a lifelong major city dweller-- even when I'm working overseas, I stay at flats or hotels in the centers of London, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Dalian, Singapore, Bangkok, Buenos Aires, and other very busy and very big cities -- I can assure you that the vast majority of New York city car owners are innovative enough to figure out how and when to safely check their tire pressure if their options are "check it and change the tires in a timely manner," or "don't check it and risk a $1500+ ticket and temporary loss of their driver's license." Indeed, if you were having this conversation in person with a long time city dweller, including me, the person would laugh in your face, tell you to "deal with it; figure it out; get over it" and, if you are a particularly nice person, change the topic, or if you aren't a nice person, shut you down and walk away.

That's part of why I asked if you are an adult. I wouldn't do that to a child, but I most certainly will to an adult who's just being ridiculous. Translation: this has been a truly entertaining dialogue, but I'm now done. If you respond as you have been, you will in fact get the last word with me.

This is the CDZ, even though you are hiding your personal attacks in a wall of text, they don't belong here.

As for the rest, TL;DR.

 

[FA_Q2]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

What drove my questions was this from the OP:

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

It's a matter of scope...I just don't see what the log has to do with what the OP asked. I realize the exigencies entailed with implementing a policy. I'm not denying them as downstream things one must address, and how to track compliance is certainly among those things. But to answer "is requiring inspections a good idea or not" is a question for which no log is required.

In fairness, I not long ago opened a thread in which I asked people if they thought a given goal is worth achieving or not worth it. It was inordinately challenging to keep folks focused on the idea that the thread scope was whether the idea itself is any good, worth aiming to achieve, not the pros, cons and challenges of implementing the idea.

I don't know what you know about scope creep, but it's an insidious destroyer of success:

• http://www.villanovau.com/resources/project-management/project-management-scope-creep/#.Vt2BkJwrLcs
  
• The Dangers of Scope Creep
• Stop Scope Creep Running Away With Your Project

I realize this isn't a project; however, even in a simple conversation, it's all but impossible to accomplish "whatever" -- just getting the answer to a simple question, for example -- is all but impossible if folks don't stay focused on what is under discussion and ignore what is not.

For example, if I ask my family, "Do you want to to to Bali for our fall family vacation?", what we have to do to get to Bali, what we'll find or do there, who is or isn't going to be there, etc. doesn't matter if nobody wants to go in the first place. A whole lot of discussion and time wasted can be avoided if they just answer the damn question I asked. I didn't ask them why they think we should go to Bali or not; whatever reason they have for wanting to go or not wanting to go is fine by me.

• If they want to assume we lack the money for the trip, fine.
• If they've looked into the safety of being in Bali and think it's an unsafe place, fine.
• If they have a friend there whom they want to see, fine.
• If the idea of visiting a nude beach appeals to them and they think Bali has some, fine.
• If they think "never heard of it, don't know where it is, have no idea what to expect, sure, let's go check it out," fine.

At that point in the game, I don't need to know why they want to go or don't want to go. That's why I asked a "yes or no" question. If most of them want to go, we can move on to how to get there and what to do there, and when we'll go, etc. If they say "no," I'm going to ask where they want to go, or I'll propose something new, or I may ditch the idea of our taking a fall family vacation.

The OP's question in this thread is no different. The reason for asking a simple "step 1" question is so that one can learn whether there's any value at all in proceeding to "step 2."

However, in this context, the original question is silly.

Should we go to Bali is a rather subjective and open question. There is a reasonable expectation that one might not want to go there. There is no reasonable expectation that a safety inspection on your vehicle is a bad idea.

I might as well ask if it is a good idea to continue breathing. Devoting an entire thread to that is rather nonsensical. The very act of asking this question begs several others and that is exactly what the OP said they wanted to avoid. As I stated above, you simply cannot avoid the idea of scope and legal requirement when asking a question like this.

 

[FA_Q2]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

And yet a cursory search of states that have these safety inspections (which includes tire wear) shows that they do nothing to make the roads safer.

There fine is essentially unjustified.

 

[FA_Q2]

you know what a $1500 or $3000 fine would do to some families? And the "coin test" is arbitrary and is something that can go from pass to fail during a single drive.

It also implies that only people that can afford to replace their tires the second they get close to low have the right to drive cars.

Red:
That may be so; I can see how it could happen. So what?

For example, let's say I need butter for my toast everyday. When I see I'm down to some level that is close to "not enough butter" given my usage habits, I buy butter.

It's no different with car tires. It's a self inspection. of tires. If drive your care, how much of a burden is it to check from time to time? I think the answer to that is "none that is onerous."

The "quarter" and "penny" tire tread tests are hardly arbitrary. To the contrary, they are what folks have used quite effectively for years now. Indeed, they are so simple, quick and effective that even major tire makers advocate using them.

The only thing oldsoul has proposed is that folks be required to check the darn tire tread on a routine and recurring basis. If one cannot be left to one's own devices and judgment to check the damn tread on a tire, I'd question whether one has any business owning a car, much less a driver's license.


Blue:
While implementing my suggested ideas may have that as a consequence, it is not what I was implying. Not even close. My intended implications involve personal responsibility, not personal wealth. The act of owning a car (choosing to do so) implies a level of personal wealth, namely enough wealth to maintain the car one owns.

For example, one may have the means to buy a Bentley. Fine. Buy it. But if one isn't willing or able to pay at least $350 each for tires, or a few grand to get new brakes, one probably should buy a different car.

The concept is no different at any point along the price spectrum. At the very bottom of the price spectrum, the consideration may have to be not what other car to choose, but whether one should own a car at all. In the context of this thread, it doesn't matter what tire you put on your car so long as it has enough tread.

The fact of the matter is that affording a vehicle is affording the maintenance and indirect costs that accompany doing so. The instant one takes ownership of a car, one knows (or damn well should) that the tire tread is going to wear out. Tires aren't the only "consumable" associated with a car...oil, bushings, gaskets, brakes, shocks/struts, light bulbs, etc. If one has just bought a car and the cost of new tires is something one may have to plan for, I suggest setting up a "sinking fund" so that when the time comes, one has the money to buy the tires and/or whatever other consumables one knows will be needed.

All that rigamarole about what money someone may not have when the tread wears out is just a lame excuse for being an irresponsible adult. The fact is that for very few people (if any) in the U.S. is car ownership less expensive than at least one alternative means of transportation. I'm not advocating that one buy a car; I'm saying that if one does, one must be responsible about maintaining it, and that responsibility extends beyond just keeping in good enough order that it will get one from point A to point B. One has a responsibility to maintain it to the extent that one's use of it does not unduly affect others' with whom one must share the road.

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

Ok, I see the point. So what if the insurance industry got together and said, "We will not insure a vehicle with insufficient tread depth."? What would your arguement be then? I, in no way, intended for this to be a government program, nessicarily. There are ways, as I just pointed out, that the private sector could institute such a requirement.

Which again would require people to regularly go out and check their tread depth, and goes back to my original point, in urban areas you would kill more people accidentally due to their having to stand by their tires and measure, than you would save from more tires not being worn out.

The people stupid enough to not find a safe place to check their tires are likely going to ge killed in some other stupid manner anyway. So, I guess using that logic, we should deny people the ability to lock their car doors too. We should also outlaw windows on the first floor, since they would hinder a persons' egress in an emergency as well. Point is, your arguement carries no weight because there is no requirement as to WHERE the tires are checked, only THAT they are checked. Why do you insist on arguing that people would be killed checking their tires, when there is no reason for a person to put themselves at risk to check? The point is not to protect the stupid from themselves, the point is to protect the rest of us for the negligence of the stupid.

That is actually the exact opposite of what he said.

I have no idea why this is so hard to understand - you have not JUSTIFIED WHY we would need such requirements/fines/punishments for these checks. What you have is an arbitrary 'hey wouldn't it be nice if' and that is simply insufficient to force people through regulation to perform such checks.

Further, there is a massive difference in stating forcing those checks is going to be a zero sum gain or net loss because people are idiots and running to solve that idiocy through more regulation. If you fall out of your window and kill yourself because you were being an idiot oh well. That was all on you. We don't need regulation to protect yourself from that. We also do not need regulation to control your tire treads either.

 

[320 Years of History]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

And yet a cursory search of states that have these safety inspections (which includes tire wear) shows that they do nothing to make the roads safer.

There fine is essentially unjustified.

Red:
Can you point me to the data that show that to be so?

Just seeing your assertion challenges "common sense," but it isn't the only thing in the world that does. I "get" that common sense doesn't always pan out to be right. So that't why I'm asking for a link, or something, that you used to arrive at the conclusion you stated. I'm not opposed to accepting that "safety inspections do nothing to make the roads safer," but it sure doesn't seem as though that should be the case.

 

[oldsoul]

Red:
That may be so; I can see how it could happen. So what?

For example, let's say I need butter for my toast everyday. When I see I'm down to some level that is close to "not enough butter" given my usage habits, I buy butter.

It's no different with car tires. It's a self inspection. of tires. If drive your care, how much of a burden is it to check from time to time? I think the answer to that is "none that is onerous."

The "quarter" and "penny" tire tread tests are hardly arbitrary. To the contrary, they are what folks have used quite effectively for years now. Indeed, they are so simple, quick and effective that even major tire makers advocate using them.

The only thing oldsoul has proposed is that folks be required to check the darn tire tread on a routine and recurring basis. If one cannot be left to one's own devices and judgment to check the damn tread on a tire, I'd question whether one has any business owning a car, much less a driver's license.


Blue:
While implementing my suggested ideas may have that as a consequence, it is not what I was implying. Not even close. My intended implications involve personal responsibility, not personal wealth. The act of owning a car (choosing to do so) implies a level of personal wealth, namely enough wealth to maintain the car one owns.

For example, one may have the means to buy a Bentley. Fine. Buy it. But if one isn't willing or able to pay at least $350 each for tires, or a few grand to get new brakes, one probably should buy a different car.

The concept is no different at any point along the price spectrum. At the very bottom of the price spectrum, the consideration may have to be not what other car to choose, but whether one should own a car at all. In the context of this thread, it doesn't matter what tire you put on your car so long as it has enough tread.

The fact of the matter is that affording a vehicle is affording the maintenance and indirect costs that accompany doing so. The instant one takes ownership of a car, one knows (or damn well should) that the tire tread is going to wear out. Tires aren't the only "consumable" associated with a car...oil, bushings, gaskets, brakes, shocks/struts, light bulbs, etc. If one has just bought a car and the cost of new tires is something one may have to plan for, I suggest setting up a "sinking fund" so that when the time comes, one has the money to buy the tires and/or whatever other consumables one knows will be needed.

All that rigamarole about what money someone may not have when the tread wears out is just a lame excuse for being an irresponsible adult. The fact is that for very few people (if any) in the U.S. is car ownership less expensive than at least one alternative means of transportation. I'm not advocating that one buy a car; I'm saying that if one does, one must be responsible about maintaining it, and that responsibility extends beyond just keeping in good enough order that it will get one from point A to point B. One has a responsibility to maintain it to the extent that one's use of it does not unduly affect others' with whom one must share the road.

Government will see it as a way of making $$, like they do with all fines. This is just more government over-regulation.

Ok, I see the point. So what if the insurance industry got together and said, "We will not insure a vehicle with insufficient tread depth."? What would your arguement be then? I, in no way, intended for this to be a government program, nessicarily. There are ways, as I just pointed out, that the private sector could institute such a requirement.

Which again would require people to regularly go out and check their tread depth, and goes back to my original point, in urban areas you would kill more people accidentally due to their having to stand by their tires and measure, than you would save from more tires not being worn out.

The people stupid enough to not find a safe place to check their tires are likely going to ge killed in some other stupid manner anyway. So, I guess using that logic, we should deny people the ability to lock their car doors too. We should also outlaw windows on the first floor, since they would hinder a persons' egress in an emergency as well. Point is, your arguement carries no weight because there is no requirement as to WHERE the tires are checked, only THAT they are checked. Why do you insist on arguing that people would be killed checking their tires, when there is no reason for a person to put themselves at risk to check? The point is not to protect the stupid from themselves, the point is to protect the rest of us for the negligence of the stupid.

I have to assume you are a person that owns a driveway or a garage. IF you require that a car has sufficient tire pressure or tread, and intend to mete out punishment, then prudence would demand that people check this each time they use their vehicle. If I find a parking spot the night before, and as in my neighborhood parking is at a premium and you take the spot you get, what am I supposed to do? Most of the times I park on the main road, and I have already lost 4 driver's side mirrors in 4 years due to idiots driving too close to the parked cars. Am I now supposed to risk driving without checking my tire pressure, considering that as per one of the comments above, I can be fined $1500-$3000 if I somehow get into an accident?

I did a quick Google search and foud there are 39 gas stations in Manhattan alone. I also discovered there are 6,074 miles of roadway in NYC. I would find it difficult to believe that a person would find it difficult to find one of these gas stations to do a thourough check of tread and pressure.
If a person where to find themselves parked in a place that does not permit the safe inspection of their tires before driving, I would think a person could do a quick visual check and procceed to the nearest gas station to comlete a better inspection.
Regardless, are you arguing then that, sense it is difficult for a minority of drivers to comply, that no such regulation should exist? And what of the idea that insurance companies would institute such a requirement? Would you then argue that they are engaging in unfair business practices? I really do not understand how a sane person can argue against an insurance company refusing a claim when the driver/ower of a vehicle did not do "do diligence" to ensure the vehicle was safe. I can understand an arguement that government, at all levels, should stay out of it. I may not agree, but I can understand the arguement.
It seems as though you are caught up on the "daily" part, would you see it as too difficult for a weekly, or monthly check as well? It could be done at the gas station, when you fill-up on fuel. Would that satisfy your safety arguement?