Pttateabiatiat
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Olio?
I refer to your article in CM July 29 entitled, -Tyre tread appeal dismissed."
I understand that Mr
Machin, QC, for Wincanton, argued that the appeal should be allowed and stressed the fact that neither -treadnor -tread pattern" were defined in C and U Regulations or the 1 972 Act. This is indeed true and the further argument that Mr Lawton made (CM July 1) was that it was impossible to make realistic measurement of wear, etc, to compare with the "loose" requirements of the
Regulations and have to accept a police officers' professional opinion. "Opinion" is not acceptable to decide whether this requirement is met.
I understand that some measurements were produced in court and at first glance it did appear that the three-quarters of the total trea+ was not met, but again, the measurements were suspect; for instance, 182 mm was quoted as the total tread width but due to the peculiar wear where one edge of the tyre hac worn, the tread width could only have been measured accurately where it was in contact with the ground and al the correct tyre pressure.
If this basic measurement was not made, none of the other calculations were valid.