Police tyre checks

[Bowie69]

It seems you succeeded!

Now more 4x4's will be fitted with correctly rated tyres and fewer people will get tickets.

That's a good thing. Isn't it?

An excellent thing, in fact, maybe I should review the BFG Muds(I just checked, Q rated) I have on my V8 Rangie... 'apparently' it will do 110mph, but sod that for a game of soldiers!

I'm suprised TBH, that people like Paddocks etc sell you a tyre knowing damn well that it's unsuitable for the vehicle.

[missingsid]

Pat.

If you read my post on this subject..A precedent {SP} has already been set in a court of law in the UK. A Rover SD1 driver was succcessfully prosecuted for using a lower speed rating tyre than the manufactures recomended. The drivers argument was that as there was a blanket speed limit if 70mph he only required tyres to that speed. The courts didn't agree and found him guilty.

mike

This is the IMPORTANT truth in this topic. Once the precedent has been set in court this is the deciding factor in further cases of prosecusion. The C&U Regs offer the LAW, but a precedent set in court decides whether the Police will prosecute for further cases.

If the Police know that they will lose if your Brief nows of a precedent then they will not bother.

Marc.

[Aragorn]

I dont have any evidence of said precedence, and i would imagine that in light of such a thing, the regulations would be amended to take count of what was said.

The idea of a precedence being set only works if the C&U regs arent clear, or leave too much open to interpretation. If the regs explicitly state you can fit lower rated tyres as long as you dont exceed the speed limit of the tyre (just as you do when using a space saver) then its not up to a court to overturn said law. It requires an act of parliament to do so.

Hopefully i can get a hold of the regs next week, and that will clear up any ambiguity.

[pat_pending]

Pat.

If you read my post on this subject..A precedent {SP} has already been set in a court of law in the UK. A Rover SD1 driver was succcessfully prosecuted for using a lower speed rating tyre than the manufactures recomended. The drivers argument was that as there was a blanket speed limit if 70mph he only required tyres to that speed. The courts didn't agree and found him guilty.

mike

Mike, yes I read that, do you have any written reference to this case. We do need more than anecdotal evidence. I can't find my C&U regs, so what I wrote is only my opinion and not fact, I'm willing to be corrected.

What I can say with certainty is that load/speed ratings are NOT part of the MOT for class 4.

So as daft as it seems, you can stick a set of extreme M/Ts on a RR sport and it would pass with an advisory.

There is a moral argument over fitting incorrect tyres, but I really think we need to establish without doubt what's legal first.

[mmgemini]

Sorry Pat. I have no idea when ?? I have Weetabix for breakfast each day. I can't remember what I had for breakfast this morning

It was some time ago. Middle 1980's maybe....Midlands area I think. I suppose if I went through all my copies of Motor Sport it might be in there. Certainly I read about the case in a motoring magazine.

mike

[disco_al]

Soooo, just to throw another idea into the mix If you had tyres fitted that were rated as lower than the maximum permissable speed of the vehicle, but also had a notice fixed to the dashboard/speedo notifying the driver of the fact, how would that work with plod?

[will_warne]

Sorry Pat. I have no idea when ?? I have Weetabix for breakfast each day. I can't remember what I had for breakfast this morning

It was some time ago. Middle 1980's maybe....Midlands area I think. I suppose if I went through all my copies of Motor Sport it might be in there. Certainly I read about the case in a motoring magazine.

mike

Well, if it was after the '86 C&U regs came in the statute trumps it. English Law is a strange old beast but basically, today, statute sets the law and cases show how it applies.

[Mo Murphy]

An excellent thing, in fact, maybe I should review the BFG Muds(I just checked, Q rated) I have on my V8 Rangie... 'apparently' it will do 110mph, but sod that for a game of soldiers!

I'm suprised TBH, that people like Paddocks etc sell you a tyre knowing damn well that it's unsuitable for the vehicle.

Wow, a 110 mph ! If I could get my 90 to do 110 mph, 3 lanes wouldn't be wide enough

Mo

[MECCANO]

Soooo, just to throw another idea into the mix If you had tyres fitted that were rated as lower than the maximum permissable speed of the vehicle, but also had a notice fixed to the dashboard/speedo notifying the driver of the fact, how would that work with plod?

I was just thinking that today. A speed limiter circuit wouldn't be hard to build. I guess you would have to prove that it kicked in before the tyre rating was reached.

[Tom A]

Well, I've now read through regulation 25 "Tyre loads and speed ratings" several times - it's a fairly long and complex section but I can't see any mention of speed rating for replacement tyres. It's mostly involved with load/speed capacity of goods vehicles, load ratings and marking of tyres and derogations/exemptions for all sorts of specialist vehicles (electrically propelled, agricultural, municipal etc.)

If I'm reading it right (and I'm a remedial reader of law at best, so there's a good chance I'm not) then it probably would come down to interpretation in court - I suspect the critical phrase is in reg 27 para 1 "...a wheeled motor vehicle...shall not be used on the road, if - (a) the tyre is unsuitable having regard to the use to which the motor vehicle...is being put or to the types of tyres fitted to its other wheels;"

The Rover SD1 case mentioned would then be crucial, since it would determine whether the courts side with the argument that replacement tyres should meet the same specification as originally type approved or whether a lower specification is acceptable "having regard to the use to which the vehicle is being put". From the anecdotal evidence in this thread it would appear the former is the case.

This is not the same for load ratings by the way. Here reg 25 is clear: para 5 "..the tyre, as respects strength, shall be designed and manufactured adequately to support the maximum permitted axle weight for the axle" so you definitely can't use a similar logic to fit under-rated load-index tyres just because you're not using the full load capacity of a vehicle.

Usual disclaimer: I reserve the right to be utterly wrong about everything written above!

[simonr]

I have to admit that I've never considered whether the speed rating of my tyres is in excess of the theoretical top speed of the vehicle - only the actual top speed.

Does anyone have a list of speed ratings for current off road tyres plus what the official top speed of different Land Rover models and years?

I suspect something like a Simex ET might be legal on a Series 3 - but not on a Td5 Defender? I've read that Boggers only have a "B" rating - which is only 33mph!

It wouldn't be such a bad thing to compile for the tech archive?

Just for the record, I think it's right and proper that the Police pay attention to things like this - after all, you can do a lot of damage with a car!

Si

[bishbosh]

I had a quick look last night - couldn't find anything with a speed rating greater than Q - 99mph. Even BFG MT's are Q rated which surprised me a lot.

Bizarrely, 235 x 85 x16 Insa Special Tracks are N (87mph) rated but in 265 x 75 x 16 are Q rated. Go figure.......

I had a look for Land Rover official top speeds but didn't find much - just this site which obviously is not official.

From my searches there are very few rated for even a TDi 90.

Silverstone MT117 extremes - L

Khumo KL 71 - Q

35 x 10.5 Simex Extremes - L

anyone want to add to this..?

[ex_mod_90]

Hi All.

I have been reading this thread with interest. I have just had a quick look, and I believe my Simex ET's are 'N' rated (35x11.5 R16 -- 295/80/16 120 N on the sidewall) which I have read is 87MPH / 140KmH. However i'm not certain what the 120 means?

Now I cant find the published max speed data for my defender (200tdi) however I'm willing to bet that its going to be around 87MPH so I think that means i'm OK.

Unless someone here can tell me otherwise? Any ideas?

Rich.

[SteveG]

120 is the load rating

[Pam]

Hi All.

I have been reading this thread with interest. I have just had a quick look, and I believe my Simex ET's are 'N' rated (35x11.5 R16 -- 295/80/16 120 N on the sidewall) which I have read is 87MPH / 140KmH. However i'm not certain what the 120 means?

Now I cant find the published max speed data for my defender (200tdi) however I'm willing to bet that its going to be around 87MPH so I think that means i'm OK.

Unless someone here can tell me otherwise? Any ideas?

Rich.

That's odd. I looked at one of our Simex ETs last night and it deffo was rated L - which is 75mph ! We bought them just over a year ago, so maybe the rating has changed at some time. Out of interest, I'll check the others tomorrow.

[HoggyN]

I was just thinking that today. A speed limiter circuit wouldn't be hard to build. I guess you would have to prove that it kicked in before the tyre rating was reached.

This was my line of thought also. I expect, to be taken seriously, it would need to be hard wired into the ignition or fuel system and inaccessible to the driver. The same way that adjustable brake bias valves should be for the IVA.

That's odd. I looked at one of our Simex ETs last night and it deffo was rated L - which is 75mph ! We bought them just over a year ago, so maybe the rating has changed at some time. Out of interest, I'll check the others tomorrow.

I found the speed ratings for Simex from here Simextyres.co.nz

[MECCANO]

This was my line of thought also. I expect, to be taken seriously, it would need to be hard wired into the ignition or fuel system and inaccessible to the driver. The same way that adjustable brake bias valves should be for the IVA.

I figured you would just use the fuel solenoid cut off like a rev limiter.

On a fly by wire system... if you had the time you cap the throttle ( like you see in alot fo modern cars), so you can press as hard as you like. once you reach that stated speed you can't exceed it. A kind of adaptation of cruise control.

I believe land rover put limiters on the 50th anneversary, as the bfg's they were fitted with could be exceeded. Does any one know any more about this? For some reason i seem to think it was only an audible warning ( which doesn't sound right B) )

[bishbosh]

You'd need to SVA / IVA your truck with the Heath Robinson speed limiter to have any legal standing I would have thought.

Don't forget, it is the type approved max speed of the vehicle as new that is the benchmark.

[MECCANO]

You'd need to SVA / IVA your truck with the Heath Robinson speed limiter to have any legal standing I would have thought.

Don't forget, it is the type approved max speed of the vehicle as new that is the benchmark.

I take a fence to that It would be a well designed box of electricery

Yeah, i see what you mean. And as an average joe you wouldn't stand a fighting chance trying to argue its correctly calibrated. As we all know dynos's and such like devices vary with speed holes and go faster stripes.

The time you waste trying to develop it, you could have spent doing the overtime to buy the high rating tyres in the first place.

[tattoed]

My 14 year old disco no longer does its top speed like when it was new, and i have 23 year old defender same story. so the plod can suck eggs.

Just drive carefully and stick to the legal speed limit, done

[disco tony]

My 14 year old disco no longer does its top speed like when it was new, and i have 23 year old defender same story. so the plod can suck eggs.

Just drive carefully and stick to the legal speed limit, done

you just might be!!! thats the whole point

[reads90]

My 14 year old disco no longer does its top speed like when it was new, and i have 23 year old defender same story. so the plod can suck eggs.

Just drive carefully and stick to the legal speed limit, done

mmm does not work like that . You will get nicked and that sort of talk won't help you one bit

You can still stick to the speed limit but they can still stop you if they think your tyres are not legal for the car. Even if you don't drive above 30 mph .

[pat_pending]

Well, I've now read through regulation 25 "Tyre loads and speed ratings" several times - it's a fairly long and complex section but I can't see any mention of speed rating for replacement tyres. It's mostly involved with load/speed capacity of goods vehicles, load ratings and marking of tyres and derogations/exemptions for all sorts of specialist vehicles (electrically propelled, agricultural, municipal etc.)

If I'm reading it right (and I'm a remedial reader of law at best, so there's a good chance I'm not) then it probably would come down to interpretation in court - I suspect the critical phrase is in reg 27 para 1 "...a wheeled motor vehicle...shall not be used on the road, if - (a) the tyre is unsuitable having regard to the use to which the motor vehicle...is being put or to the types of tyres fitted to its other wheels;"

The Rover SD1 case mentioned would then be crucial, since it would determine whether the courts side with the argument that replacement tyres should meet the same specification as originally type approved or whether a lower specification is acceptable "having regard to the use to which the vehicle is being put". From the anecdotal evidence in this thread it would appear the former is the case.

This is not the same for load ratings by the way. Here reg 25 is clear: para 5 "..the tyre, as respects strength, shall be designed and manufactured adequately to support the maximum permitted axle weight for the axle" so you definitely can't use a similar logic to fit under-rated load-index tyres just because you're not using the full load capacity of a vehicle.

Usual disclaimer: I reserve the right to be utterly wrong about everything written above!

Yes, that's my understanding of the law.

The load rating must be adequate but the speed rating is more open to interpretation.

This could back up Mikes post about the SD1. The courts may view a big powerful saloon car capable of prolonged high speed, differently to a Land Rover.

I don't think there is a definitive answer, it would all depend on the circumstances if you were pulled and checked.

[Dave W]

Not forgetting of course that the act in question is from 1986 and the SD1 was at teh end of it's life then so the case may have originated before this version of the act...

[Hybrid_From_Hell]

Hmmmmm

http://www.tyresave.co.uk/tyrspeed.html

Read their words - box of frogs ???

It was one of the reasons I went Simex JTs (Q=100MPH) vs Simex ETs (was 62MPH now 75 MPH)

with a LR Factory V8 at 86 mph Top speed, ..... but the linky above does seem an 'interesting little find' ?

Nige