CDZ Should passenger vehicle inspections be required?

[oldsoul]

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.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege to drive on public roadways. If one where to find it too difficult, or cumbersome to comly with safe operating procceedures, one should stop driving. Just as if one found business to be too cumbersome. Or any number of other privileges.

 

[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.

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.

??? I don't know what you are getting at. There's nothing subjective at all about the question asked or answer given. There is not because for any "yes or no" question,the point to find out what folks' answer(s) is, and there are a very limited population of valid answers. What does whether one thinks the answer will be "yes" or "no" have to do with how one responds upon receiving the actual answer respondents give?

There is only one class of "yes/no" questions, and it's always objective. There are always only three possible answers to "yes/no" questions: "yes," "no," or "I don't know." (or, given the question, a substantive equivalent of "I don't know") Here are some examples:

• A simple "yes/no" question:
  • "Did you wear a blue shirt yesterday?"
    "Yes. I wore a blue shirt yesterday."
    
    This is the simplest "yes/no" question to answer. One either did or did not wear a blue shirt yesterday. There's little to think about in arriving at the answer, and that's what makes it a simple question.
• A simple "yes/no" question for which one is expected to consider any number of things -- e.g., facts, ethics, laws, space-time, whatever -- and come to one's own conclusion and state it as a "yes/no" reply to the question.
  • "Should we should invade Cuba?"
    "Yes. I think we should invade Cuba."
    
    This is a question that asked one to state their position. The respondent may see reasons for answering "yes" and reasons for answering "no," but the question requires they weigh those reasons and identify, by answering "yes" or "no," whether primarily their thoughts lean "yes" or lean "no." If they honestly feel the "yes" and "no" elements are equal in merit (weight), their answer should be "I don't know," or a substantive equivalent such as "I don't care if we do or do not invade Cuba."
    
    This question is not simple in that one must, for oneself, evaluate a number of things in order to arrive at the answer. The thing is that the person who asked the question isn't asking what one considered,or how one weighted the factors evaluated, to arrive at the answer. The inquirer merely wants one's answer.

In both questions above, the accurate answer is the one that is truthful. An inaccurate answer is one that is not truthful. If one does not think we should invade Cuba, answering "yes" or "I don't know" would be an inaccurate answer. What's different between the two questions and answers is that an independent third party, or perhaps the questioner, can attest to the truth of the answer given to the first question, whereas practically nobody can attest to the veracity of the answer given for the second one. For the second one, we must take the respondent's word that what they say they think we should do is indeed what they think we should do.

Now I realize that some folks don't ask the question that will produce the information they want. For example, if an inquirer who asked the second question above wanted to find out what the respondent thinks be the pros and cons of invading Cuba, then that's what they should have asked instead of the question shown above. At some point, respondents have to accept than an inquirer knows what info s/he seeks and will ask a question that, if directly answered, will yield it. Few of us are mind readers, despite our best efforts to be such.

So, my "Bali" question and the OP's "tire inspection" question are much the same: both identify an outcome and ask if the respondent wants to see it achieved or not. In each question, the inquirer has no stated desire to know why one's answer is "yes" or "no." Had the inquirer any such interest, they'd have also asked, "If so, why? If not, why not?" But that wasn't part of the question asked, so it follows that the whys and wherefores are irrelevant to the inquirer; s/he is willing to proceed (or not) based solely on the actual "yes" or "no" response(s) s/he receives.

P.S.
Having said all that, I will honestly tell you that I believe most folks don't fully grasp the linguistic differences between a question and a statement. But I'm not a mind reader and I'm not going to assume folks are ignorant (or were absent or sleeping when as children they were taught English grammar). Heck, just yesterday, I discovered that another member doesn't/didn't understand the difference between "presume" and "know" and as a result interpreted my comments as though I wrote "know" instead of what I did write, "presume."

 

[oldsoul]

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.

Please re-read my original post and you will find what you are looking for.

 

[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.

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?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I'm a licensed aircraft mechanic (duh) and the FAA requires yearly inspections on all aircraft. We have airplanes that are 75 years old flying over our heads today. Most cars can't make it to 20 years.

I'm not for mandating anything as I hate the gov't, but inspecting your own vehicle (assuming you know what the fuck you're doing) can save you a lot of money in the long run.

 

[oldsoul]

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?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

An what of the idea that it would be instituted by the insurance industry, completely separate from government?

 

[martybegan]

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?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

An what of the idea that it would be instituted by the insurance industry, completely separate from government?

I'm sure you could then find insurance companies that would offer plans without all the extra CYA stuff.

 

[oldsoul]

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?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

An what of the idea that it would be instituted by the insurance industry, completely separate from government?

I'm sure you could then find insurance companies that would offer plans without all the extra CYA stuff.

If you don't want to answer a question, the adult thing to do is to say so, or at least remain silent. You, however, simply dodge the question. Are you a politician or something? Answer the question, or don't I really don't care, just don't pull such juvenile stunts as dodging the question.

 

[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.

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.

Red:
I may have missed something. Does the OP of this thread ask for that? I think we are expected to perform our own due diligence, conclude and share our conclusion. The discussion has clearly moved past that point, and the OP-er did provide in post #1 content that speaks to justifications, so I "get" why your "red" comment isn't out of line. The door is open, as it were. No doubt about that.

I'm not of the mind that it's being "open" makes the sufficiency of whatever be one's justification be open to challenge. That's how I see it because, still, the heart of the thread question is whether one thinks tire inspections should or should not be required. Period. Why one thinks they should or should not is just that, your reason, my reason, someone else's reason. What is there to say to that?

To lend some perspective, I engaged in banter with another member (her posts are gone now; I don't know why). I saw that discussion as one dealing with her assertions about the nature and extent of burden performing the inspection actually imposes upon car owners. I didn't see it as a discussion about the merit of the proposed requirement itself whether she/I thinks the requirement be imposed. I think we both were quite clear on that: she opposes making the requirement and I do not.

Might the distinction I've cited be too narrow for some folks? It might. It's obviously not for me. LOL You know me, I'm as much about the painting as a whole as I am about the brush strokes and various hues of red, as it were.

Edit:
I see why the other member's remarks are gone now....I forgot I put him/her on ignore following his/her last comment to me because I decided their remarks are just too puerile for me to bother with. I'm still getting used to the retroactive aspect of how the "ignore" feature works.

 

[martybegan]

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?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

An what of the idea that it would be instituted by the insurance industry, completely separate from government?

I'm sure you could then find insurance companies that would offer plans without all the extra CYA stuff.

If you don't want to answer a question, the adult thing to do is to say so, or at least remain silent. You, however, simply dodge the question. Are you a politician or something? Answer the question, or don't I really don't care, just don't pull such juvenile stunts as dodging the question.

I did answer the question, you just don't like the answer.

 

[oldsoul]

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?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

As I see it, the requirement is already there, in most states (check your local requirements. Also, if I understand correctly, most insurance carriers have exclusions for criminal activity. So, it is in fact there, in most cases, if only by deault. However, I came across the following links that I found quite interesting on the topic of worn tires, and wanted to share them:
Commentary: legal minimum tread depth for passenger car tires in the U.S.A.--a survey. - PubMed - NCBI
Safety Risks of Worn Tires - Consumer Reports
RCW 46.37.425: Tires—Unsafe—State patrol's authority—Penalty.
When should you replace worn tires? We have information you need.
So, it looks like the consensus is not the legal requirement of 2/32, it's accually 4/32 or more. The last link touches on the effects of underinflated tires as well. Good information.

 

[oldsoul]

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?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

An what of the idea that it would be instituted by the insurance industry, completely separate from government?

I'm sure you could then find insurance companies that would offer plans without all the extra CYA stuff.

If you don't want to answer a question, the adult thing to do is to say so, or at least remain silent. You, however, simply dodge the question. Are you a politician or something? Answer the question, or don't I really don't care, just don't pull such juvenile stunts as dodging the question.

I did answer the question, you just don't like the answer.

No, you did not give your opinion on the idea of the insurance industry imposing such a requirement. What you did was to postulate that one could find a policy that did not include such a requirement. If you do not understand the difference, I would be happy to explain it further, just ask.

 

[oldsoul]

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?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

An what of the idea that it would be instituted by the insurance industry, completely separate from government?

I'm sure you could then find insurance companies that would offer plans without all the extra CYA stuff.

While this may be true, I would expect one would pay a hefty premium for such plans.

 

[320 Years of History]

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?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

An what of the idea that it would be instituted by the insurance industry, completely separate from government?

I'm sure you could then find insurance companies that would offer plans without all the extra CYA stuff.

If you don't want to answer a question, the adult thing to do is to say so, or at least remain silent. You, however, simply dodge the question. Are you a politician or something? Answer the question, or don't I really don't care, just don't pull such juvenile stunts as dodging the question.

I hope everyone can agree that politicians are masters of the "non answer" mode of dodging questions.

I've long wondered why it is that politicians can't show the minimum degree of integrity and plainly state, in response to questions they don't want to answer, "I'm not going to answer that question." Perhaps they think that some meaningful quantity of potential supporters will be confused and perceive their non-answer as somehow pertaining to the question asked?

Then again, it may that a lot of folks do perceive a non-answer as being relevant, that is, as answering the question asked. I don't know any people who would or do, but that's just me....In my world, folks who hear non-answers realize that the only thing that makes it an answer is that one has uttered a sound made a gesture in response to an inquiry. Well, hell, my cats do that much too when I ask them something, so I know they heard me and know I was talking to them. LOL

 

[oldsoul]

Perhaps they think that some meaningful quantity of potential supporters will be confused and perceive their non-answer as somehow pertaining to the question asked?

Then again, it may that a lot of folks do perceive a non-answer as being relevant, that is, as answering the question asked.

That's the hope at least. Not fooling many, but if the ones you are, are the loudest, who cares?
Off topic:
Ever notice that those with the least to say, say it the LOUDEST?

 

[320 Years of History]

Perhaps they think that some meaningful quantity of potential supporters will be confused and perceive their non-answer as somehow pertaining to the question asked?

Then again, it may that a lot of folks do perceive a non-answer as being relevant, that is, as answering the question asked.

That's the hope at least. Not fooling many, but if the ones you are, are the loudest, who cares?
Off topic:
Ever notice that those with the least to say, say it the LOUDEST?

LOL Yes.

That's part of the theme that underlies my saying, "loud, strong and wrong." LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I pulled some stats up in post 12. As I said, it was only a cursory search because there are a few states where I have lived and been the subject of safety inspections and those that I know do not have such inspections. The fatality rates are not connected between those states. Better info would be from the 2 years before and after inception of those laws within the state itself but I do not have that info at this time.

 

[320 Years of History]

??? 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.

I pulled some stats up in post 12. As I said, it was only a cursory search because there are a few states where I have lived and been the subject of safety inspections and those that I know do not have such inspections. The fatality rates are not connected between those states. Better info would be from the 2 years before and after inception of those laws within the state itself but I do not have that info at this time.

TY. I'll look back to that post.

 

[FA_Q2]

So, my "Bali" question and the OP's "tire inspection" question are much the same: both identify an outcome and ask if the respondent wants to see it achieved or not. In each question, the inquirer has no stated desire to know why one's answer is "yes" or "no." Had the inquirer any such interest, they'd have also asked, "If so, why? If not, why not?" But that wasn't part of the question asked, so it follows that the whys and wherefores are irrelevant to the inquirer; s/he is willing to proceed (or not) based solely on the actual "yes" or "no" response(s) s/he receives.

No they are not and that is what I stated in the post you quoted.

The question should an individual perform regular safety inspections really is not very subjective. It is obvious. There certainly are people that would say no just as there are people that would tell you that the earth is flat BUT that does not make for any real discussion. You CANNOT ask such a question without going into the details of the scope and level of enforcement that such would entail as that is intrinsic to the conversation.

I think that the tact the OP took later in the thread shows that the intent really was to go into enforcement and scope even when it was stated that such was not the intent anyway.

 

[martybegan]

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?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

As I see it, the requirement is already there, in most states (check your local requirements. Also, if I understand correctly, most insurance carriers have exclusions for criminal activity. So, it is in fact there, in most cases, if only by deault. However, I came across the following links that I found quite interesting on the topic of worn tires, and wanted to share them:
Commentary: legal minimum tread depth for passenger car tires in the U.S.A.--a survey. - PubMed - NCBI
Safety Risks of Worn Tires - Consumer Reports
RCW 46.37.425: Tires—Unsafe—State patrol's authority—Penalty.
When should you replace worn tires? We have information you need.
So, it looks like the consensus is not the legal requirement of 2/32, it's accually 4/32 or more. The last link touches on the effects of underinflated tires as well. Good information.

You didn't answer my question.