CDZ Tire inspections for passenger vehicles

[320 Years of History]

Well, the results are in. According to a poll I did, and it is not large or scientific, we on USMB would agree that tire inspections, at least, should be done. So, the question now is: How? Federal laws? State Laws? Local laws? Or maybe the insurance industry.

I say the insurance industry basicly has already, they just would need to strengthen their stance. Most auto insurance policies have an exclusion for "criminal acts", however, this usually only applies to felonies, and evading police. If this where to be extended to any moving violation, it would cover tires that have less than 2/32 of tread. However, this would also cover such acts as: speeding, failure to use turn signals, failure to yeild, and many others that are currently routienly ignored and unenforced. I don't see a problem there, no need to be traveling over the posted speed limit, and no excuse for not signaling a turn/lane change. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it would do the job. If people beleived their isurance company would decline claims because of a "minor" infraction, maybe people would drive more defensively/smarter, instead of being a bunch of self-righteous jerks.
Automobile Liability Insurance – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 63

How to deploy your proposal of requiring tire inspections depends upon its design. I presume you want to discuss design and deployment together, which is fine with me if that's so. I just want to be clear in stating I see there as being two elements under discussion if that be so, and accordingly the design of the actual requirement, whatever that design be, must also be practically deployable and the deployment must compliment the design and design intent. If one cannot achieve both those things, it may be best to scrap or revise the goal at some point in the design and deployment of the requirement.

Mind you, I'm not one of the folks who is, in general, a "good enough" achiever; I believe achieving a goal can be binarily assessed. A goal is either achieved or it is not, i.e., partial achievement = non achievement. With that said, I ask what exactly is the goal?

• Inspire passenger vehicle owners to inspect their tires at a greater frequency than they do now?
• Require passenger vehicle owners inspect their tires on some measurable and qualitative basis?
• Establish that "maintaining to specific standards the tires installed on a passenger vehicle at any point in time" be among the things for which owners of those vehicles can and will be held accountable/responsible at any point in time that their vehicle is on public roads?
• Some combination of those things?
• Something instead of or in addition to those things?

I think your earlier thread on this topic established that in general we agree the inspections are a good thing. I think, however, that clarifying and precisely stating the specific goal(s) doing so intends to our attainment of is in order. I saw the prior thread as a vision, but now it's time to convert that vision into something precise and that can be acted upon such that one can design an actionable plan that one can control and that will bring the vision to fruition.

Another question I have is this: How critical is the provision?

• Is it deemed important enough that one wants it enforced proactively, or is reactive enforcement sufficient to inspire the act of car owners inspecting their tires on a frequent and thorough enough basis?
  • Proactive enforcement --> car owners must be required to obtain periodic inspections, and if found to be out of compliance ordered to resolve the problem within a given time period.
  • Semi-proactive/semi-reactive enforcement --> authorized individuals will look for violations in the course of doing whatever it is that brought them into contact with/proximity to one's car, but they aren't specifically looking for tire requirement violations.
  • Reactive enforcement -->car owners are left to their own devices to inspect their tires and resolve any issues, but there will be a penalty if they are found to be out of compliance with the minimum parameters of the requirement. The means by which an owner can be designed range from "circumstantial discovery of mere occurrence" similar to the "semi" approach noted above to "only when one's car is involved in (causally or not) a 'tire related' event that harms the person or property of others."
    • If one thinks there should be a consistent penalty for non-compliance, it almost has to be a governmental entity that enacts a law pertaining to it.
    • If one doesn't mind variability among the penalties violators must endure for being found in violation of the requirement, it can be deployed by insurance companies or, likely more complexly, by tying compliance to some other good, service or privilege that car owners (not necessarily car drivers) consider at least as, or more, indispensable as/than they do their vehicles.

With that said, I ask what exactly is the goal?

• Inspire passenger vehicle owners to inspect their tires at a greater frequency than they do now?

Establish that "maintaining to specific standards the tires installed on a passenger vehicle at any point in time" be among the things for which owners of those vehicles can and will be held accountable/responsible at any point in time that their vehicle is on public roads?

Both of these would be goals I would want to accomplish. If the latter where the stated goal, the former would be nessicary by most, if not all, owners/drivers.

Another question I have is this: How critical is the provision?

I should think that a reactive basis would be sufficient, at least to begin with. If you are involved in an accident, whether you are deemed "at fault" or not, the insurance adjuster would inspect your tires and make a determination as to their compliance with standards set forth in your policy. They would then make appropriate recomendations for proceeding/not proceeding with the claim. I don't see any need for government to get involved outside the extent of a civil issue as to a dispute between the insurer, and the insured.

Of the information I have read, I would think that a "progressive" denial would be sufficient. For example:

• Tires at or above 4/32, proceed normally with claim.
• Tires between 2/32 and 4/32, a 50% reduction in payout of claim.
• Tires at or below 2/32, full denial of claim.

Of course, I beleive there should be a provision for payouts to third parties, as they have no control over your tires. However, there could be a reimbursment clause to the insurer, whereby the insurer reserves the right to be reimbursed for their expenses to third parties to "make them whole again" to the extent provided for in the policy. This could be a provision for filing suit or other mechanism, I really don't know insurance law well enough to determine what would be the best course of action.
I hope this answers your questions sufficiently.

You are absolutely foolish to let insurance companies to find another way to get out of paying claims.

Find a law my proposal would over-turn, and I MAY agree with you. As far as I know, this proposal would violate no law, therefore, they already CAN do it. They simply have CHOSEN not to.

Never said it would over turn any law. I am saying giving a private insurance carrier a way to deny a claim is terribly flawed.

I would push for states to make that clause illegal on the basis of being arbitrary and landing the responsibility on the insured, who the insurer is supposed to protect. The money and arbitration to prove otherwise would land squarely on the insured, who the insurance company would bank on them not fighting because of lack of time and funds.

I tend to agree that giving an insurance company potentially greater ability to not pay on claims isn't a good implementation approach. I'm sure oldsoul's intent is fine, but the profit motive is just too powerful for corporations to without fail refrain from abusing the leeway such a provision would make available.

 

[oldsoul]

Well, the results are in. According to a poll I did, and it is not large or scientific, we on USMB would agree that tire inspections, at least, should be done. So, the question now is: How? Federal laws? State Laws? Local laws? Or maybe the insurance industry.

I say the insurance industry basicly has already, they just would need to strengthen their stance. Most auto insurance policies have an exclusion for "criminal acts", however, this usually only applies to felonies, and evading police. If this where to be extended to any moving violation, it would cover tires that have less than 2/32 of tread. However, this would also cover such acts as: speeding, failure to use turn signals, failure to yeild, and many others that are currently routienly ignored and unenforced. I don't see a problem there, no need to be traveling over the posted speed limit, and no excuse for not signaling a turn/lane change. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it would do the job. If people beleived their isurance company would decline claims because of a "minor" infraction, maybe people would drive more defensively/smarter, instead of being a bunch of self-righteous jerks.
Automobile Liability Insurance – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 63

How to deploy your proposal of requiring tire inspections depends upon its design. I presume you want to discuss design and deployment together, which is fine with me if that's so. I just want to be clear in stating I see there as being two elements under discussion if that be so, and accordingly the design of the actual requirement, whatever that design be, must also be practically deployable and the deployment must compliment the design and design intent. If one cannot achieve both those things, it may be best to scrap or revise the goal at some point in the design and deployment of the requirement.

Mind you, I'm not one of the folks who is, in general, a "good enough" achiever; I believe achieving a goal can be binarily assessed. A goal is either achieved or it is not, i.e., partial achievement = non achievement. With that said, I ask what exactly is the goal?

• Inspire passenger vehicle owners to inspect their tires at a greater frequency than they do now?
• Require passenger vehicle owners inspect their tires on some measurable and qualitative basis?
• Establish that "maintaining to specific standards the tires installed on a passenger vehicle at any point in time" be among the things for which owners of those vehicles can and will be held accountable/responsible at any point in time that their vehicle is on public roads?
• Some combination of those things?
• Something instead of or in addition to those things?

I think your earlier thread on this topic established that in general we agree the inspections are a good thing. I think, however, that clarifying and precisely stating the specific goal(s) doing so intends to our attainment of is in order. I saw the prior thread as a vision, but now it's time to convert that vision into something precise and that can be acted upon such that one can design an actionable plan that one can control and that will bring the vision to fruition.

Another question I have is this: How critical is the provision?

• Is it deemed important enough that one wants it enforced proactively, or is reactive enforcement sufficient to inspire the act of car owners inspecting their tires on a frequent and thorough enough basis?
  • Proactive enforcement --> car owners must be required to obtain periodic inspections, and if found to be out of compliance ordered to resolve the problem within a given time period.
  • Semi-proactive/semi-reactive enforcement --> authorized individuals will look for violations in the course of doing whatever it is that brought them into contact with/proximity to one's car, but they aren't specifically looking for tire requirement violations.
  • Reactive enforcement -->car owners are left to their own devices to inspect their tires and resolve any issues, but there will be a penalty if they are found to be out of compliance with the minimum parameters of the requirement. The means by which an owner can be designed range from "circumstantial discovery of mere occurrence" similar to the "semi" approach noted above to "only when one's car is involved in (causally or not) a 'tire related' event that harms the person or property of others."
    • If one thinks there should be a consistent penalty for non-compliance, it almost has to be a governmental entity that enacts a law pertaining to it.
    • If one doesn't mind variability among the penalties violators must endure for being found in violation of the requirement, it can be deployed by insurance companies or, likely more complexly, by tying compliance to some other good, service or privilege that car owners (not necessarily car drivers) consider at least as, or more, indispensable as/than they do their vehicles.

With that said, I ask what exactly is the goal?

• Inspire passenger vehicle owners to inspect their tires at a greater frequency than they do now?

Establish that "maintaining to specific standards the tires installed on a passenger vehicle at any point in time" be among the things for which owners of those vehicles can and will be held accountable/responsible at any point in time that their vehicle is on public roads?

Both of these would be goals I would want to accomplish. If the latter where the stated goal, the former would be nessicary by most, if not all, owners/drivers.

Another question I have is this: How critical is the provision?

I should think that a reactive basis would be sufficient, at least to begin with. If you are involved in an accident, whether you are deemed "at fault" or not, the insurance adjuster would inspect your tires and make a determination as to their compliance with standards set forth in your policy. They would then make appropriate recomendations for proceeding/not proceeding with the claim. I don't see any need for government to get involved outside the extent of a civil issue as to a dispute between the insurer, and the insured.

Of the information I have read, I would think that a "progressive" denial would be sufficient. For example:

• Tires at or above 4/32, proceed normally with claim.
• Tires between 2/32 and 4/32, a 50% reduction in payout of claim.
• Tires at or below 2/32, full denial of claim.

Of course, I beleive there should be a provision for payouts to third parties, as they have no control over your tires. However, there could be a reimbursment clause to the insurer, whereby the insurer reserves the right to be reimbursed for their expenses to third parties to "make them whole again" to the extent provided for in the policy. This could be a provision for filing suit or other mechanism, I really don't know insurance law well enough to determine what would be the best course of action.
I hope this answers your questions sufficiently.

You are absolutely foolish to let insurance companies to find another way to get out of paying claims.

Find a law my proposal would over-turn, and I MAY agree with you. As far as I know, this proposal would violate no law, therefore, they already CAN do it. They simply have CHOSEN not to.

Never said it would over turn any law. I am saying giving a private insurance carrier a way to deny a claim is terribly flawed.

I would push for states to make that clause illegal on the basis of being arbitrary and landing the responsibility on the insured, who the insurer is supposed to protect. The money and arbitration to prove otherwise would land squarely on the insured, who the insurance company would bank on them not fighting because of lack of time and funds.

They already have the ability, therefore we would not be "giving" them something they don't already have.
It would be really quite simple to "prove" your tires where in compliance. A few pictures with a tread depth gauge (which one can purchase from any parts store for under $10), and you would blow the entire bottom out of their case. Pretty simple, no judge would waste their time hearing arguements. Very little cost to the insured, $20 ($10 of which most would have already spent) for pictures to be printed with said tread depth gauge. Oh, and what, about an hour to take the pictures, have them printed, and drop them off at the court house?

 

[oldsoul]

Well, the results are in. According to a poll I did, and it is not large or scientific, we on USMB would agree that tire inspections, at least, should be done. So, the question now is: How? Federal laws? State Laws? Local laws? Or maybe the insurance industry.

I say the insurance industry basicly has already, they just would need to strengthen their stance. Most auto insurance policies have an exclusion for "criminal acts", however, this usually only applies to felonies, and evading police. If this where to be extended to any moving violation, it would cover tires that have less than 2/32 of tread. However, this would also cover such acts as: speeding, failure to use turn signals, failure to yeild, and many others that are currently routienly ignored and unenforced. I don't see a problem there, no need to be traveling over the posted speed limit, and no excuse for not signaling a turn/lane change. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it would do the job. If people beleived their isurance company would decline claims because of a "minor" infraction, maybe people would drive more defensively/smarter, instead of being a bunch of self-righteous jerks.
Automobile Liability Insurance – New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, Chapter 63

How to deploy your proposal of requiring tire inspections depends upon its design. I presume you want to discuss design and deployment together, which is fine with me if that's so. I just want to be clear in stating I see there as being two elements under discussion if that be so, and accordingly the design of the actual requirement, whatever that design be, must also be practically deployable and the deployment must compliment the design and design intent. If one cannot achieve both those things, it may be best to scrap or revise the goal at some point in the design and deployment of the requirement.

Mind you, I'm not one of the folks who is, in general, a "good enough" achiever; I believe achieving a goal can be binarily assessed. A goal is either achieved or it is not, i.e., partial achievement = non achievement. With that said, I ask what exactly is the goal?

• Inspire passenger vehicle owners to inspect their tires at a greater frequency than they do now?
• Require passenger vehicle owners inspect their tires on some measurable and qualitative basis?
• Establish that "maintaining to specific standards the tires installed on a passenger vehicle at any point in time" be among the things for which owners of those vehicles can and will be held accountable/responsible at any point in time that their vehicle is on public roads?
• Some combination of those things?
• Something instead of or in addition to those things?

I think your earlier thread on this topic established that in general we agree the inspections are a good thing. I think, however, that clarifying and precisely stating the specific goal(s) doing so intends to our attainment of is in order. I saw the prior thread as a vision, but now it's time to convert that vision into something precise and that can be acted upon such that one can design an actionable plan that one can control and that will bring the vision to fruition.

Another question I have is this: How critical is the provision?

• Is it deemed important enough that one wants it enforced proactively, or is reactive enforcement sufficient to inspire the act of car owners inspecting their tires on a frequent and thorough enough basis?
  • Proactive enforcement --> car owners must be required to obtain periodic inspections, and if found to be out of compliance ordered to resolve the problem within a given time period.
  • Semi-proactive/semi-reactive enforcement --> authorized individuals will look for violations in the course of doing whatever it is that brought them into contact with/proximity to one's car, but they aren't specifically looking for tire requirement violations.
  • Reactive enforcement -->car owners are left to their own devices to inspect their tires and resolve any issues, but there will be a penalty if they are found to be out of compliance with the minimum parameters of the requirement. The means by which an owner can be designed range from "circumstantial discovery of mere occurrence" similar to the "semi" approach noted above to "only when one's car is involved in (causally or not) a 'tire related' event that harms the person or property of others."
    • If one thinks there should be a consistent penalty for non-compliance, it almost has to be a governmental entity that enacts a law pertaining to it.
    • If one doesn't mind variability among the penalties violators must endure for being found in violation of the requirement, it can be deployed by insurance companies or, likely more complexly, by tying compliance to some other good, service or privilege that car owners (not necessarily car drivers) consider at least as, or more, indispensable as/than they do their vehicles.

With that said, I ask what exactly is the goal?

• Inspire passenger vehicle owners to inspect their tires at a greater frequency than they do now?

Establish that "maintaining to specific standards the tires installed on a passenger vehicle at any point in time" be among the things for which owners of those vehicles can and will be held accountable/responsible at any point in time that their vehicle is on public roads?

Both of these would be goals I would want to accomplish. If the latter where the stated goal, the former would be nessicary by most, if not all, owners/drivers.

Another question I have is this: How critical is the provision?

I should think that a reactive basis would be sufficient, at least to begin with. If you are involved in an accident, whether you are deemed "at fault" or not, the insurance adjuster would inspect your tires and make a determination as to their compliance with standards set forth in your policy. They would then make appropriate recomendations for proceeding/not proceeding with the claim. I don't see any need for government to get involved outside the extent of a civil issue as to a dispute between the insurer, and the insured.

Of the information I have read, I would think that a "progressive" denial would be sufficient. For example:

• Tires at or above 4/32, proceed normally with claim.
• Tires between 2/32 and 4/32, a 50% reduction in payout of claim.
• Tires at or below 2/32, full denial of claim.

Of course, I beleive there should be a provision for payouts to third parties, as they have no control over your tires. However, there could be a reimbursment clause to the insurer, whereby the insurer reserves the right to be reimbursed for their expenses to third parties to "make them whole again" to the extent provided for in the policy. This could be a provision for filing suit or other mechanism, I really don't know insurance law well enough to determine what would be the best course of action.
I hope this answers your questions sufficiently.

You are absolutely foolish to let insurance companies to find another way to get out of paying claims.

Find a law my proposal would over-turn, and I MAY agree with you. As far as I know, this proposal would violate no law, therefore, they already CAN do it. They simply have CHOSEN not to.

Never said it would over turn any law. I am saying giving a private insurance carrier a way to deny a claim is terribly flawed.

I would push for states to make that clause illegal on the basis of being arbitrary and landing the responsibility on the insured, who the insurer is supposed to protect. The money and arbitration to prove otherwise would land squarely on the insured, who the insurance company would bank on them not fighting because of lack of time and funds.

What would your counter proposal be?

 

[Papageorgio]

How to deploy your proposal of requiring tire inspections depends upon its design. I presume you want to discuss design and deployment together, which is fine with me if that's so. I just want to be clear in stating I see there as being two elements under discussion if that be so, and accordingly the design of the actual requirement, whatever that design be, must also be practically deployable and the deployment must compliment the design and design intent. If one cannot achieve both those things, it may be best to scrap or revise the goal at some point in the design and deployment of the requirement.

Mind you, I'm not one of the folks who is, in general, a "good enough" achiever; I believe achieving a goal can be binarily assessed. A goal is either achieved or it is not, i.e., partial achievement = non achievement. With that said, I ask what exactly is the goal?

• Inspire passenger vehicle owners to inspect their tires at a greater frequency than they do now?
• Require passenger vehicle owners inspect their tires on some measurable and qualitative basis?
• Establish that "maintaining to specific standards the tires installed on a passenger vehicle at any point in time" be among the things for which owners of those vehicles can and will be held accountable/responsible at any point in time that their vehicle is on public roads?
• Some combination of those things?
• Something instead of or in addition to those things?

I think your earlier thread on this topic established that in general we agree the inspections are a good thing. I think, however, that clarifying and precisely stating the specific goal(s) doing so intends to our attainment of is in order. I saw the prior thread as a vision, but now it's time to convert that vision into something precise and that can be acted upon such that one can design an actionable plan that one can control and that will bring the vision to fruition.

Another question I have is this: How critical is the provision?

• Is it deemed important enough that one wants it enforced proactively, or is reactive enforcement sufficient to inspire the act of car owners inspecting their tires on a frequent and thorough enough basis?
  • Proactive enforcement --> car owners must be required to obtain periodic inspections, and if found to be out of compliance ordered to resolve the problem within a given time period.
  • Semi-proactive/semi-reactive enforcement --> authorized individuals will look for violations in the course of doing whatever it is that brought them into contact with/proximity to one's car, but they aren't specifically looking for tire requirement violations.
  • Reactive enforcement -->car owners are left to their own devices to inspect their tires and resolve any issues, but there will be a penalty if they are found to be out of compliance with the minimum parameters of the requirement. The means by which an owner can be designed range from "circumstantial discovery of mere occurrence" similar to the "semi" approach noted above to "only when one's car is involved in (causally or not) a 'tire related' event that harms the person or property of others."
    • If one thinks there should be a consistent penalty for non-compliance, it almost has to be a governmental entity that enacts a law pertaining to it.
    • If one doesn't mind variability among the penalties violators must endure for being found in violation of the requirement, it can be deployed by insurance companies or, likely more complexly, by tying compliance to some other good, service or privilege that car owners (not necessarily car drivers) consider at least as, or more, indispensable as/than they do their vehicles.

With that said, I ask what exactly is the goal?

• Inspire passenger vehicle owners to inspect their tires at a greater frequency than they do now?

Establish that "maintaining to specific standards the tires installed on a passenger vehicle at any point in time" be among the things for which owners of those vehicles can and will be held accountable/responsible at any point in time that their vehicle is on public roads?

Both of these would be goals I would want to accomplish. If the latter where the stated goal, the former would be nessicary by most, if not all, owners/drivers.

Another question I have is this: How critical is the provision?

I should think that a reactive basis would be sufficient, at least to begin with. If you are involved in an accident, whether you are deemed "at fault" or not, the insurance adjuster would inspect your tires and make a determination as to their compliance with standards set forth in your policy. They would then make appropriate recomendations for proceeding/not proceeding with the claim. I don't see any need for government to get involved outside the extent of a civil issue as to a dispute between the insurer, and the insured.

Of the information I have read, I would think that a "progressive" denial would be sufficient. For example:

• Tires at or above 4/32, proceed normally with claim.
• Tires between 2/32 and 4/32, a 50% reduction in payout of claim.
• Tires at or below 2/32, full denial of claim.

Of course, I beleive there should be a provision for payouts to third parties, as they have no control over your tires. However, there could be a reimbursment clause to the insurer, whereby the insurer reserves the right to be reimbursed for their expenses to third parties to "make them whole again" to the extent provided for in the policy. This could be a provision for filing suit or other mechanism, I really don't know insurance law well enough to determine what would be the best course of action.
I hope this answers your questions sufficiently.

You are absolutely foolish to let insurance companies to find another way to get out of paying claims.

Find a law my proposal would over-turn, and I MAY agree with you. As far as I know, this proposal would violate no law, therefore, they already CAN do it. They simply have CHOSEN not to.

Never said it would over turn any law. I am saying giving a private insurance carrier a way to deny a claim is terribly flawed.

I would push for states to make that clause illegal on the basis of being arbitrary and landing the responsibility on the insured, who the insurer is supposed to protect. The money and arbitration to prove otherwise would land squarely on the insured, who the insurance company would bank on them not fighting because of lack of time and funds.

They already have the ability, therefore we would not be "giving" them something they don't already have.
It would be really quite simple to "prove" your tires where in compliance. A few pictures with a tread depth gauge (which one can purchase from any parts store for under $10), and you would blow the entire bottom out of their case. Pretty simple, no judge would waste their time hearing arguements. Very little cost to the insured, $20 ($10 of which most would have already spent) for pictures to be printed with said tread depth gauge. Oh, and what, about an hour to take the pictures, have them printed, and drop them off at the court house?

So what if the thread is wearing uneven? So part would have 2/32 and go up to 5/32? I work in the transportation industry and I have seen wire showing with legal threads elsewhere on the tire. Unless you get cut and dry rules then it is a failure.

 

[Papageorgio]

How to deploy your proposal of requiring tire inspections depends upon its design. I presume you want to discuss design and deployment together, which is fine with me if that's so. I just want to be clear in stating I see there as being two elements under discussion if that be so, and accordingly the design of the actual requirement, whatever that design be, must also be practically deployable and the deployment must compliment the design and design intent. If one cannot achieve both those things, it may be best to scrap or revise the goal at some point in the design and deployment of the requirement.

Mind you, I'm not one of the folks who is, in general, a "good enough" achiever; I believe achieving a goal can be binarily assessed. A goal is either achieved or it is not, i.e., partial achievement = non achievement. With that said, I ask what exactly is the goal?

• Inspire passenger vehicle owners to inspect their tires at a greater frequency than they do now?
• Require passenger vehicle owners inspect their tires on some measurable and qualitative basis?
• Establish that "maintaining to specific standards the tires installed on a passenger vehicle at any point in time" be among the things for which owners of those vehicles can and will be held accountable/responsible at any point in time that their vehicle is on public roads?
• Some combination of those things?
• Something instead of or in addition to those things?

I think your earlier thread on this topic established that in general we agree the inspections are a good thing. I think, however, that clarifying and precisely stating the specific goal(s) doing so intends to our attainment of is in order. I saw the prior thread as a vision, but now it's time to convert that vision into something precise and that can be acted upon such that one can design an actionable plan that one can control and that will bring the vision to fruition.

Another question I have is this: How critical is the provision?

• Is it deemed important enough that one wants it enforced proactively, or is reactive enforcement sufficient to inspire the act of car owners inspecting their tires on a frequent and thorough enough basis?
  • Proactive enforcement --> car owners must be required to obtain periodic inspections, and if found to be out of compliance ordered to resolve the problem within a given time period.
  • Semi-proactive/semi-reactive enforcement --> authorized individuals will look for violations in the course of doing whatever it is that brought them into contact with/proximity to one's car, but they aren't specifically looking for tire requirement violations.
  • Reactive enforcement -->car owners are left to their own devices to inspect their tires and resolve any issues, but there will be a penalty if they are found to be out of compliance with the minimum parameters of the requirement. The means by which an owner can be designed range from "circumstantial discovery of mere occurrence" similar to the "semi" approach noted above to "only when one's car is involved in (causally or not) a 'tire related' event that harms the person or property of others."
    • If one thinks there should be a consistent penalty for non-compliance, it almost has to be a governmental entity that enacts a law pertaining to it.
    • If one doesn't mind variability among the penalties violators must endure for being found in violation of the requirement, it can be deployed by insurance companies or, likely more complexly, by tying compliance to some other good, service or privilege that car owners (not necessarily car drivers) consider at least as, or more, indispensable as/than they do their vehicles.

With that said, I ask what exactly is the goal?

• Inspire passenger vehicle owners to inspect their tires at a greater frequency than they do now?

Establish that "maintaining to specific standards the tires installed on a passenger vehicle at any point in time" be among the things for which owners of those vehicles can and will be held accountable/responsible at any point in time that their vehicle is on public roads?

Both of these would be goals I would want to accomplish. If the latter where the stated goal, the former would be nessicary by most, if not all, owners/drivers.

Another question I have is this: How critical is the provision?

I should think that a reactive basis would be sufficient, at least to begin with. If you are involved in an accident, whether you are deemed "at fault" or not, the insurance adjuster would inspect your tires and make a determination as to their compliance with standards set forth in your policy. They would then make appropriate recomendations for proceeding/not proceeding with the claim. I don't see any need for government to get involved outside the extent of a civil issue as to a dispute between the insurer, and the insured.

Of the information I have read, I would think that a "progressive" denial would be sufficient. For example:

• Tires at or above 4/32, proceed normally with claim.
• Tires between 2/32 and 4/32, a 50% reduction in payout of claim.
• Tires at or below 2/32, full denial of claim.

Of course, I beleive there should be a provision for payouts to third parties, as they have no control over your tires. However, there could be a reimbursment clause to the insurer, whereby the insurer reserves the right to be reimbursed for their expenses to third parties to "make them whole again" to the extent provided for in the policy. This could be a provision for filing suit or other mechanism, I really don't know insurance law well enough to determine what would be the best course of action.
I hope this answers your questions sufficiently.

You are absolutely foolish to let insurance companies to find another way to get out of paying claims.

Find a law my proposal would over-turn, and I MAY agree with you. As far as I know, this proposal would violate no law, therefore, they already CAN do it. They simply have CHOSEN not to.

Never said it would over turn any law. I am saying giving a private insurance carrier a way to deny a claim is terribly flawed.

I would push for states to make that clause illegal on the basis of being arbitrary and landing the responsibility on the insured, who the insurer is supposed to protect. The money and arbitration to prove otherwise would land squarely on the insured, who the insurance company would bank on them not fighting because of lack of time and funds.

I tend to agree that giving an insurance company potentially greater ability to not pay on claims isn't a good implementation approach. I'm sure oldsoul's intent is fine, but the profit motive is just too powerful for corporations to without fail refrain from abusing the leeway such a provision would make available.

Intent of oldsoul withstanding, the potential for abuse is overwhelming.

 

[oldsoul]

Both of these would be goals I would want to accomplish. If the latter where the stated goal, the former would be nessicary by most, if not all, owners/drivers.
I should think that a reactive basis would be sufficient, at least to begin with. If you are involved in an accident, whether you are deemed "at fault" or not, the insurance adjuster would inspect your tires and make a determination as to their compliance with standards set forth in your policy. They would then make appropriate recomendations for proceeding/not proceeding with the claim. I don't see any need for government to get involved outside the extent of a civil issue as to a dispute between the insurer, and the insured.

Of the information I have read, I would think that a "progressive" denial would be sufficient. For example:

• Tires at or above 4/32, proceed normally with claim.
• Tires between 2/32 and 4/32, a 50% reduction in payout of claim.
• Tires at or below 2/32, full denial of claim.

Of course, I beleive there should be a provision for payouts to third parties, as they have no control over your tires. However, there could be a reimbursment clause to the insurer, whereby the insurer reserves the right to be reimbursed for their expenses to third parties to "make them whole again" to the extent provided for in the policy. This could be a provision for filing suit or other mechanism, I really don't know insurance law well enough to determine what would be the best course of action.
I hope this answers your questions sufficiently.

You are absolutely foolish to let insurance companies to find another way to get out of paying claims.

Find a law my proposal would over-turn, and I MAY agree with you. As far as I know, this proposal would violate no law, therefore, they already CAN do it. They simply have CHOSEN not to.

Never said it would over turn any law. I am saying giving a private insurance carrier a way to deny a claim is terribly flawed.

I would push for states to make that clause illegal on the basis of being arbitrary and landing the responsibility on the insured, who the insurer is supposed to protect. The money and arbitration to prove otherwise would land squarely on the insured, who the insurance company would bank on them not fighting because of lack of time and funds.

They already have the ability, therefore we would not be "giving" them something they don't already have.
It would be really quite simple to "prove" your tires where in compliance. A few pictures with a tread depth gauge (which one can purchase from any parts store for under $10), and you would blow the entire bottom out of their case. Pretty simple, no judge would waste their time hearing arguements. Very little cost to the insured, $20 ($10 of which most would have already spent) for pictures to be printed with said tread depth gauge. Oh, and what, about an hour to take the pictures, have them printed, and drop them off at the court house?

So what if the thread is wearing uneven? So part would have 2/32 and go up to 5/32? I work in the transportation industry and I have seen wire showing with legal threads elsewhere on the tire. Unless you get cut and dry rules then it is a failure.

That can be accomplished, I have not even attempted to do so. I have merely set forth an outline of a proposal. Which is more than I can say for you. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my idea, however, I would then expect that you come up with a counter proposal, otherwise we really have little else to discuss.

 

[Papageorgio]

You are absolutely foolish to let insurance companies to find another way to get out of paying claims.

Find a law my proposal would over-turn, and I MAY agree with you. As far as I know, this proposal would violate no law, therefore, they already CAN do it. They simply have CHOSEN not to.

Never said it would over turn any law. I am saying giving a private insurance carrier a way to deny a claim is terribly flawed.

I would push for states to make that clause illegal on the basis of being arbitrary and landing the responsibility on the insured, who the insurer is supposed to protect. The money and arbitration to prove otherwise would land squarely on the insured, who the insurance company would bank on them not fighting because of lack of time and funds.

They already have the ability, therefore we would not be "giving" them something they don't already have.
It would be really quite simple to "prove" your tires where in compliance. A few pictures with a tread depth gauge (which one can purchase from any parts store for under $10), and you would blow the entire bottom out of their case. Pretty simple, no judge would waste their time hearing arguements. Very little cost to the insured, $20 ($10 of which most would have already spent) for pictures to be printed with said tread depth gauge. Oh, and what, about an hour to take the pictures, have them printed, and drop them off at the court house?

So what if the thread is wearing uneven? So part would have 2/32 and go up to 5/32? I work in the transportation industry and I have seen wire showing with legal threads elsewhere on the tire. Unless you get cut and dry rules then it is a failure.

That can be accomplished, I have not even attempted to do so. I have merely set forth an outline of a proposal. Which is more than I can say for you. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my idea, however, I would then expect that you come up with a counter proposal, otherwise we really have little else to discuss.

Counter proposal is not to do it at all. It is way to arbitrary and ambiguous. Bye.

 

[Toronado3800]

Lets look at this a different way.

If Bob's car hits and kills someone and his OBD shows the ABS was activated AND his tires are defective by lack of tread or steel belts then we use existing laws like "Criminally neglagent homicide" on Bob. Hopefully he gets a good judge who gives him 50,000 hours of public service rather than jail time. Bob breaks this he goes to jail.

 

[320 Years of History]

Lets look at this a different way.

If Bob's car hits and kills someone and his OBD shows the ABS was activated AND his tires are defective by lack of tread or steel belts then we use existing laws like "Criminally neglagent homicide" on Bob. Hopefully he gets a good judge who gives him 50,000 hours of public service rather than jail time. Bob breaks this he goes to jail.

You make a strong case, however, the currently observable incidence of 11K "poor tire" caused accidents each year tells us the existing risks are insufficient to inspire folks to responsible action re: tire maintenance/replacement. If one is willing to say 11K such events annually is "low enough" -- clearly the OP-er's proposal indicates that in his mind it is not -- then I'd say your argument/solution approach is compelling.


Off Topic:
FWIW, but not as ridicule, "public service" is what government employees do daily to earn a wage. "Community service" is the court ordered volunteerism that I am certain you have in mind.