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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Which again would require people to regularly go out and check their tread depth, and goes back to my original point, in urban areas you would kill more people accidentally due to their having to stand by their tires and measure, than you would save from more tires not being worn out.
Why do you presume that tire measuring could not be performed in a parking lot, alleyway, garage, or any number of other places safer than the side of the road, or middle of the road if that's what you have in mind?
I live in D.C., downtown in fact. There are lot of safe places for me to check the tire tread. I mentor several kids who live in D.C. in what can only be called "the slums." There are lots of places there as well. Indeed, there are plenty of safe places to perform the check in every residential part of the city.
Nobody is saying one must attempt to measure the tire tread at a stoplight in the middle of the busiest city streets.
At this point, I have to ask, are you in fact a mature adult, or at least 25 years old? I'm beginning to think you are not because your comments sound like the kinds of stuff my kids would say when they were in their teens. If you are indeed not a mature adult, fine, I then understand why you're going down this "road" with your remarks.
I'm going to be frank. I don't willfully engage in discussions like the ones on USMB with minors. There's just no point in my doing so. There's no reasoning with the "infallibility" of a minor. I also don't willfully engage with immature adults, for much the same reason.
I'm almost 41. What my problem is I am sick of government heaping more and more crap on us to do, mostly to cover our asses about breaking some ridiculous regulation.
So I have to change my plans to find some place to park every few days to check my tire treads, my air pressure, and whatever other stuff you can dream up for me to do, all in the interest of some perceived increase in safety?
If you propose punishing bad treads or air pressure or anything else it behooves you to check those things every single time you drive, and in NYC finding a spot where you are not at risk from some dunderhead driving too close to parked cars is not always possible.
Out of curiosity, how do you know now when you need new tires?
I'll tell you how I know. I take my car in for routine service every year. Every so many years, the service writer says, "Your tire treads are kinda low." I ask him, "How far can I go with the tread that's left?" He tells me, and I make a decision about whether to have them replaced at that time or wait. If I opt to wait, I check the tires myself every month or couple months.
How is it I don't end up driving on "too low" tread? This may surprise you, but it's actually not hard to do, and my financial position has nothing to do with it.
I accomplish it by using my common sense and what I know about my own driving patterns. I have the sense to know that when the service writer told me, say, six months, he's figuring typical driving of ~12K - ~15K miles a year. I know I barely drive 6K miles a year between three cars, so I know damn well that the tread on my tires is easily going to be okay until the same time next year in all likelihood. It's not a matter that I have other cars I can drive; it's that I know about how much I'm going to drive the car in question. There's no fancy math; I just figure out how long it'd take me to drive the quantity of miles the service writer "guestimated" I have left in the tires. Also, since I know my service writer mentioned the tread, I just bother to dig down into my pocket and pull out a handy dandy penny or quarter every few months.
Look at that. I don't end up driving on near-bald tires. I don't spend more than a couple minutes making sure that doesn't happen. I didn't waste time looking for a place to check the tires. Glory be. Must be a miracle!
Red:
More crap? I literally just got up, walked from one end of the house to the other, down the stairs, out the door to the garage, past the cars in the garage and outside to the car in the driveway, checked all four tires with a quarter, and came back. Total time: < 3 minutes per the clock in my system tray, and my house is big enough that walking through it took noticeably longer than checking the tires.
It didn't even take long enough to get cold outside with just a undershirt, shirt and jeans on. I'm sorry, but I just do not see the burden in the proposed requirement and I certainly don't see it as a burden for the overwhelming majority of people in the U.S.
Blue:
Puh-lease! If you insist on being anal retentive about it, that's on you. Nobody is requiring that, but NYC has plenty of therapists who can help you if you have some sort of OCD-thing that compels you to check it daily. I think you are trying to make this simple activity into something that it, quite simply, is not, and the OP-er isn't proposing.
If you are truly saying that you don't have some sensible estimate of how many miles tire tread lasts before wearing too thin or being close to too thin, I suggest you just look or ask. If you buy the via the Internet, you'll see estimated tire life noted with the tire. If you buy them at a retail store, just ask the clerk.
Pink:
Back when I mostly worked in NYC, I had a pied a terre in Manhattan at "The Sevens" on 6th.
One need not lay prone to check the tread depth and nobody expects you to check your tires in the middle of one of the major thoroughfares (avenues/blvds/hwy) in NYC. Surely you periodically find yourself parking on a quiet enough street. Most relevantly, however, a great many of the busy streets in NYC don't allow one to park, at least in Manhattan. The parking rules vary, of course. It's not a given that even locals know what they are everywhere they may want to park, which is why I provided the link in the preceding sentence.
Being a New Yorker, you know as well as I do there are plenty of cross streets that are quiet enough. Moreover, you know as well as I do that if one lives in Manhattan and owns/keeps a car there too, one's car is in a parking facility, and that is a more than adequately safe locale for taking a minute to check the tires.
Lastly, I don't even know why you mentioned NYC because if you live there, you know, just as I do, that over half the people there don't own a car, so why this is even that big a deal to them is a mystery to me. Moreover, if you live in NYC, I'm speculating you moved there from some suburban or rural place. As a lifelong major city dweller-- even when I'm working overseas, I stay at flats or hotels in the centers of London, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Dalian, Singapore, Bangkok, Buenos Aires, and other very busy and very big cities -- I can assure you that the vast majority of New York city car owners are innovative enough to figure out how and when to safely check their tire pressure if their options are "check it and change the tires in a timely manner," or "don't check it and risk a $1500+ ticket and temporary loss of their driver's license." Indeed, if you were having this conversation in person with a long time city dweller, including me, the person would laugh in your face, tell you to "deal with it; figure it out; get over it" and, if you are a particularly nice person, change the topic, or if you aren't a nice person, shut you down and walk away.
That's part of why I asked if you are an adult. I wouldn't do that to a child, but I most certainly will to an adult who's just being ridiculous. Translation: this has been a truly entertaining dialogue, but I'm now done. If you respond as you have been, you will in fact get the last word with me.
However, in this context, the original question is silly.
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.
That is actually the exact opposite of what he said.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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.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.
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.
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?
