CDZ Tire inspections for passenger vehicles

[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

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't recall agreeing.

 

[oldsoul]

I don't recall agreeing.

Sorry you missed it.
CDZ - Should passenger vehicle inspections be required?

 

[Pogo]

Poor tire health should definitely be a citation-able offense, but I can't see the sense in turning any part of this over to Big Insurance, which would, since it's a profit-driven business, find ways to pick people's pockets. Let's not pretend that's not their priority and that "safety" is.

Nor can I see a scheme where car owners are required to keep some kind of regular log or whatever. Just make drivers responsible for the condition of their vehicle not only on a yearly inspection but in real time. Drive with bald tires, get a ticket.

Which reminds me -- I need to get tires.

 

[Missourian]

Tire inspection should be done.

The mechanism should be people inspecting their tires.

/thread

 

[Papageorgio]

Poor tire health should definitely be a citation-able offense, but I can't see the sense in turning any part of this over to Big Insurance, which would, since it's a profit-driven business, find ways to pick people's pockets. Let's not pretend that's not their priority and that "safety" is.

Nor can I see a scheme where car owners are required to keep some kind of regular log or whatever. Just make drivers responsible for the condition of their vehicle not only on a yearly inspection but in real time. Drive with bald tires, get a ticket.

Which reminds me -- I need to get tires.

The Federal Government in my experience in the transportation industry are not about safety, its about getting government money for their departments and publicity.

If a state wants to make laws, then more power to them. The feds need to butt out.

I just got new tires on my vehicles.

 

[Pogo]

Poor tire health should definitely be a citation-able offense, but I can't see the sense in turning any part of this over to Big Insurance, which would, since it's a profit-driven business, find ways to pick people's pockets. Let's not pretend that's not their priority and that "safety" is.

Nor can I see a scheme where car owners are required to keep some kind of regular log or whatever. Just make drivers responsible for the condition of their vehicle not only on a yearly inspection but in real time. Drive with bald tires, get a ticket.

Which reminds me -- I need to get tires.

The Federal Government in my experience in the transportation industry are not about safety, its about getting government money for their departments and publicity.

If a state wants to make laws, then more power to them. The feds need to butt out.

I just got new tires on my vehicles.

That post was about Big Insurance ---- not the federal government.

I thought that was the OP's idea... that tire inspections should be run by insurance companies, which by definition (unlike government) exist to make profits.

As for "the feds need to butt out" let's be realistic ---- if state governments (nobody brought up the fed) didn't have safety requirements on cars and on driving, the carnage would be immense.

 

[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.

 

[Papageorgio]

Poor tire health should definitely be a citation-able offense, but I can't see the sense in turning any part of this over to Big Insurance, which would, since it's a profit-driven business, find ways to pick people's pockets. Let's not pretend that's not their priority and that "safety" is.

Nor can I see a scheme where car owners are required to keep some kind of regular log or whatever. Just make drivers responsible for the condition of their vehicle not only on a yearly inspection but in real time. Drive with bald tires, get a ticket.

Which reminds me -- I need to get tires.

The Federal Government in my experience in the transportation industry are not about safety, its about getting government money for their departments and publicity.

If a state wants to make laws, then more power to them. The feds need to butt out.

I just got new tires on my vehicles.

That post was about Big Insurance ---- not the federal government.

I thought that was the OP's idea... that tire inspections should be run by insurance companies, which by definition (unlike government) exist to make profits.

As for "the feds need to butt out" let's be realistic ---- if state governments (nobody brought up the fed) didn't have safety requirements on cars and on driving, the carnage would be immense.

I don't want insurance companies, as you say their is a money issue.

So then we move to Federal government, I find them to less than helpful and very arbitrary in their laws and the interpretation. They would be a poor solution.

State and local governments would be a better solution.

The issue I have, is do we even need government interference in private vehicle inspections.

 

[Pogo]

Poor tire health should definitely be a citation-able offense, but I can't see the sense in turning any part of this over to Big Insurance, which would, since it's a profit-driven business, find ways to pick people's pockets. Let's not pretend that's not their priority and that "safety" is.

Nor can I see a scheme where car owners are required to keep some kind of regular log or whatever. Just make drivers responsible for the condition of their vehicle not only on a yearly inspection but in real time. Drive with bald tires, get a ticket.

Which reminds me -- I need to get tires.

The Federal Government in my experience in the transportation industry are not about safety, its about getting government money for their departments and publicity.

If a state wants to make laws, then more power to them. The feds need to butt out.

I just got new tires on my vehicles.

That post was about Big Insurance ---- not the federal government.

I thought that was the OP's idea... that tire inspections should be run by insurance companies, which by definition (unlike government) exist to make profits.

As for "the feds need to butt out" let's be realistic ---- if state governments (nobody brought up the fed) didn't have safety requirements on cars and on driving, the carnage would be immense.

I don't want insurance companies, as you say their is a money issue.

So then we move to Federal government, I find them to less than helpful and very arbitrary in their laws and the interpretation. They would be a poor solution.

State and local governments would be a better solution.

The issue I have, is do we even need government interference in private vehicle inspections.

I'm not aware of the federal government inspecting tires. I don't understand where you're pulling that from.

 

[Papageorgio]

Poor tire health should definitely be a citation-able offense, but I can't see the sense in turning any part of this over to Big Insurance, which would, since it's a profit-driven business, find ways to pick people's pockets. Let's not pretend that's not their priority and that "safety" is.

Nor can I see a scheme where car owners are required to keep some kind of regular log or whatever. Just make drivers responsible for the condition of their vehicle not only on a yearly inspection but in real time. Drive with bald tires, get a ticket.

Which reminds me -- I need to get tires.

The Federal Government in my experience in the transportation industry are not about safety, its about getting government money for their departments and publicity.

If a state wants to make laws, then more power to them. The feds need to butt out.

I just got new tires on my vehicles.

That post was about Big Insurance ---- not the federal government.

I thought that was the OP's idea... that tire inspections should be run by insurance companies, which by definition (unlike government) exist to make profits.

As for "the feds need to butt out" let's be realistic ---- if state governments (nobody brought up the fed) didn't have safety requirements on cars and on driving, the carnage would be immense.

I don't want insurance companies, as you say their is a money issue.

So then we move to Federal government, I find them to less than helpful and very arbitrary in their laws and the interpretation. They would be a poor solution.

State and local governments would be a better solution.

The issue I have, is do we even need government interference in private vehicle inspections.

I'm not aware of the federal government inspecting tires. I don't understand where you're pulling that from.

They do more than inspect tires on commercial vehicles. They have FBI trained investigators that do routine compliance reviews. The also have FMCSA inspectors that can pull any commercial vehicle and do an inspection.

Companies have people reading the FMCSA rules and regulations to determine how they can stay compliant and how to interpret the current FMCSA rules and their effects on the CMV industry.

They claim safety but most of the stuff you called on is paperwork, it has nothing to do with the safety of the vehicle or the driver. Then there are carriers, property and passenger, that the FMCSA will ignore, even when brought to their attention.

 

[Pogo]

Poor tire health should definitely be a citation-able offense, but I can't see the sense in turning any part of this over to Big Insurance, which would, since it's a profit-driven business, find ways to pick people's pockets. Let's not pretend that's not their priority and that "safety" is.

Nor can I see a scheme where car owners are required to keep some kind of regular log or whatever. Just make drivers responsible for the condition of their vehicle not only on a yearly inspection but in real time. Drive with bald tires, get a ticket.

Which reminds me -- I need to get tires.

The Federal Government in my experience in the transportation industry are not about safety, its about getting government money for their departments and publicity.

If a state wants to make laws, then more power to them. The feds need to butt out.

I just got new tires on my vehicles.

That post was about Big Insurance ---- not the federal government.

I thought that was the OP's idea... that tire inspections should be run by insurance companies, which by definition (unlike government) exist to make profits.

As for "the feds need to butt out" let's be realistic ---- if state governments (nobody brought up the fed) didn't have safety requirements on cars and on driving, the carnage would be immense.

I don't want insurance companies, as you say their is a money issue.

So then we move to Federal government, I find them to less than helpful and very arbitrary in their laws and the interpretation. They would be a poor solution.

State and local governments would be a better solution.

The issue I have, is do we even need government interference in private vehicle inspections.

I'm not aware of the federal government inspecting tires. I don't understand where you're pulling that from.

They do more than inspect tires on commercial vehicles. They have FBI trained investigators that do routine compliance reviews. The also have FMCSA inspectors that can pull any commercial vehicle and do an inspection.

Companies have people reading the FMCSA rules and regulations to determine how they can stay compliant and how to interpret the current FMCSA rules and their effects on the CMV industry.

They claim safety but most of the stuff you called on is paperwork, it has nothing to do with the safety of the vehicle or the driver. Then there are carriers, property and passenger, that the FMCSA will ignore, even when brought to their attention.

Please familiarize yourself with the thread title.
"Passenger vehicles"

 

[Papageorgio]

The Federal Government in my experience in the transportation industry are not about safety, its about getting government money for their departments and publicity.

If a state wants to make laws, then more power to them. The feds need to butt out.

I just got new tires on my vehicles.

That post was about Big Insurance ---- not the federal government.

I thought that was the OP's idea... that tire inspections should be run by insurance companies, which by definition (unlike government) exist to make profits.

As for "the feds need to butt out" let's be realistic ---- if state governments (nobody brought up the fed) didn't have safety requirements on cars and on driving, the carnage would be immense.

I don't want insurance companies, as you say their is a money issue.

So then we move to Federal government, I find them to less than helpful and very arbitrary in their laws and the interpretation. They would be a poor solution.

State and local governments would be a better solution.

The issue I have, is do we even need government interference in private vehicle inspections.

I'm not aware of the federal government inspecting tires. I don't understand where you're pulling that from.

They do more than inspect tires on commercial vehicles. They have FBI trained investigators that do routine compliance reviews. The also have FMCSA inspectors that can pull any commercial vehicle and do an inspection.

Companies have people reading the FMCSA rules and regulations to determine how they can stay compliant and how to interpret the current FMCSA rules and their effects on the CMV industry.

They claim safety but most of the stuff you called on is paperwork, it has nothing to do with the safety of the vehicle or the driver. Then there are carriers, property and passenger, that the FMCSA will ignore, even when brought to their attention.

Please familiarize yourself with the thread title.
"Passenger vehicles"

I understand passenger. But you said insurance companies weren't the answer. What is your answer?

Mine is state government not insurance companies and not federal government.

That is my answer.

 

[Pogo]

That post was about Big Insurance ---- not the federal government.

I thought that was the OP's idea... that tire inspections should be run by insurance companies, which by definition (unlike government) exist to make profits.

As for "the feds need to butt out" let's be realistic ---- if state governments (nobody brought up the fed) didn't have safety requirements on cars and on driving, the carnage would be immense.

I don't want insurance companies, as you say their is a money issue.

So then we move to Federal government, I find them to less than helpful and very arbitrary in their laws and the interpretation. They would be a poor solution.

State and local governments would be a better solution.

The issue I have, is do we even need government interference in private vehicle inspections.

I'm not aware of the federal government inspecting tires. I don't understand where you're pulling that from.

They do more than inspect tires on commercial vehicles. They have FBI trained investigators that do routine compliance reviews. The also have FMCSA inspectors that can pull any commercial vehicle and do an inspection.

Companies have people reading the FMCSA rules and regulations to determine how they can stay compliant and how to interpret the current FMCSA rules and their effects on the CMV industry.

They claim safety but most of the stuff you called on is paperwork, it has nothing to do with the safety of the vehicle or the driver. Then there are carriers, property and passenger, that the FMCSA will ignore, even when brought to their attention.

Please familiarize yourself with the thread title.
"Passenger vehicles"

I understand passenger. But you said insurance companies weren't the answer. What is your answer?

Mine is state government not insurance companies and not federal government.

That is my answer.

As I said already in post 4, we can make driving on bald tires a citationable offense, if it isn't already, but I don't see a point in the OP's idea of owners keeping some kind of log -- just periodic checks and replacement when it's time. And I definitely don't see handing over authoritative power to profit-driven insurance companies.

I never brought up anything about the federal government and as far as I know, neither did the OP.

 

[longknife]

There is a simple solution. Insurance companies can require a mechanical safety test to be conducted every year upon renewal of insurance - the same test before issuance of insurance.

 

[Pogo]

There is a simple solution. Insurance companies can require a mechanical safety test to be conducted every year upon renewal of insurance - the same test before issuance of insurance.

That's already done in state inspections.

There is absolutely nothing positive in turning over any kind of authority to a profit-making organization. It shouldn't have to be explained why.

 

[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.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.