Keeping the main thing, the main thing

Following last month’s “Panorama” which covered issues relating to illegal tyre dumping, you could be forgiven for thinking this column has gone a bit “Radio Times.” It hasn’t, but it seems tyres are getting far more than their 15 minutes of fame this summer. While last month’s piece looked at the pros and cons of the BBC’s, shall we say, variable TV coverage (which leapt from theme to theme apparently without fully thinking through the lack of linkage between them), this time it was the turn of radio.

On 31 August Radio 4’s flagship consumer affairs programme “You and Your’s”, hosted by respected broadcaster Peter White, took on the subject of part-worn tyres. The slot picked up on the story of Keith Johnston – a motorist who suffered paralysing injuries during a crash reportedly caused by his tyres. Auto Express and TyreSafe have both recently publicised this story as a way of highlighting the importance of good tyre maintenance and the dangers of part worn tyres. “You and Your’s” did something similar, but as with the “Panorama” broadcast again there are questions relating to how these two distinct and important issues were linked together.

In his introduction Peter White took the chance to share TyreSafe’s current 4 million unit estimate for the number of part worn tyres sold annually in the UK. Although estimates vary widely right up to the 6 million unit mark, this remains a particularly noteworthy topic of discussion because is directly relates to supply and demand in the new tyre sector.

Next up Stuart Jackson (TyreSafe chairman and Vredestein UK managing director) pointed out how few part worns come with the statutorily required marking – 1 in 50 according the latest survey. TyreSafe deserves kudos for bringing both these points to wider public attention.

However after these points were succinctly introduced, the programme switched to descriptions of accidents caused by poorly maintained tyres. The first case examined was Keith Johnston’s terrifying accident through the eyes of Cumbria police official Shaun McEwan. He observed that the front tyres fitted to the crash vehicle had “ample” tread “way above” the 1.6mm legal limit. According to his account, the road environment was “cold” (TyreSafe’s own press release adds that temperatures were well below zero) and the rear tyres were verging on bald.

One cannot imagine how distressing a road traffic accident can be on everyone involved, and one has to be careful about details relating to ongoing legal cases, but apart from the fact that the tyres were bought part worn, where is the causal link between the impact and part worn tyre sales? And how did we segue from the fact that there are an increasing number of part worn tyres being sold in the UK and the implication that part-worns specifically caused this accident? From the accounts given on “You and Yours” and in TyreSafe’s press release, you would think that the condition of the tyres and the ambient temperature are apparently unconnected to incident. Only the fact that they were not bought new was salient enough to be highlighted.

Now I am not in any way advocating for part-worns – this column has suggested we should enforce current laws much more strongly or ban part-worns altogether on a couple of occasions before. But isn’t there a danger of obscuring both the intended safety message (in this case the danger of un-regulated part worns) and tyre safety communications in general by blurring boundaries like this?

Worn versus part-worn?

McEwan went on to describe another case of “worn” tyres (with at least one running at 5psi) causing the back end of a car to swing out and then crash the vehicle. Another strong image with a valid safety message. But one could argue that in neither of these cases would a similarly run-down bought-from-new set of tyres have performed particularly differently. Again my point is not to lobby for part-worns – the fact that unregulated part-worns could be fitted in any condition and could have been brought in from anywhere is well made – but exaggerated comments suggesting worn tyres are like “buying an unexploded bomb” sound a touch hyberbolic when tread depth and pressure issues were the obvious common thread in both these cases. And if that is the case aren’t the interests of the public, industry, emergency services and indeed all stakeholders better served by focusing on these incontrovertible universal safety issues?

Overall, it is great to once again hear the subject of tyre safety being discussed in detail on national radio. As the saying goes, all publicity is good publicity. But if the emails that were obviously flooding into “You and Your’s” as the tyre segment closed are anything to go by, the general public will struggle to understand why a tyre that is bought new and “worn” to an illegal tread depth is any safer than a similarly mistreated “part-worn” tyre. Of course it isn’t. You have to concede that someone willing to by unregulated part-worns is probably less likely to look after their tyres, but isn’t encouraging drivers to take responsibility for their own tread depths, tyre pressures and to change old tyres for legal replacements promptly just clearer?

Having said all that, Stuart Jackson’s closing remarks to the effect of – it is your right to ask to see a part-worn marking when buying second hand tyres and if it’s not there don’t – offered a clear message to consumers. Who can argue with a simple message upholding the law and tacitly calling for better enforcement?