Thanks for the reminder that its illegal to have bald tyres on a vehicle 
Hope they publish one soon about cracks in windscreens, as I have forgotten the rules 
4 Likes
I guarantee this has come out because a CFAV has been done for driving a hire bus with bald tires, and they’ve complained saying it’s not their fault, and have been put in their place, that they should have checked before accepting the bus.
Timely reminders are always welcome…
1 Like
Bit of a rubbish position to be put in though. No winners there.
1 Like
Oh yeah, it is, but it’s a good reminder that these things need properly checking, not just ticking the box to say you’ve checked it.
Heard it before; vehicles out from MT with deflated tyres, lack of tread, cut in tyres. What do MT Sects do all day, except for drinking coffee and eating biscuits!
2 Likes
Problem is they don’t come from MT sections now - they come from hire companies such as hertz
2 Likes
I’m just saying that vehicles from MT are not always in a spick and span condition when used. BTW we do sometimes get vehicles from MT 
1 Like
Do you pay in advance with HobNobs or not…?
this is more than a single persons failure though.
At least three people are at fault here.
1 the person returning a vehicle with illegal tyres - on the basis they were legal when the vehicle was picked up
2.1 - the MT section bod (and I include Hertz etc in this) who collected the vehicle and in doing so also drove with illegal tyres but at the very least gave the vehicle a “once over” once it had been dropped off to the depot
2.2 - the MT mod who issued that vehicle in a “roadworthy state” when it wasn’t (this could be a forth person if different from the receiving bod)
3 - the CFAV who accepted the vehicle and drove it
Vehicle’s tyres do not go bald sat in the depot, it is a result of getting returned like that. I am not defending the CFAV or anyone who chooses to accept a vehicle not in a roadworthy condition - you make the choice, the law will punish you.
But this is not a single point of failure - all the driver did wrong was accept it was ok. I feel more blame is on MT for issuing kit not fit for purpose than is being suggested and why I echo these comments:
if it is issued in a poor state that is a failure in the system, regardless what the driver chooses to do next
I agree with you that there are multiple points of failure. But none of that really matters to the end user in terms of getting in trouble.
All that matters, and all this is saying, is you as the driver must do these checks yourself. Yes it’s not your fault they’re bald. But it’s you getting the points and a fine!
i do not disagree but what i am saying it should never get to the point where it occurs - which is why there is a blase attitude by drivers who assume they have been issued kit fit for purpose.
yes the driver is the one who faces the music when caught, but why have a system if it sets people up to fail (or be let down at the very least if unable to accept the vehicle as roadworthy?)
1 Like
Yeah, I guess this is the real issue here. I get given a van that has illegal tires. My event is now screwed. What’s HQAC/MOD doing to make sure this doesn’t happen. It’s obviously happened enough times and people and got caught that they need to put out this announcement.
1 Like
Well, it’s probably just on the limit, but it should do till you bring it back. Anyway we haven’t got another vehicle available and there’s no one here who can take it to get the tyre changed. You can wait if you want, but it might be tomorrow morning before it can be done.
No pressure then?
exmpa
2 Likes
I’d have more faith in Hertz than MT anyway.
1 Like
Let’s also reflect that this is Babcock issued and maybe therefore not a CFAV at all that has been affected.
A wing was running a camp and had hired 12 minibuses through clarity system. The majority were refused because they were not in a roadworthy condition. Wing had to pay and make a complaint through the system to get the money back.
Do drivers also consider the weight of a minibus!!?? By filling all seats and the addition of luggage will mean it is likly to be over weight. In ALL cases the driver is ultimately responsible for the roadworthiness of the vehicle they are driving, the system should prevent illegal activities but the buck stops with the driver.
There was a period of time where the police sat on the A40 pulling loads of drivers over coming out of Brize. Loads of overloaded transits, low-loaders, that sort of thing. Lots of drivers being told to take from A to B and not questioning it at all. Lots of points given out…
That’s one of the flaws in our driving standards in this country with C1 and D1, what’s allowed doesn’t match the vehicles and licences.