XSeries-forum

Whilst I agree that poor condition tyres do contribute to a fair number of RTCs, there has to be a better and higher priority call on funding than spending £43k on a camera that automatically measures your car's tread depth and either issues an on the spot fine, or warns a checkpoint further down the road. Come on folks - step too far?

Reported in this week's Auto Express that ACPO has confirmed that it's advisor - Trevor Hall (ex-Essex Safety Camera Partnership) - has been to seen the device demo'd by ProContour in Germany and was 'quite excited'. Surely this (if adopted) if just going to become the new Gatso and therefore in too many cases a money making scam leading to fewer Police on the streets doing the job they ought to be allowed to do. The UK Public has little faith in some of the schemes as it is, and this isn't exactly going to help. IMHO of course.

I would like to know how it can measure accurately the difference between 1.7 mm (legal) and 1.5 mm (illeagal) from a distance... also how does it take into account for the edges being less than this. Motorbike Tyres are less than this too (1.2mm I think)

This in my opinion is a step too far, however I'm not worried that I will ever get caught because it is something I keep a close eye on.

I would never accept an on the spot fine, and what can they do to prove it? If you got a fine you would just go and stick a tyre on (part worn so it looks like it has been part of the car for a long time). Only if they were to have a check point.


Turks.

The distance issue might be simple - you drive over the blasted thing!! It's an optical system buried in the road - though I would argue that it would need to be very clean to make sure there was no possibility of a measurement error.

I keep an eye on mine too and having worked with a Police Force for a few years where they used 3mm as the minimum, I still tend to do the same. It doesn't take a huge amount of water on the road to 'upset' 315 width tyres because the grooves have filled up with the wet stuff.

Perhaps some might be less unhappy if all of the following points applied:

(a) Camera(s) & staff using/supporting same were advance funded by central govenment.
(b) Revenue generated exceeded cost as (i).
(c) Revenue generated was used to genuinely reduce road casualties &/or fund other policing.
(d) Vast majority of decent & generally law abidding motoring public wanted this.
(e) Info from cameras initiated a 1:1 interaction with senible use of discretion in instances as :

(i) A hard to see depth low point (maybe just on inside edge of centre 75% on a car or on a flat spot).
(ii) Someone who just bought relatively low mileage car from a main dealer.
(iii) Someone using a hire car for one day.
(iv) A car that passed MOT the day before.

(f) Discretion options included, issue of (non penalty), defect rectification notice where appropriate.

I suspect many will still disapprove unless delighted with basic frontline service delivery.

I can't constructively comment further in abscence of knowing full facts.

I am even boring myself now

Would it work in the rain

...........Well your Z wont get photographed if tyre camera only works when dry

[quote=""AW8""]...........Well your Z wont get photographed if tyre camera only works when dry [/quote]

You got it the wrong way around

Hmm.....................I know what I meant

........you wont have to worry about wet tyres being photographed.

Must be my age ..........I'll get my coat

If you drive over it then the measurement is taken from the compressed part of the tyre therefore giving a false reading...

Also, tread filled with mud, snow and horse shit would give a false reading...

Anyway, doesn't matter what we think if Trevor Hall (ex-Essex Safety Camera Partnership) is an excited little boy about this!


Turks.