Excessive Tyre Wear on Fiesta?

Which they won't.

They would have to prove that it was a relevant factor i the crash.

I've seen it done. They argued that the tyre wouldn't have delaminated the tread and failed if it was a higher specced tyre. Had to get to the court steps before they decided to settle.

If the load rating and size are appropriate and the car was not being driven at a speed in excess of the max speed rating on the tyre then they have no reason to.

The message from "Tim S Kemp" contains these words:

If the backs had any appreciable wear I might - but as it is there's loads of meat left on 'em.

The message from "Tim S Kemp" contains these words:

Which only conflicts with what I said if you're in the habit of driving considerably faster than the speed limit in the UK.

The message from Chris Street contains these words:

I can't see that standing up in court. If you have a crash at 30mph no court is going to uphold a refusal because your tyres weren't suitable for 130mph.

Do you have any evidence of insurers actually trying this, or is this one of those FOAF anecdotes?

Scottish and English miles be the same length but Scottish ones are about 3mm thicker.

Roman mile = 1479 m (mille passus) UK mile = 1609.344 m US mile = 1609.34722 m Danish mil = 7532.48 m Swedish mil = 10000 m

I suspect that's why the settled out of court.

I was the passenger when the tyre went and my mate took the insurers to court. (was there as a witness as to his speed or rather lack of speed). He ended up having a discussion outside chambers before the case was called and the upshot was they dropped it and wrote a cheque for the amount less court fees.

I'm not arguing. I've had one personal experience with tyres at the legal limit in the wet and that was enough. I was just pointing out the legality.

The message from Chris Street contains these words:

Chancers, innit. We had a property company try to turn the pub at the end of our garden (The Sun in Hounslow) into a strip joint. The local fought it vigorously but they were still adamant they were going to go ahead right up to having our hands on the court doorknob when they backed down.

I can well beleive it. What shocked me was that the insurers were really willing to try this to defend against a claim that would have been no more than £600 for a bumper and headlamp with matey doing the fitting himself. (keep the cost down of course and the renewal is presumably less adversly affected)

Johannes wrote on Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:43:55 GMT:

Why on earth is there a 3.22mm difference in a UK and US mile?

The message from "David Taylor" contains these words:

'Cos they have to go the 1/8" further, innit. It's an anti terrorist thing - makes sure that all those GPS guided bombs fall short.

There isn't. Only in some odd circumstances, which is more due to a strangely defined foot.

see

I asked a local tyre fitter and they said they could do NanKangs for =A339 each fitted.... They reckon they're good tyres and I won't notice the difference between these and the fitted firestones... What do people think?

I am tempted to go for it and put them on the three worn wheels.. as I'd like to have new tread for the winter and as I'm likely to be shelling out for a new timing belt soon (see other thread) I can't really afford =A360 a piece + fitting.

Oops just looked out the original receipt from the last pair of tyres. The firestones were =A330 each +VAt and fitting from the excellent Micheldever station in Hants -so there's probably not that much difference between them really!!

I doubt they're any worse than firestones.