Bookm wrote:

Yaw?

Oh.. you mean bent from hitting curb? Would require evidence to that effect. Get Disclosure.

Bent rim, metal into tire from car itself, (great evidence) plus the infamous "yaw"......still curious??

here ya go.....Tire yaw marks occur when a vehicle slides sideways while still moving forward.

hey guys...

ok so to answer some of your, questions.

1. tires were in good condition about 9/32seconds in both fronts (all seasons)

2. rims were in good condition, i had not hit anything recently (well at least the only thing you could actually hit in this city is pot holes everywhere)

3. front left tire is blown however the rim does not appear to be either bent, cracked, or broken in anyway,

i will go ahead tomorrow and check for the age of the tires but im pretty sure they are fairly new. thanks for the link

with all this questions and situations about the tire being a major factor im thinking i have a good chance because a. officer did not take photos of scene, the owner of the other car did, b. officer didnt look at the tires closely or asked me about them.

im definitely taken pictures tomorrow.

thank you all

9/32 is only about 30% tire wear, so the tires are likely an acceptable age unless your vehicle was stored for a while.

Going on the assumption that a tire failure led to the accident, do you remember where the tire blew? If the tire failed in the tread portion, you likely hit something that punctured it. Failures caused by underinflation will be on the sidewall, although that can be punctured as well.

Bear can correct me if I'm wrong, but take a look at the tire cords in the case of a sidewall failure. The tire cords are the threads embedded in the rubber. If some or all of the threads are cleanly cut, something punctured the tire. In the event of a failure due to underinflation, all the tire cords will be frayed from being pulled apart when the rubber failed. In cases of extreme heat, the rubber itself may be discoloured in a ring around the tire and the cords may have separated from the rubber.

As far as I know, there are legal no age limitations for tires in Ontario. There is only the 1.6 mm (2/32") tread depth limit.

(well at least the only thing you could actually hit in this city is pot holes everywhere)

Therefore.....Pothole hit weakens tire, it blows while you are turning and the cop blamed you. Sue the city..........after you beat the ticket.....

I'd sue the city regardless.

Even if the tire blowout was no fault of the city? Do you honestly think the city owes you anything in that case?

I thought that kind of thinking was limited to big-city America. "I'm inconvenienced, so someone has to pay me!"

Two thumbs down.

Squishy wrote:

9/32 is only about 30% tire wear, so the tires are likely an acceptable age unless your vehicle was stored for a while..

Do NOT trust the tread depth, check the date on the car....think it was CBC or W5 or similiar did research and a few new cars were being sent out with 2yr old tires, some tire dealers were actually putting on tires that were old....they were new but stored for the previous year(s).

Although nothing in law, I would not run with a tire over 5yrs old, but just my thought.

andrexxxo wrote:

hey guys...

with all this questions and situations about the tire being a major factor im thinking i have a good chance because a. officer did not take photos of scene, the owner of the other car did, b. officer didnt look at the tires closely or asked me about them.

In 12yrs I have never taken photos of a simple collision. If there is serious injury or death we call our ident unit out for that. I would not get too caught up about the tires, there might be more evidence than you are aware of.

That's true, and I should have added to double-check the date of manufacture anyways. Although it's rare to find tires more than a couple years old at a retailer. Under good storage conditions away from sunlight and ozone, tires will last in excess of 10 years. Those ideal storage conditions are rare (and a sign of a retailer you want to return to), but it is still not the same as deterioration in service. The service life of a tire is about five years; I think the Rubber Manufacturers Association recommends running tires no longer than seven years from the date of manufacture.

Proper storage during the winter months will allow you to extend the life as well. The Uniroyal tires on our Escort were manufactured in 1998 and were just retired this fall with 3/32 tread. We run winter tires for six to seven months out of the year and they were stored in the garage, covered, deflated, and away from fluorescent lighting. The rubber was still in great shape after a decade and they were grippy as heck.

For the average Joe who doesn't do a complete check of the car every oil change, five years from the date of manufacture is a good guideline. Even for a tire stored for half the year and examined regularly, I would run them no more than ten years as the danger of tread separation becomes very real and is not easily detected by a visual inspection.

Squishy wrote:

Even if the tire blowout was no fault of the city? Do you honestly think the city owes you anything in that case?

I thought that kind of thinking was limited to big-city America. "I'm inconvenienced, so someone has to pay me!"

Two thumbs down.

Learn to laugh Squishy

Jesus Christ, Internet rule #192: Jokes are to be followed by a smiley.

If that was a joke, then I apologize.

OHTA.ca rule #1.....anything that is posted by Reflections always includes a grain of salt...... Just like on the road..... Pay attention

Internet rule #192: Jokes are to be followed by a smiley.

I thought that was rule #12??

Err, typo? I have the special Dvorak keyboard where the 1 and the 9 are like the same key or something.

And my previous post was in response to Racer's post. I could see maybe seeking compensation if the pothole caused an accident and the street was in worse shape than others. Suing the city just for the hell of it is stupid.

Reflections wrote:

I thought that was rule #12??

Mipsrint?

racer wrote:

Reflections wrote:

I thought that was rule #12??

Mipsrint?

My comments were taken out of context