Bald Tyre - Fixed Penalty Notice.

Boxcar_Willie · 27-08-2020 12:14pm #1

I was pulled in by a Garda one evening a few weeks ago .

Checked my licence , tax , NCT & insurance and all was in order .
He then walked around the car and said that one tyre was bald , I disputed this as I regularly check my car and would have noticed if it was close to the minimum thread .

The following morning I went to a tyre centre to change the tyre and the manager there told me that the tyre was fine and doesn't need replacing .
Two days later the car went for NCT with the same tyres in and passed.

Fast forward a month to this week and I have now received a fixed penalty notice for an €80 fine plus 2 penalty points for the "bald tyre" , what would my best course of action be ?

hullaballoo · 27-08-2020 2:09pm

The choices are to pay the fine and accept the points or to contest it in court.

If I was in the situation you have described,* I would be heading to court with my solicitor and a decent brief by my side as a matter of principle. However, that costs more than the fine and possibly the increase to your insurance premium for 2 points. If you have no points already, you could consider cutting your losses and just stumping up now and taking the points as 2 points are unlikely to bother most insurance companies.

*The caveat here is that if the actual facts here deviate in any way from the story in the OP, naturally enough.

27-08-2020 4:36pm

Proof it's the same tyre? Kinda hard to argue in all honesty and if you do win, the cost involved is more in both time and finances.

Have to admit, I didn't realise bald tyres was an fcpn now

hullaballoo · 27-08-2020 5:09pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Proof it's the same tyre? Kinda hard to argue in all honesty and if you do win, the cost involved is more in both time and finances.

You get in the witness box and swear up to the fact that it's the same tyre. Kinda hard to disprove the sworn evidence.

You might be unlucky and get one of the few remaining judges who believes Gardaí no matter what they say but that's where your lawyers come in to advise you who you are likely to be before and what their attitude is likely to be.

28-08-2020 8:24am

hullaballoo wrote: »

You get in the witness box and swear up to the fact that it's the same tyre. Kinda hard to disprove the sworn evidence.

You might be unlucky and get one of the few remaining judges who believes Gardaí no matter what they say but that's where your lawyers come in to advise you who you are likely to be before and what their attitude is likely to be.

It's not that simple. Gardai give sworn evidence too but not everyone is found guilty.

hullaballoo · 28-08-2020 8:39am

Ah it's fairly simple tbf. All you need is reasonable doubt. Sounds like there's enough in this to roll the dice to me if you like to stupidly stand on principle like me, subject to the above caveats re cost and the potential to get the wrong judge, which is squarely in the field of knowledge of local District Court practitioners.

The more sensible option still is to pay €80 and take 2 points that will be gone in a few years and that shouldn't make a difference to insurance.

28-08-2020 8:45am

hullaballoo wrote: »

Ah it's fairly simple tbf. All you need is reasonable doubt. Sounds like there's enough in this to roll the dice to me if you like to stupidly stand on principle like me, subject to the above caveats re cost and the potential to get the wrong judge, which is squarely in the field of knowledge of local District Court practitioners.

The more sensible option still is to pay €80 and take 2 points that will be gone in a few years and that shouldn't make a difference to insurance.

Well you should be getting the same judge in the summons court. I don't think they are moving any at the moment are they?

And in traffic matters, it's nearly always you v the Garda. If the Garda knows his stuff and gives the evidence correctly, it's usually a conviction.

Exceptions of course as there will be.

GreeBo · 28-08-2020 8:56am

Surely the Garda has to provide some evidence of a fault?

Dont they have to measure window tint for example?
They also have to prove you are over the limit, they cant just decide you look like you are.
I dont see how they can "decide" that a tyre is bald and not have to prove it.

ronivek · 28-08-2020 9:01am

I'm struggling to reconcile the fact a Garda claimed your tyre 'was bald' versus the same tyre passing the NCT. Did he measure the tread or just eyeball it? Did you have some sort of skid or emergency braking incident in your car in the recent past?

You say you took your car to a tyre centre and they told you it didn't need replacing; which would indicate it has at least 1.6mm of tread throughout. You then say you took the same tyres to the NCT which means they must have over 3mm of tread throughout (assuming you didn't get a pass advisory).

My feeling is that if the Garda states 'the tyre was bald' and you had an NCT test literally 3 days after the notice was issued that any judgement could very easily go against you for any number of reasons. First thing that pops into my head is that if you *did* have a bald tyre you would naturally replace it before the NCT; so the NCT doesn't really prove anything. Likewise your visit to the tyre centre.

ohnonotgmail · 28-08-2020 9:01am

GreeBo wrote: »

Surely the Garda has to provide some evidence of a fault?

Dont they have to measure window tint for example?
They also have to prove you are over the limit, they cant just decide you look like you are.
I dont see how they can "decide" that a tyre is bald and not have to prove it.

can you look at a tyre and decide that it is bald? I reckon i would have a decent chance of getting it right.

ronivek · 28-08-2020 9:05am

GreeBo wrote: »

Surely the Garda has to provide some evidence of a fault?

Dont they have to measure window tint for example?
They also have to prove you are over the limit, they cant just decide you look like you are.
I dont see how they can "decide" that a tyre is bald and not have to prove it.

I'm fairly sure if he wrote in his notebook 'bald spot on tyre' that it would be sufficient for most judges; since any 'bald spot' around the central 3/4ths of the tyre would by definition instantly fail the tread depth test. You don't have to measure the depth of a flat surface; it's fairly self evident if it's present.

Xterminator · 28-08-2020 9:06am

Surely the Garda has to provide some evidence of a fault?

Im going to assume you are asking a genuine question.

if it goes to court, IE you don't accept the fixed penalty, then the guard does have to give evidence, his testimony! You then have the opportunity to cross examine and provide rebuttal witness & your own corroborating evidence, eg photo showing depth of thread etc.

In a criminal case you only have to provide reasonable doubt, so the bar is pretty low, to win your case. if the judge thinks the guard was probably right, but isnt certain - you win.

Calahonda52 · 28-08-2020 9:08am

hullaballoo wrote: »

You get in the witness box and swear up to the fact that it's the same tyre. Kinda hard to disprove the sworn evidence.

You might be unlucky and get one of the few remaining judges who believes Gardaí no matter what they say but that's where your lawyers come in to advise you who you are likely to be before and what their attitude is likely to be.

I got one of those, the lawyer's answer was, the system won't work if they don't take the Garda evidence.
The lawyer will cost you whatever way it pans out if you go to court as you wont get costs against the State.
80 lids and 2 points is not a massive hit, unless you are at 10 already:D

ronivek · 28-08-2020 9:13am

Xterminator wrote: »

In a criminal case you only have to provide reasonable doubt, so the bar is pretty low, to win your case. if the judge thinks the guard was probably right, but isnt certain - you win.

And if the Garda has written in his notebook that the tyre 'was bald' or 'had a bald spot' I can't imagine how he would state anything other than that to the judge.

If he hasn't recorded the FCN correctly or isn't willing to commit himself then all is well and good; but there's naturally no way to know what beforehand.

One option for you OP might be to fill out a FCN cancellation request. However I doubt you'd get an answer in time to pay the fine. The form is here: https://www.garda.ie/en/roads-policing/fixed-charge-notices/fcn-cancellation-request-form-writeable.pdf and you can e-mail it to npo@garda.ie.

grayzer75 · 28-08-2020 9:19am

A few questions you could ask if you go the court route:

Did the garda in question measure the actual thread depth? e.g. thread depth caliper
Was the equipment used calibrated to a known standard? e.g. calibrated to ISO13385
Was the calibration carried out in a certified lab? e.g. certified to ISO17025
Was the garda trained in the correct use of the equipment? e.g. training records
Did the garda record the measurement of the thread depth and the tyre which was measured?
Was there any photographic evidence taken showing the defect in the tyre?

GreeBo · 28-08-2020 9:20am

Xterminator wrote: »

Im going to assume you are asking a genuine question.

if it goes to court, IE you don't accept the fixed penalty, then the guard does have to give evidence, his testimony! You then have the opportunity to cross examine and provide rebuttal witness & your own corroborating evidence, eg photo showing depth of thread etc.

In a criminal case you only have to provide reasonable doubt, so the bar is pretty low, to win your case. if the judge thinks the guard was probably right, but isnt certain - you win.

His evidence is of laymans opinion of tyre condition, why would his opinion be enough to convict the OP?

would you accept it if a Garda gave you a fine because he reckoned your car was emitting too much of a particular gas?

ohnonotgmail · 28-08-2020 9:21am

grayzer75 wrote: »

A few questions you could ask if you go the court route:

Did the garda in question measure the actual thread depth? e.g. thread depth caliper
Was the equipment used calibrated to a known standard? e.g. calibrated to ISO13385
Was the calibration carried out in a certified lab? e.g. certified to ISO17025
Was the garda trained in the correct use of the equipment? e.g. training records
Did the garda record the measurement of the thread depth and the tyre which was measured?
Was there any photographic evidence taken showing the defect in the tyre?

a single bald spot is sufficient for the offence.

GreeBo · 28-08-2020 9:22am

ronivek wrote: »

And if the Garda has written in his notebook that the tyre 'was bald' or 'had a bald spot' I can't imagine how he would state anything other than that to the judge.

If he hasn't recorded the FCN correctly or isn't willing to commit himself then all is well and good; but there's naturally no way to know what beforehand.

One option for you OP might be to fill out a FCN cancellation request. However I doubt you'd get an answer in time to pay the fine. The form is here: https://www.garda.ie/en/roads-policing/fixed-charge-notices/fcn-cancellation-request-form-writeable.pdf and you can e-mail it to npo@garda.ie.

and a reasonable question to the Garda would be "how bald was it?" or "how did you measure it?"
"Have you been trained to measure thread depth by eye?"
Also,"Can you provide a photo of the bald tyre, or the details of the tyre?"

If the garda cant do any of this then I dont see how they have a leg to stand on.

ohnonotgmail · 28-08-2020 9:24am

GreeBo wrote: »

and a reasonable question to the Garda would be "how bald was it?" or "how did you measure it?"
"Have you been trained to measure thread depth by eye?"
Also,"Can you provide a photo of the bald tyre, or the details of the tyre?"

If the garda cant do any of this then I dont see how they have a leg to stand on.

if the garda gives sworn evidence that there was a bald spot on the tyre you need to come back with something stronger than that.

guitarhappy · 28-08-2020 9:27am

Xterminator wrote: »

You then have the opportunity to cross examine

Which Tyre? (front, rear, left, right)
What brand is the Tyre?
What size was the tyre?
Were there any markings on the tyre?
Did the tyre match the other 3 tyres?
What air pressure in the tyre?
What tool did guard use to measure the tread?
What was the weather?
Was it a cloudy day?
Was the tyre wet?
Was there direct sunlight on the tyre?
What were you wearing when the guard stopped you?
Did he see a dog in the car?
How many hours had the guard been on duty that day?...

Lots of ways to create doubt about the validity of the guards testimony.

grayzer75 · 28-08-2020 9:30am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a single bald spot is sufficient for the offence.

There still needs to be evidence / measurements to back up the claim. As somebody who has worked in metrology for over 25 years, you cannot determine the actual depth of something by just looking at it.

niallers1 · 28-08-2020 9:31am

There is a good chance the Guard won't even turn up to court for this

ohnonotgmail · 28-08-2020 9:33am

grayzer75 wrote: »

There still needs to be evidence / measurements to back up the claim. As somebody who has worked in metrology for over 25 years, you cannot determine the actual depth of something by just looking at it.

no measuring required to ascertain that there is no thread over part of a tyre. the absence of thread means that it is bald.

grayzer75 · 28-08-2020 9:38am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no measuring required to ascertain that there is no thread over part of a tyre. the absence of thread means that it is bald.

There was no mention of "the absence of thread" and the OP suggested they regularly check the tyres to ensure they haven't reached minimum depth.

I know it's a different jurisdiction but the PSNI will take a physical measurement of a suspected defect tyre, window tints, etc. Is it not the same for the gardai or have they free reign to say what they like without evidence to back it up?

Mellor · 28-08-2020 9:39am

grayzer75 wrote: »

A few questions you could ask if you go the court route:

Did the garda in question measure the actual thread depth? e.g. thread depth caliper
Was the equipment used calibrated to a known standard? e.g. calibrated to ISO13385
Was the calibration carried out in a certified lab? e.g. certified to ISO17025
Was the garda trained in the correct use of the equipment? e.g. training records

He could very easily say no he didn't, as it's not required afaik.

ohnonotgmail · 28-08-2020 9:39am

grayzer75 wrote: »

There was no mention of "the absence of thread" and the OP suggested they regularly check the tyres to ensure they haven't reached minimum depth.

I know it's a different jurisdiction but the PSNI will take a physical measurement of a suspected defect tyre, window tints, etc. Is it not the same for the gardai or have they free reign to say what they like without evidence to back it up?

from the OP

He then walked around the car and said that one tyre was bald

only one bald spot is required for the tyre to be defective.

niallers1 · 28-08-2020 9:40am

In this day an age at a minimum a photo and a thread depth measurement should be required.

GreeBo · 28-08-2020 9:47am

niallers1 wrote: »

In this day an age at a minimum a photo and a thread depth measurement should be required.

+1
I'd be shocked that a garda issuing a fine wouldnt create some proof, even for himself.

It would be like receiving a fine in the post that a Garda saw you speeding, yet he has no evidence that it was you and you have no way of proving it wasnt.

Bass Reeves · 28-08-2020 9:50am

What you would need is an sworn statement from the tyre shop employee that he saw the tyre the following day and it was in his opinion ok. As well that he did not replace it. Then you produce your NCT stating the tyre passed the NCT.

The sworn statement from the tyre shop employee must be in front of a peace commissioner. You could take this to the guard in question before the case along with the NCT they may withdraw the prosecution. If the judge is unwilling to accept that he may request the tyre shop employee come to court to give the evidence in court. Getting the tyre shop employee to give the statement may be hard

ohnonotgmail · 28-08-2020 9:53am

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What you would need is an sworn statement from the tyre shop employee that he saw the tyre the following day and it was in his opinion ok. As well that he did not replace it. Then you produce your NCT stating the tyre passed the NCT.

The sworn statement from the tyre shop employee must be in front of a peace commissioner. You could take this to the guard in question before the case along with the NCT they may withdraw the prosecution. If the judge is unwilling to accept that he may request the tyre shop employee come to court to give the evidence in court. Getting the tyre shop employee to give the statement may be hard

what is to say the op didnt change the tyre before going to the tyre shop? if, for example, the bald tyre was the front left they could swap the front left with a good tyre from elsewhere on the car and get the tyre shop to check what is now the front left and confirm it is OK.

eusap · 28-08-2020 9:54am

All tyres have a wear indicator, if you look in the grove of the tyre there is a small rubber spot every few inches, if the overall tyre is hitting that spot you are at the 1.6mm limit

BrianBoru00 · 28-08-2020 9:54am

I d appeal first to the fcpn office. Would the tyre centre owner give a statement to you ? That would support your case. So would the NCT office.

They might decide that if it were to go to Court you have evidence and should be given the benefit of the doubt i.e. your not just chancing your arm so it may be in the best interest of the state to cancel it instead of having a Garda in court all day for a 2 point fine .

If it's not cancelled I d go to court myself anyway without paying a solicitor. That way your only out the days holiday you have to take and make your own arguments - some of the points raised above are a good starting point

Calahonda52 · 28-08-2020 9:54am

Have any of you ever been prosecuted for a RTA offence and been in the District Court?

This is not a capital murder charge

Mellor · 28-08-2020 9:54am

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What you would need is an sworn statement from the tyre shop employee that he saw the tyre the following day and it was in his opinion ok. As well that he did not replace it. Then you produce your NCT stating the tyre passed the NCT.

The sworn statement from the tyre shop employee must be in front of a peace commissioner. You could take this to the guard in question before the case along with the NCT they may withdraw the prosecution. If the judge is unwilling to accept that he may request the tyre shop employee come to court to give the evidence in court. Getting the tyre shop employee to give the statement may be hard

And where is the evidence that the type that was Garda seen and the one that was taken to the shop/NCT was the same?

ohnonotgmail · 28-08-2020 9:56am

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

I d appeal first to the fcpn office. Would the tyre centre owner give a statement to you ? That would support your case. So would the NCT office.

They might decide that if it were to go to Court you have evidence and should be given the benefit of the doubt i.e. your not just chancing your arm so it may be in the best interest of the state to cancel it instead of having a Garda in court all day for a 2 point fine .

If it's not cancelled I d go to court myself anyway without paying a solicitor. That way your only out the days holiday you have to take and make your own arguments - some of the points raised above are a good starting point

all that for an 80 euro fine and two points? two points that will have no effect on their own. bearing in mind that if you lose the points are doubled and that will definitely have an effect.

hullaballoo · 28-08-2020 9:59am

grayzer75 wrote: »

A few questions you could ask if you go the court route:

Did the garda in question measure the actual thread depth? e.g. thread depth caliper
Was the equipment used calibrated to a known standard? e.g. calibrated to ISO13385
Was the calibration carried out in a certified lab? e.g. certified to ISO17025
Was the garda trained in the correct use of the equipment? e.g. training records
Did the garda record the measurement of the thread depth and the tyre which was measured?
Was there any photographic evidence taken showing the defect in the tyre?

While these are all reasonable questions in theory, if you start that up in a District Court list for minor road traffic offences, you'll quickly find out how far removed court room dramas are from the reality of busy court lists.

In one sense, it's fodder for an appeal but lots of circumstances being discussed in this thread are fodder for an appeal. You don't really want to have to go so far as an appeal when, as has been pointed out, this kind of criminal defence is at your own expense.

Certainly as alluded to above if I was the barrister getting briefed in this, I'd probably gamble on it and maybe add in that if there's a conviction, I'll look after the appeal for no additional charge but again, it's a matter of principle and wouldn't be most people's guiding hand.

grayzer75 · 28-08-2020 10:00am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

all that for an 80 euro fine and two points? two points that will have no effect on their own. bearing in mind that if you lose the points are doubled and that will definitely have an effect.

By the same token, if the points were really unwarranted then whats to say it won't happen again in six months time and then the OP has four points on their licence.

vandriver · 28-08-2020 10:03am

As this is a legal discussion forum,I think you should get jail time for calling it tyre thread.

ohnonotgmail · 28-08-2020 10:03am

grayzer75 wrote: »

By the same token, if the points were really unwarranted then whats to say it won't happen again in six months time and then the OP has four points on their licence.

you would have to be really unlucky to get done a second time for a defective tyre that wasn't defective. you would have to be really unlucky to even come into contact with another garda in that timeframe. i cant remember the last time i was stopped by a guard on the road. it must be years.

ohnonotgmail · 28-08-2020 10:04am

vandriver wrote: »

As this is a legal discussion forum,I think you should get jail time for calling it tyre thread.

why would that be? tyre is the normal usage outside the US.

vandriver · 28-08-2020 10:07am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why would that be? tyre is the normal usage outside the US.

Tis the other word dear boy

ohnonotgmail · 28-08-2020 10:11am

vandriver wrote: »

Tis the other word dear boy

i dont think so

https://writingexplained.org/tyre-vs-tire-difference

https://grammarist.com/spelling/tire-tyre

all of our road traffic legislation uses tyre not tire

ronivek · 28-08-2020 10:12am

He’s talking about thread versus tread; although it’s a stupid thing to be pedantic about because the meaning is perfectly clear from the context.

BrianBoru00 · 28-08-2020 10:14am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

all that for an 80 euro fine and two points? two points that will have no effect on their own. bearing in mind that if you lose the points are doubled and that will definitely have an effect.

And if he's caught doing 60 in a 50 he ll have 5 points when he only committed three points worth of offences.

What the OP has described is a Garda blatantly lying. If it was me I d be frustrated and annoyed and definitely taking my chances in court.

At that point I would not be paying a solicitor to defend me but doing it myself and questioning the guard myself .

It ll cost me the days holiday .

If it's lost i d take my four points and wouldn't appeal further , though if I had more money I certainly would..

ohnonotgmail · 28-08-2020 10:15am

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

And if he's caught doing 60 in a 50 he ll have 5 points when he only committed three points worth of offences.

What the OP has described is a Garda blatantly lying. If it was me I d be frustrated and annoyed and definitely taking my chances in court.

At that point I would not be paying a solicitor to defend me but doing it myself and questioning the guard myself .

It ll cost me the days holiday .

If it's lost i d take my four points and wouldn't appeal further , though if I had more money I certainly would..

we only have the OPs word that the tyre isn't bald. a bit much to say that the garda is blatantly lying.

GreeBo · 28-08-2020 10:17am

ronivek wrote: »

He’s talking about thread versus tread; although it’s a stupid thing to be pedantic about because the meaning is perfectly clear from the context.

You need to tread softly on this tread about tire thread dept.

Mellor · 28-08-2020 10:20am

GreeBo wrote: »

You need to tread softly on this tread about tire thread dept.

Did you accidentally get one right?

Bandana boy · 28-08-2020 10:27am

in my granted limited experience* every body who turns up and challenges a fine they tend to win.
So turn up with your version of events I predict you win , is this worth a minimum half day of work for you , only you can decide.

*I challenged a breaking a red light penalty , I turned up with video evidence of the light sequence and as soon as I challenged the Garda dropped the charge ,I never got to actually show my evidence (missing my Perry mason moment ). While i waited there for my case to be called every challenge was immediately charges dropped by the Garda.
I inferred they are there to get through as many cases as possible and none were worth fighting. The vast majority of cases while i was there no defendant turned up and judgement was issued .

amadangomor · 28-08-2020 10:34am

Amazing that Gardai can do this to people with no evidence to back up their assertions.

Surely in this day and age they should use a camera and measuring equipment to prove something like this.

As we've seen from what Maurice McCabe went through the word of a Guard is to be doubted and not taken as gospel.

BrianBoru00 · 28-08-2020 11:18am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we only have the OPs word that the tyre isn't bald. a bit much to say that the garda is blatantly lying.

I'm not saying the Garda is blatantly lying.
The OP is.

Isn't the OP s word the only thing we have to go on for all queries on a message board ?

Dempo1 · 28-08-2020 11:39am

Just a thought, surely if there's a trail of evidence, garage, nct, is it not worth fighting, I'm sure the garage visited immediately after the incident would be willing to confirm tyre was fine (maybe I'm being too ambitious), point being, if you go to district court present the facts, I doubt a reasonable judge would not listen, look at the facts and judge in ops favour, if a solicitor is engaged (wise) and case won, are costs not awarded? Yes its a gamble but I think on merit, its worth fighting if evidence is obtainable. I hope we've not come to a stage we're a pedantic Garda, who clearly looked and couldn't find anything else can just dictate, your tyre is bald and that's it, no argument, no presumption of innocence etc etc

Bald Tyre - Fixed Penalty Notice.

Comments