10-011-VEH: OOSC, Partie II, Article 10. Pneus, b. Disposition relative aux pneus jumelés : inclure un critère égal ou supérieur à 20 %

Date d’inscription	15 avril 2010
Numéro de l’enjeu	10-011-VEH
Nom	MPO R. Thomas Jacques
Organisme	Pittsburgh Police Department
Adresse	302 South Main StreetPittsburgh, PA, 15220United StatesVoir sur la carte (s’ouvre dans un nouvel onglet)
Téléphone	412-812-2078
Courriel	[email protected]
Comité	Comité des véhicules
État	Fermé
Résumé de l’enjeu	Le comité local, composé d'inspecteurs MCSAP de tous les États-Unis, m'a demandé de vous soumettre un point à examiner. Actuellement, les Out-of-Service Criteria nord-américains (OOSC), point 10, Pneus, b.(8)-(10), stipulent que les pneus montés sur des essieux jumelés doivent présenter simultanément tous les défauts énumérés au point 10, Pneus, b. Cette exigence pourrait permettre à un véhicule de présenter de nombreuses infractions liées aux pneus, à condition que ces pneus ne soient pas montés en essieu jumelé. Nous estimons qu'un critère semblable à celui appliqué aux freins pourrait être mis en place afin de limiter ce taux à 20 % pour les pneus autres que les pneus directeurs.
Justification ou besoin	La nécessité de cette modification du code de la route est manifeste sur les routes des États-Unis, du Canada et du Mexique. Les débris de la bande de roulement qui se détachent des pneus éclatés constituent un danger important pour les véhicules utilitaires lourds ainsi que pour les véhicules de tourisme qui doivent éviter de heurter ces débris.
Demande d’action	Il faudrait ajouter un texte au OOSC. Point 10. Pneus, b., REMARQUE : Pneus autres que ceux de l'essieu directeur présentant un défaut égal ou supérieur à 20 %. Voir les conditions énumérées au point 10. Pneus, b. Ce texte ajouté ne remplace pas le texte entre 10. Pneus, b.(7) et 10. Pneus, b.(8).
Mesures prises par le comité	Information that had been received back from the TMC Tire and Wheel Study Group indicated that no tire company has any data relating to the amount of traction that is lost when different percentages of tires' treads wear down, however, all agreed that if 20% of the dual tires on a vehicle exhibited any of the three conditions, the vehicle would pose an imminent hazard to road safety. Although the study group indicated that they would support such a change, discussion in committee revolved around issues such as whether the steering axle tires would be included in this calculation based on the fact that they are already OOS; why the 20%, why not 40%. Without any study information or data related to crashes as a result of tires or data related to the effect of a percentage of bad tires, it was difficult for the committee to determine what, if any, would be an accurate percentage. Industry representatives were concerned that this would lead to several tires being changed out on the roadside which is not their choice of maintenance locations. Other issues were raised in regard to the condition being an imminent hazard and whether we were trying to impose punitive measures into the out of service criteria. It was discussed that the main reason for this condition to exist roadside is when a motor carrier is aware of the existing criteria and is trying to ?play games? to match a good tire with a bad tire all around the vehicle in order to operate above the OOS condition. This was discussed and addressed that for those types of carriers, the violation still exists on each of the tires and charges can be laid along with requirements to have the tires repaired and repair verification sent to the inspecting officer. Although several committee members could see the rationale behind the suggestion, without data to support the change and specifically the percentage of tires to be used, it was difficult to arbitrarily come up with a number and not consider the amendment as an enforcement action as opposed to removing an imminent hazard from the roadway.

Date d’inscription

15 avril 2010

Numéro de l’enjeu

10-011-VEH

Nom

MPO R. Thomas Jacques

Organisme

Pittsburgh Police Department

Adresse

302 South Main StreetPittsburgh, PA, 15220United StatesVoir sur la carte

Téléphone

412-812-2078

Courriel

[email protected]

Comité

Comité des véhicules

État

Fermé

Résumé de l’enjeu

Le comité local, composé d'inspecteurs MCSAP de tous les États-Unis, m'a demandé de vous soumettre un point à examiner. Actuellement, les Out-of-Service Criteria nord-américains (OOSC), point 10, Pneus, b.(8)-(10), stipulent que les pneus montés sur des essieux jumelés doivent présenter simultanément tous les défauts énumérés au point 10, Pneus, b. Cette exigence pourrait permettre à un véhicule de présenter de nombreuses infractions liées aux pneus, à condition que ces pneus ne soient pas montés en essieu jumelé. Nous estimons qu'un critère semblable à celui appliqué aux freins pourrait être mis en place afin de limiter ce taux à 20 % pour les pneus autres que les pneus directeurs.

Justification ou besoin

La nécessité de cette modification du code de la route est manifeste sur les routes des États-Unis, du Canada et du Mexique. Les débris de la bande de roulement qui se détachent des pneus éclatés constituent un danger important pour les véhicules utilitaires lourds ainsi que pour les véhicules de tourisme qui doivent éviter de heurter ces débris.

Demande d’action

Il faudrait ajouter un texte au OOSC. Point 10. Pneus, b., REMARQUE : Pneus autres que ceux de l'essieu directeur présentant un défaut égal ou supérieur à 20 %. Voir les conditions énumérées au point 10. Pneus, b. Ce texte ajouté ne remplace pas le texte entre 10. Pneus, b.(7) et 10. Pneus, b.(8).

Mesures prises par le comité

Information that had been received back from the TMC Tire and Wheel Study Group indicated that no tire company has any data relating to the amount of traction that is lost when different percentages of tires' treads wear down, however, all agreed that if 20% of the dual tires on a vehicle exhibited any of the three conditions, the vehicle would pose an imminent hazard to road safety. Although the study group indicated that they would support such a change, discussion in committee revolved around issues such as whether the steering axle tires would be included in this calculation based on the fact that they are already OOS; why the 20%, why not 40%. Without any study information or data related to crashes as a result of tires or data related to the effect of a percentage of bad tires, it was difficult for the committee to determine what, if any, would be an accurate percentage.

Industry representatives were concerned that this would lead to several tires being changed out on the roadside which is not their choice of maintenance locations.

Other issues were raised in regard to the condition being an imminent hazard and whether we were trying to impose punitive measures into the out of service criteria. It was discussed that the main reason for this condition to exist roadside is when a motor carrier is aware of the existing criteria and is trying to ?play games? to match a good tire with a bad tire all around the vehicle in order to operate above the OOS condition. This was discussed and addressed that for those types of carriers, the violation still exists on each of the tires and charges can be laid along with requirements to have the tires repaired and repair verification sent to the inspecting officer. Although several committee members could see the rationale behind the suggestion, without data to support the change and specifically the percentage of tires to be used, it was difficult to arbitrarily come up with a number and not consider the amendment as an enforcement action as opposed to removing an imminent hazard from the roadway.