D & M wrote:
...... No one has a specific number. Six, seven, ten. Take your pick. I don't agree or disagree with the theory, I just think that the Maryland House has more important things to worry about.
Here's my take on this:
1) Because the local environment has such an effect on tire aging, it doesn't make sense for there to be a federal law. Any law would have to take into account the difference between - say - Arizona and Minnesota. That just won't work. So this has to be done at a local level.
2) Traditionally, vehicles are regulated at the state level and not lower. In some respects it makes sense for there to be a state law on tire age, rather than - say - county by county.
3) It is all too common for tire dealers not to rotate their stock and not to pay attention to the age of their tires. I remember one tire dealer who returned "new stock" that he insistent he had bought less than 2 year prior, but the tires were 15 years old. Nope, not possible.
4) Tire aging is going to vary by tire manufacturer - and each tire manufacturer is going to have a different take on where to draw the line and how to express it. It should be no surprise that there is going to be some variation.
So it might make sense to make a state law informing the consumer when he is getting 3 year old tires (or worse). It might also make sense to require vehicles to have tires to be newer than some age (even if it is arbitrary), in order to prevent some tire failure accidents. I see both of these things as part of what a state legislature should consider. It is in their jurisdiction and there is a need for regulations to protect citizens from fraud and unnecessary risks (particularly risks caused by other people's neglect.)
