Consultation outcome

Government response to the consultation to ban tyres aged 10 years or older

Updated 15 July 2020

Ministerial foreword

The government is committed to delivering road safety for all road users and one route to achieve this is by maintaining a robust legislative framework that ensures the continuous assessment of the roadworthiness of vehicles.

We would like to thank all those who responded to the consultation for their valuable input and have noted the views expressed. After considering the responses, we have decided to proceed with a ban for tyres aged 10 years or older in order to improve road safety.

This ban will apply to tyres fitted to the front axle of heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches and to the tyres on all axles of minibuses when fitted in single configuration. Re-treaded tyres will be subject to the same restrictions as first-life tyres, where the date of re-treading will be used to determine the age of the tyre.

By implementing legislation, we will strengthen the existing operator licensing regime that currently applies to commercially operated vehicles, enabling action to be taken against the small minority of drivers and operators who fail to comply. The legislation will also apply to vehicles that are not covered by the operator licensing regime and its associated maintenance schedules, providing additional safeguards for occupants in these vehicles and for other road users.

This legislative measure is a revision of the proposal included in the consultation, we have listened to the range of views received and believe that our policy delivers valuable road safety benefits, balanced against the shortage of evidence to proceed with a more extensive ban, including further controls for re-treaded tyres.

We will grant an exemption to 2 vehicle groups. Firstly, to those vehicles that are currently exempt from tyre roadworthiness regulations (including agricultural tractors that travel at low speeds) to remain consistent with existing legislation. Secondly, to those historic vehicles that are currently exempt from roadworthiness testing, providing they are not used commercially. We recognise that historic vehicles are usually well-maintained, are used infrequently and do not travel at high speeds but it is important to balance the granting of any exemptions with the safety of all road users.

We have decided not to proceed with a consultation to ban older tyres on taxis and Private Hire Vehicles at this stage, since we do not currently have sufficient evidence to justify legislating against their use for these vehicle types.

We will bring forward amending legislation to put the decisions set out in this document into effect, with an implementation period of 3 months.

This is the culmination of years of work in this area, following 2 fatal collisions where the age of the tyre was deemed to be a contributory factor. Mrs Frances Molloy, whose son Michael was one of those killed has campaigned tirelessly for a change in legislation. Since 2013, the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) have published roadworthiness guidance to advise against the use of tyres aged more than 10 years on the front axles of buses and coaches and extended this guidance to include heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) in November 2018.

Introduction

The DfT published a consultation inviting views on proposals to legislate against the use of tyres aged 10 years or older on HGVs, buses, coaches and minibuses, to improve road safety. The consultation was open for 10 weeks from 23 July to 1 September 2019. Respondents were also asked to provide evidence to inform our decisions for extending the same requirements to taxis and private hire vehicles. The consultation included a list of specific questions on our proposals for respondents to answer.

We received a total of 1134 responses via the online survey, email and post. Respondents included businesses, trade associations, public bodies, tyre manufacturers, Members of Parliament, user groups, motorists’ clubs, museums and members of the public.

A summary of the responses received to the consultation and the government’s position on each of the main issues raised is included in this document.

A full list of the questions asked in the consultation (PDF, 405KB) is available.

To ban the use of first-life tyres aged 10 years or older on all axles of HGVs, heavy trailers, buses, coaches and minibuses

We have decided to proceed with a revision of our proposal, where tyres aged 10 years or older will be prohibited from use on the front axles of HGVs, buses and coaches and from all axles on minibuses when fitted in single configuration. In reaching this decision to implement legislation to improve road safety, we have considered a number of factors and issues raised by respondents during the consultation, including:

• both fatal collisions where we have evidence that tyre age contributed to their failure, were for tyres fitted to the front steering axles
• including tyres on all axles on minibuses (for tyres fitted in single configuration) will provide additional safeguards for minibus drivers, passengers and other road users, without a significant increase in costs of compliance for the entire haulage and passenger transport industries
• this legislative change mirrors existing roadworthiness guidance, so the majority of commercial, operator licenced vehicles should not need to make any adjustments to ensure compliance
• by introducing legislation, all in-scope vehicles, including those 25% of HGVs and 30% of buses, coaches and minibuses that are operated privately and are not subject to operator licensing and its associated maintenance schedules, will be subject to the same requirements. The vehicle involved in the second fatal collision was a privately-owned vehicle falling within this category.

Most respondents were in favour of our proposed ban on first-life tyres aged 10 years or older. Support from organisations and individuals echoed the wording from the consultation, highlighting the road safety aspects of the ban. The view from an industry representative was that it is “not common to find tyres older than 10 years since most fleet operators replace their tyres before then, with 6 years as more common cut off point” and that the ban is “a positive and proportional move towards delivering improved road safety”. A major fleet operator commented that they believed the proposal would “significantly improve the safety standards of passenger carrying operators and reduce the risk of serious tyre-related accidents”.

We have also considered the views of those who opposed the proposal, which were based on several aspects of the:

The lack of evidence for proceeding with regulatory restrictions

Several stakeholders questioned the validity of the evidence base for a legislative change, expressing their view that this could be strengthened by undertaking further data collection.

While we accept that condition of tyres is affected by many elements, not just age, we consider that the expert evidence presented to the Coroners’ inquiries, our own research and DVSA enforcement data supports a legislative change to restrict the use of older tyres on certain vehicle types. While there is no current requirement to collect data on the age of tyres involved in any incidents on UK roads, we consider that the extensive research programme involved in collecting any vehicle testing data or roadside statistics would be time consuming and create further delay.

The lack of evidence for proceeding with a ban on all axles

Industry stakeholders also commented that, in their view, there is a lack of evidence to support a legislative ban on all axles of HGVs and propose that a ban for tyres aged 10 years or older on front steering axles of HGVs is more appropriate.

We consider that applying a legislative ban to tyres on the front axle only recognises the current lack of evidence to support an all axle ban. Including tyres on all axles of minibuses (for tyres in single configuration), recognises that the potential impact of tyre failure on any axle on a minibus is more likely to lead to loss of control of the vehicle given the smaller size of a minibus compared to other, larger buses where drivers will be able to retain directional control following tyre failure on rear axles. The legislation will capture the diverse groups that use minibuses, 90% of which are currently not covered by existing roadworthiness guidance. We consider that tyres in twin configuration on minibuses should not be included since they will present a lower risk of directional control or stability in the event of a single tyre failure than for tyres in single configuration.

The limitations of the research performed by TRL

Several respondents highlighted the limitations, including the small sample size, of the TRL research and questioned the validity of using the research as a basis for policy.

We have been clear throughout that the TRL research forms part of the emerging evidence base on tyre age, rather than being the single source of evidence for any policy decisions. We have used this research, alongside evidence from expert testimony at coroners’ inquests and DVSA data to inform our proposals in this area.

The selection of a 10 year age limit

Many respondents expressed their concern over the choice of 10 years as a cut off for the age of tyres in any proposed legislation. Some respondents considered this to be an arbitrary choice since there is no evidence that 10 is the age at which tyres deteriorate and become unsafe. Others expressed views that an age limit of 20, 30 years or even lower than 10, including 4 would be more appropriate. No respondents provided any evidence to support an age limit other than 10 years.

We have decided to use 10 years since it is the age used in existing roadworthiness guidance, which was included as a reasonable limit and discussed with industry stakeholders in 2013, following the first fatal collision. In addition, major tyre manufacturers such as Michelin recommend changing tyres which haven’t been replaced 10 years after their date of manufacture, even if “they appear to be in usable condition and have not worn down to the tread wear indicator”. We consider 10 years to represent a proportionate balance between the road safety benefits and the costs to operators and owners of compliance.

The condition rather than the age of a tyre is the most important factor in determining the safety of a tyre, alongside how it is maintained, used and stored

Several responses specified that the condition, use and maintenance of tyres is more important than tyre age. Others recognised that age is one of many factors that govern a tyre’s safety. For example, an industry stakeholder’s view was that “it is not possible to prescribe an age at which all tyres are or are not suitable for continued service. The service life of a tyre is inextricably associated with its particular history, including usage, maintenance and environmental factors.”

We do not dispute that both the condition and maintenance of a tyre are key factors in sustaining its roadworthiness. However, based on the evidence from TRL research and expert testimony we also consider that there are structural changes that can occur within older tyres that are not visible from an external inspection of the tyre. Our proposal, by specifying a legal maximum age for tyres aims to minimise the number of tyres that are used on UK roads that may be subject to internal structural defects because of their age. We acknowledge respondents’ views that there has been a focus on improved tyre husbandry in the freight sector in the UK in recent years, including the increased use of tyre pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) technology. We recognise that this technological solution is most widely used on tyres in single configuration on HGVs, but it is not currently a universal solution for all tyre configurations or vehicle types.

Extremely high rates of compliance (99.94%) with existing guidance

Some respondents mentioned that this level of compliance with the current roadworthiness guidance advising against the use of tyres aged ten years or older demonstrated that there is no need to legislate since the existing regime, including escalation of any issues to the Traffic Commissioners, works well.

We recognise that compliance with existing guidance is currently high and that this guidance was only extended to HGVs in 2018. It is important to note that the legislation will also cover vehicles not included in the current roadworthiness guidance (estimated to be 25% of HGVs and 30% of buses, coaches and minibuses) that are operated privately and are not subject to operator licensing and its associated maintenance schedules. By expanding a ban to all in-scope vehicles we will provide assurance to all road users that tyres older than 10 years will not be permitted on these vehicles. Implementing a change to roadworthiness legislation will provide a legal basis for any future penalties and prosecutions if drivers and operators continue to use tyres older than 10 years old, strengthening the existing enforcement regime. The expected costs of implementing this legislation will be low, given the current level of compliance

Additional costs to operators of a ban

Some respondents anticipate that they would be faced with additional costs to comply with any legislative change. For example, “the cost associated with the logistics to administer this change, including vehicle downtime and maintenance costs” and “the labour cost incurred in change tyres, to ensure their compliance”. These costs were not quantified in their responses.

Our assessment of costs is based on the high rate of compliance with current roadworthiness guidance, which indicates that costs encountered by most operators to comply with the proposed ban of tyres aged 10 years or older on the front axle are to be small. We know that the vehicles managed by both freight and passenger operators are currently subject to extensive maintenance regimes, including for tyres, and do not accept that the legislative ban will generate a significant additional burden to these current regimes. Also, since we are proceeding with a revision of the proposal included in the consultation, this will further reduce the impacts on vehicle owners and operators.

Component parts

Respondents raised concerns that by imposing a ban on tyres aged over 10 years, we might be setting a precedent for future safety-related prohibitions that would lead to the imposition of life-limits on other vehicle components. Respondents queried the proportionality of taking such an approach in the absence, in their view, of sound scientific and technical evidence.

They stated that “The imposition of a component life introduces a significant precedent and raises the possibility of maximum life being imposed particularly on other components which might be thought to be primarily safety related.”

We do not agree with this view. We consider that it is appropriate to impose a ban for tyres aged over 10 years of age in the specific circumstances set out in this document. This would be in addition to (rather than in place of) existing roadworthiness legislation for tyres that will continue to cover issues such as tread depth, cuts, bulges, etc. Also, since the structural integrity (and hence safety) of tyres cannot be inspected or determined through non-destructive means, applying an age limit on tyres on certain axles and vehicles is reasonable. Any future changes to roadworthiness legislation will be made on a case by case basis, based on available evidence rather than precedent.

Application to different types of tyres

A group of respondents expressed a view that any legislation should be confined to tubeless radial tyres and not apply to cross ply tyres or radial tyres fitted with inner tubes, since in their view there was no evidence that age increased the risk of failure of these tyres.

Currently, the relevant requirements of the ‘Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1078)’ (the “construction and use regulations”) apply to all tyre types and we are not aware of any evidence that cross ply tyres or those with inner tubes should be treated differently. Cross ply tyres are constructed from some of the same materials as radial tyres (synthetic and natural rubber). These common materials will be affected in the same way by their storage, use and maintenance histories. They will also be susceptible to environmental conditions such as temperature, moisture, ozone and so on, degrading the structural integrity of the tyre. Therefore, we consider that all tyre types should be included in this legislation, to maximise road safety benefits.

Alternative proposal

A group of tyre industry stakeholders proposed that amending the MOT defects guidance for HGVs, buses and coaches would be a more proportionate approach rather than a legislative change to the construction and use regulations. They suggested amending the current guidance so that the outcome of any non-compliance for using tyres 10 years or older would be a test fail, rather than an advisory item as is currently the case.

The MOT or annual roadworthiness schemes are underpinned in law by the construction and use regulations. These regulations form the legal basis for the specific limits or metrics (for example tyre tread depth) or defects (for example tyre bulges or exposed cords) that determine a vehicle’s roadworthiness as part of any MOT or annual roadworthiness schemes. Furthermore, the absence of a specific tyre age limit in the construction and use regulations would mean there is no basis for any prosecutions against drivers or operators who breached this requirement under the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52). By amending the construction and use regulations, our proposal provides greater flexibility for how the ban is enforced, using established regimes, which we consider to be more appropriate than the alternative proposal.

To prohibit the use of re-treaded tyres, of any age on the steered axles of HGVs, buses, coaches and minibuses

We have decided not to proceed with this proposal. We received some support for this aspect of our proposal, but we considered the opposing views received from the tyre industry, vehicle operators and trade associations in reaching a decision. The collective view from these stakeholders was that, in the absence of any evidence to prove otherwise, re-treaded tyres should be treated the same as first-life tyres. We have decided to adopt a risk-based approach, where re-treaded tyres are subject to the same restrictions as first-life tyres. The date of re-treading will be used to determine the age of the tyre, rather than the date of manufacture of the tyre carcass. Tyres re-treaded 10 or more years ago will be prohibited from use on the front axles of HGVs, buses and coaches and from all axles (in single configuration) on minibuses.

This approach would minimise the potential environmental impact of any decrease in use of re-treaded tyres and of creating uncertainty over the safety of these products.

The main issues raised in opposition to our proposal were:

Re-treaded tyres are produced to internationally recognised UNECE standards

Respondents stated that since re-treaded tyres are produced to international standards (UNECE regulations) and are tested rigorously as part of the manufacturing process, they should not be treated any differently to first-life tyres. For example, one trade body commented “we see no justification for a ban on a wholly compliant product that is regulated under the UNECE framework”.

We are fully supportive of UNECE standards. Our rationale for proposing the ban on re-treaded tyres was to guarantee that all elements of a tyre were below 10 years old. This would minimise any future risks from the use of tyre carcasses that may be older than 10 years on axles that control the direction of the vehicle. There is no requirement for re-tread producers to record the date of manufacture of the original tyre carcass used when the tyre is re-treaded.

Lack of evidence to confirm any difference in safety between new/first-life and re-treaded tyres

Respondents presented strong views on this aspect of our proposal, highlighting that since neither tyre involved in the fatal collisions was re-treaded, there is a lack of evidence to support any legislative ban for re-treaded tyres. The lack of evidence of safety issues for re-treaded tyres more generally was also mentioned. The only limited evidence provided by respondents to support their view that re-treaded tyres are as safe as first-life tyres was the study performed by Bridgestone and Highways England where 57% of tyre debris collected from motorways was from new tyres compared to 35% from re-treaded tyres. As this roughly matches the 65:35 new to re-treaded split of European tyre sales, the authors conclude that re-treaded tyres were no more likely to fail than new tyres. Other respondents considered that it would be more appropriate to postpone any decision on legislation for re-treaded tyres until further evidence is collected.

It is worth noting that 54% of the tyre samples examined in the Bridgestone study were from cars and vans (which are not within the scope of the current proposal) and the main focus of the work was to analyse the reasons for tyre failure, rather than any assessment of the relative safety of new and re-treaded tyres. We also note the lack of evidence which would justify treating re-treaded tyres differently to new tyres. In the absence of this evidence and with the recognition that these tyres must be constructed to internationally agreed standards, a risk-based decision to allow the use of any re-treaded tyres on the steered axles of vehicles, providing the date of re-treading is less than 10 years ago, is reasonable.

The environmental impact of any decrease in use of re-treaded tyres and reputational damage to the UK re-treading industry as a result of any legislative ban

Several stakeholders indicated that this was their key objection to our proposal: “Many customers would interpret the ban as indicating that re-treaded tyres are not considered safe and would consequently shun the product in any position on their vehicles”. Industry estimates that a re-treaded tyre for a heavy vehicle reuses 85% of the original tyre, saving 30kg of rubber, up to 20kg of steel and 60kg of CO2 so they propose that these environmental benefits would be lost if any legislation where re-treaded tyres were treated differently to first-life tyres. They continue:

The loss of the use of re-treaded truck and bus tyres in the UK would lead to an increase in the consumption of new truck and bus tyres in excess of 40% costing vehicle operators an additional £102 million per year (on the basis of the central tyre price hypotheses used in the Impact assessment). Furthermore, it would spell the end of the UK re-treading industry that supports 5,500 jobs and contributes £230 million to the UK economy every year”.

Our intention is to improve road safety rather than to undermine the environmental benefits of re-treaded tyres, the value of the re-treaded tyre industry to UK manufacturing sector or the availably of cost effective products for UK vehicle operators. We recognise stakeholder’s views that the implications of any legislative change could be perceived by drivers and operators as a sign that re-treaded tyres are inferior or not as safe as new (non-re-treaded) tyres. Therefore, we consider it is appropriate that re-treaded tyres should be subject to the same restrictions as first-life tyres. In this case, tyres that have a re-tread date more than 10 years ago would not be permitted on the front axles of HGVs, buses and coaches or on any axles of minibuses. In light of this, we do not consider our proposal will result in any consequential costs caused by vehicle operators moving away from re-treaded tyres.

Existing tyre industry best practice

Some respondents pointed to the existing tyre industry guidance (to fit only re-treaded tyres away from the front steered axles) and suggested that this guidance works well so no change was needed. One comment was:

The fitting of new tyres to steered axles and further promotion of the best-practice guidance should be supported; not due to any safety concerns around re-treaded tyres, but rather to ensure a continued supply of used tyre casings for the UK tyre re-treading industry”.

Others suggested that it would be more proportionate to include this industry advice in DVSA roadworthiness guidance rather than as a formal legislative change.

Our intention was to formalise the tyre industry published best practice in legislation. While the tyre industry best practice advice is not to fit re-treaded tyres on front steering axles, we understand that this is position was borne of a time before processes such as shearography were available to assess a tyre’s construction during the remanufacturing process. This is now a routine process that gives confidence to the assessment of the donor carcass. Additionally, we understand that industry considers that recommending the use of re-tread tyres away from the steering axle helps to ensure a regular supply of tyre carcasses to support the re-treading. Our focus is the safety of all road users and any legislative ban for re-treaded tyres with a re-tread date of 10 years or more (as for first-life tyres) aims to minimise the risk associated with older tyres fitted to steering axles, while permitting re-treaded tyres aged less than ten years to be used on these axles.

Treatment of re-treaded tyres

We have decided to proceed with this proposal, where the age of re-treaded tyres is defined from the date of re-treading and tyres that were re-treaded 10 or more years ago should be subject to the same restrictions as first-life tyres that are 10 years or older. There was extensive support from respondents that any restrictions for first-life tyres should also apply to re-treaded tyres.

Of those respondents who did not support this approach there was no consensus for a different approach for re-treaded tyres in any legislation. Some respondents recommended that the date of manufacture of the tyre carcass should be taken as the starting point for the age of the tyre, others proposed that the number of times that a tyre could be re-treaded should be included in any legislation. Another view was that re-treaded tyres should be legally required to have 2 date markings, one for the date of manufacture and the second for the date of any re-treading, so any tyre with a carcass over 10 years old would not be permitted.

The original tyre manufacture date marking is retained during some but not all re-treading processes. Existing UNECE standards, adopted in the current domestic legislation, specify that only the date of re-treading must be marked on the tyre sidewall, rather than both the date of original manufacture and the date of re-treading. It would be a lengthy process to change the international UNECE standards to mandate retaining the date of manufacture during re-treading. Any decision to impose national legislation to require re-treaded tyres to retain the date of manufacture and the date of re-tread would need to be balanced against the risk associated with moving away from UNECE standards so that re-treaded tyres produced for the UK market would require different markings to those produced for other markets. If implemented, any change to this requirement would take many years to fully penetrate the market. Any country specific rules could limit consumer choice and be costly to implement since the re-treading industry machinery is designed to produce products to international standards.

Scope

Most respondents considered that the scope of the proposals was clearly described in the consultation and that they understood how they would be affected by any changes. Respondents who disagreed suggested more consideration should be given to historic vehicles, including the definitions of these vehicles in any proposed ban and how the proposal would apply to organisations such as museums that may have a PSV operator licence and use heritage vehicles commercially for fund raising for charities, maintenance of vehicles and so on, but not for profit. Other respondents requested further evidence on first-life commercial vehicle tyre degradation, re-treaded tyre safety and more information on how the scheme would be implemented, operated and enforced in a cost-effective way.

These issues are addressed in other sections, including detail of the exemption for historic vehicles, providing they are not used commercially. Given that the road safety of all users, including passengers, is the focus of our proposal, we consider that all vehicles that operate commercially should be included in any legislation.

Exemptions

We have decided to proceed with both categories of exemptions, including for a) the existing exemptions for tyre roadworthiness (in regulation 27(4)(a) of the construction and use regulations) and b) vehicles of historical interest.

Most respondents strongly supported these exemptions mainly because such vehicles travel at low speed and low mileage compared to other road vehicles and must meet roadworthiness requirements set out in the Road Traffic Act and Highway Code. Furthermore, tyres for these vehicles are often not mass produced (especially for heritage vehicles) and the supply is limited so replacement tyres can be difficult to source. Respondents also highlighted that most tyres used on historic vehicles are sourced from overseas, often manufactured in small batches, in non-standard sizes and not all vehicles can use readily available replacement tyres.

We received a range of views, both in support of and opposition to our proposed exemption for historic vehicles. One issue raised was the definition included in our proposed exemption, which is based on the MOT exemption criteria for historic vehicles. Respondents suggested that any exemption should apply to vehicles if they are licensed in the historic taxation class.

Respondents who opposed these exemptions argued that all vehicles without exception should be subjected to same legal requirements when it comes to safety-critical items especially if they are operating in a commercial capacity and/or carrying passengers.

Based on the responses from consultees, we consider it is appropriate to proceed with the proposed exemptions included in the consultation. We recognise that historic vehicles are usually well-maintained, are used infrequently and do not travel at high speeds but it is important to balance the granting of any exemptions with the safety of all road users and to remain consistent with existing legislation for roadworthiness testing. We also appreciate the challenges faced by owners of specialist and historic vehicles in sourcing and purchasing tyres and have recognised the need to provide further safeguards for paying passengers on historic vehicles by only applying the exemption to vehicles not in commercial use. We also consider it is appropriate for those vehicles (including agricultural tractors) that are currently exempt from certain legislative requirements concerning tyres to also be exempt from the new requirements concerning tyre age.

We consider that an exemption for historic vehicles based on the criteria for the exemption from roadworthiness testing for vehicles of historic interest is more appropriate than an exemption based on whether a vehicle is taxed as an historic vehicle. At present, the historic vehicle tax class is applicable to vehicles on a rolling 40 year basis, so in 2019, for vehicles registered pre-1979. The rules relating to roadworthiness testing exemption are more nuanced and were agreed by ministers following a public consultation in 2017, when a decision not to exempt all vehicles on a rolling 40-year basis was made in the interest of road safety.

Since we are proposing to amend roadworthiness legislation for tyres, by introducing an additional requirement for tyre age, it makes sense to use the same basis for any exemptions as those already in place for historic vehicles from roadworthiness testing. These existing exemptions for vehicles of historic interest were determined on the basis of the effect of the exemptions on road safety, which was a key factor identified during the 2017 public consultation. The determination of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) rules for historic vehicles are not driven by, or considered on the basis of, road safety. Additionally, it would be inappropriate to vary roadworthiness rules based on whether a vehicle owner has voluntarily applied for an exemption from VED, as this could create differing standards for identical vehicles and introduce needless complexity to the testing regime. This would be confusing for vehicle owners, operators and drivers as well as for enforcement teams.

Implementation period

We have decided to proceed with an implementation period of 3 months.

The government wants to proceed quickly to legislate on this issue to prevent future incidents from occurring because of failure of older tyres. We received a range of views on this issue, including from organisations supporting a 3 month implementation and from others that were in favour of a longer implementation, such as 6 months to “allow for full inspection of fleets within inspection intervals and to ensure requirements are clearly understood”. Others proposed 12 or 24 months, to ensure that the introduction of legislation “would be more manageable, less burdensome and would minimise the financial impact on the commercial sector.”

Concerns were raised on the length of implementation period required to meet the requirements of our full consultation proposal for the visibility of date markings and the associated implications of these on directional tread tyres.

Stakeholders from the heritage vehicle sector highlighted that they are highly likely to face operational issues as the tyres fitted on the historic vehicles are not readily available and may take months to procure due to limitations in supply chain, logistics, manufacturers availability and consequential financial challenges.

We consider an implementation period of 3 months following the introduction of legislation as per the consultation to be sufficient to allow owners and industry appropriate time to make operational changes. We will communicate this new requirement widely following publication of this response, raising awareness among owners of in-scope vehicles in advance of the date of introduction of any legislation. We consider that all operators (freight and passenger transport) will be able to plan their fleet management and ongoing maintenance regime to implement this change over this timescale with minimum disruption and costs. Given the road safety focus of this legislation we do not think that a longer implementation period is necessary given our decision to proceed with a revision of the consultation proposal, covering a front axle only ban for HGVs, buses and coaches and for all single axles on minibuses. Also, given the proposed exemption, the new rules will not apply to historic vehicles that meet the exemption criteria.

Enforcement

We have decided to proceed with our proposal to use the existing enforcement regime and the full range of penalties in the event of any non-compliance There was considerable support for this approach from respondents. Specific issues raised were:

Application of penalties to non-GB registered vehicles

Respondents wanted reassurance that the enforcement regime would not disadvantage GB operators compared to non-GB registered operators. Also, in the specific case where GB operators collect non-GB trailers from ports where the operator has “no control over the age of the tyres” respondents asked for clarity on who would face sanctions.

By applying the penalty regime to drivers and operators, enforcement officers will be able to issue to penalties and sanctions to drivers or operators of non-compliant vehicles on GB roads, regardless of the country of registration. Given that our proposal will only apply to tyres fitted to the front axles of motor vehicles, tyres on trailers, regardless of country of registration will not be affected.

Application of penalties only to operators rather than drivers

Several respondents were concerned by our proposal to apply fixed penalty notices to drivers in addition to applying sanctions to operators. They consider that sanctions should not be imposed on drivers as in many cases it will not be possible for them to clearly see the date of manufacture on a tyre, or to be responsible for ensuring that the date marking is visible or that it not reasonable to expect a driver to check tyre age as part of their daily check.

We recognise that tyre management is largely an operational issue and the expectation is that operators rather than drivers will keep a record of tyre ages to maintain compliance with any legislation for those vehicles covered by the operator licence regime. However, we recognise that not all vehicles are operated under this regime but will nevertheless be subject to the same tyre age management requirements. By including drivers in any proposed legislative, measure we permit enforcement officers to continue to apply their discretion on whether it is appropriate to issue a fixed penalty notice to them or to take action against the owner or operator of the vehicle. By including a broad, legally coherent enforcement regime, we can address industry concerns over proportionality and fairness, to ensure UK hauliers are not disadvantaged compared to non-UK hauliers. We will also ensure that the details of any legislation, including exemptions, is communicated to enforcement officers in addition to vehicle owners, operators and drivers.

Enforcement of the visibility of date markings and treatment of tyres with directional tread

Some respondents raised concerns with our proposal to mandate the visibility of date markings in all installation configurations (single and twin wheel), to aid enforcement. Views indicated that this was not practical “because of the common practice of turning tyres to balance wear”, “As the date marking is only embossed on one side of the tyre, it is not practicable to show the date on the outside of a rolling pair” (twin wheel) and since “some tyres are directional so they would have to be operated in the opposite rotation to that advised by the tyre manufacturer”.

Other views were “the benefits of the proposed measure are unquantified and unproven whilst the likely economic and environmental costs are considerable.” Industry estimated that this aspect of our proposal would cost £67 million (based on the central price hypotheses adopted in the impact assessment) (PDF, 1MB) and “would lead to an increase in the national consumption of new truck and bus tyres of approximately 10%.”

It is clear from the information provided by respondents that enforcing the visibility of date markings in all installation configurations will result in operational tyre management issues for the industry, which will subsequently increase costs. We have discussed with DVSA enforcement team, who have confirmed that they can safely read date markings on both sidewalls from tyres in single configuration, without the need for any legislative restriction. Given that all tyres included in the new legislation will operate in single configuration, there will be no requirement for the date marking to be displayed in any orientation and hence no material costs. The prohibition on the fitting of a tyre with a date marking that has been damaged, tampered with or defaced so that it is not legible will apply to tyres on all in-scope vehicles, regardless of their location on a vehicle.

Display of markings on tyres on new vehicles

Respondents were also concerned about the implications of our proposal to mandate the visibility of date markings on tyres fitted to new vehicles, which may lead to additional costs for manufacturers to change processes and machinery to meet this requirement.

Since we are implementing a revision of our proposal, which only applies to tyres fitted in single configuration, there is no requirement to display the date markings in a particular orientation, so this issue does not materialise and does not affect the production of vehicles.

Impact assessment

A large proportion of respondents did not comment on the analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposal included in the impact assessment (IA) that was published alongside the consultation document (PDF, 797KB).

Several stakeholders expressed views that although this ban is likely to incur some additional costs to businesses, road safety should be given the highest priority, regardless of costs.

Others raised concerns that the benefits included in the impact assessment “lacks robust evidence and further analysis and justification is required”. They highlighted that “the consequential costs from economic and environmental impact of the proposed requirements have not been considered”. They commented that these costs include those associated with the visibility of the date marking and the commercial and environmental impact of any loss in confidence in the UK re-tread industry. Others considered that the impact assessment “fails to consider the impact of tyre husbandry and maintenance on road safety outcomes” and does not include the costs associated with administering the change, including vehicle downtime and maintenance costs. Respondents also challenged our use of the counterfactual scenario (where 8 fatalities were assumed to occur as a result of failures of older tyres over the next 10 years) our baseline, given the existence of the DVSA roadworthiness guidance (this introduced in 2013 following the first collision in 2012) and the high compliance observed by DVSA enforcement teams.

Heritage and historic vehicle stakeholders raised the concern that the impact assessment does not consider costs associated with the historic vehicles operations such as costs of sourcing tyres for specialist vehicles before they “are worn out”.

We have revised the analysis included in the consultation stage IA and produced an updated final stage IA that provides an accurate representation of the cost and benefits of the proposed legislative change. In response to views received at consultation, we have included tyre disposal and maintenance costs. As an alternative approach to the counterfactual scenario, and in the absence of evidence from previous decades (so determining specific probabilities is not possible), we present a tipping point analysis to consider how many lives the regulation would need to save to be cost neutral.

Also, as stated above, given the legislation will only apply to re-treaded tyres that have been re-treaded more than 10 years ago, the consequential costs of a ban on re-treaded tyres of any age do not arise.

Environmental impacts

A considerable proportion of the overall respondents did not comment or express any views on the environmental impact of the proposals.

Some of the respondents to this question stated that they expected to see an initial increase in the number of tyres that would need to be disposed of because of this legislation. Others mentioned that if tyres are disposed of correctly and then recycled for other purposes the approach is well balanced and the road safety benefits will outweigh any initial short term environmental impact.

Organisations that responded to this question expressed a view that the ban would have a significant environmental impact due to the limitations on the use of re-treaded tyres and a potential increase in both legal and illegal scrapping and disposal of older tyres. Others raised concerns, as per the discussion on re-treaded tyres above that any ban on the use of re-treaded tyres will have a negative impact on the UK re-treading industry. They proposed that any lost sales of re-treaded tyres could potentially be replaced by low-cost tyres, increasing emissions of tyre and road wear particles.

We recognise the need for the safe and sustainable disposal of any non-compliant tyres and will continue to work with colleagues across government to support objectives to cut waste and improve resource efficiency as part of the resources and waste strategy published in December 2018. Given the current high rates of compliance with DVSA roadworthiness guidance we estimate that the number of tyres that will need to be disposed of are around 2,170 in the first year, reducing to around 540 in the second year. By implementing a revision of our consultation proposal where re-treaded tyres are treated equally to first-life tyres we are minimising any potential adverse environmental impacts of limitations of the use of re-treaded tyres. We will also continue to work with stakeholders to monitor the impact of this legislation, including on the environment.

Extension of a ban to taxis and private hire vehicles

We have decided not to proceed with this aspect following a review of the responses received during the consultation and the current lack of evidence of any collisions in this sector that are a direct result of the failure of older tyres.

Most respondents supported the extension of the ban to taxis and private hire vehicles since in their view, all commercial, passenger carrying vehicles should be subjected to same level of legal requirements to improve road safety. Arguments included that since these vehicles tend to have high annual mileages it is highly unlikely that they would have tyres fitted of this age, so the cost impact of any ban study would be very low. Others suggested that the ban should be extended to other vehicles specifically vans, cars, caravans, light trailers, motorcycles and pedal cycles. They suggest that if older tyres are considered unsafe for HGVs, buses coaches and minibuses then introducing a ban on other vehicle types would also lead to road safety benefits.

No respondents provided any evidence on the tyre age profile in this sector. There was support for any tyre age limit to be included in the licensing test for taxis and PHVs, to maintain alignment between the MOT test and the taxi licensing requirement.

Some respondents who opposed the extension suggested that since, in their view, the tyres on taxis and PHVs do not last 10 years and re-treads are not used, there is no need for a ban. However, no statistical evidence was provided to support these claims. Some industry stakeholders were opposed to this extension given the absence of evidence to justify proceeding with legislation for these vehicle types.

The department commissioned research that surveyed 2,424 tyres from 606 taxis and PHVs across 12 sites in August 2019 which showed that 1% of these tyres were 10 years or older. The study also found that from a sample of 10 local authorities, only one local authority limited the age of tyres on a vehicle (Norwich City Council applies a limit of 15 years).

At this stage we consider that it is not appropriate to consult on a legislative ban for older tyres on taxis and PHVs. There is a lack of evidence to underpin any cost benefit analysis of any proposed legislation. If we did decide to proceed we would need to collect more data on the scale of older tyre use in this sector. Awareness of the safety aspects of older tyres could be increased in future revisions of best practice for guidance for this sector. Taxis and PHVs are subject to testing on a regular basis so by highlighting the implication of the use of older tyres in guidance we will encourage drivers and operators to monitor the age of their tyres. It is possible that the 1% of old tyre use seen in this sector in our initial research would decrease without any legislative intervention as the public perception of older tyres being unsafe because of our legislative change for HGVs, buses, coaches and minibuses. Equally, the absence of evidence of the road safety risk of older tyres on other vehicle types (vans, light trailers, caravans and so on) makes legislation difficult to justify in any cost benefit analysis at this stage.

Other comments

Several respondents commented on the use of part worn tyres, in particular by the taxi and PHV sector. Some expressed views that some of these tyres do not meet roadworthiness standards and suggested that strong enforcement measures are required to tackle this non-compliance. Others suggested that since part worn tyres offer environmental advantages, including improved resource productivity and reduced emissions of both CO2 and tyre and road wear particles, their use should be encouraged. There is a strong cross-industry consensus in support of an improved market organisation for second-hand tyres that should be regulated as for new or re-treaded tyres, covering safety, environmental, consumer protection and fiscal standards. For example, one respondent commented “The road safety charity TyreSafe, in conjunction with local Trading Standards Officers and other government agencies, has conducted a 5-year study of the second-hand car and van tyre market: two-thirds of almost 500 tyres inspected displayed safety-critical defects.”

Although this consultation was not designed to explore issues related to the use and sale of part-worn or second hand tyres we will share the findings from this consultation with colleagues from Trading Standards, who have responsibility for enforcing the ‘Motor vehicle tyres (safety) regulations 1994’ that define the conditions for the sale of part worn tyres. Also, we are aware that Defra is conducting a trial of RFID labelling of used tyres, as part of their broader waste and resource recovery tracking initiative. The findings from this work has potential implications for further regulation of the second-hand tyre market.

Next steps

We aim to introduce secondary legislation to enact these proposals in 2020, subject to Parliamentary time. We will engage with owners of in-scope vehicles to raise awareness of these changes, including details of timescales for implementation.