Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinion

[Roy B.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

I dont see NCRS liable or any one, if the Corvette or the car had or came with any stock item New or OLD.Years ago before many of us were born cars had only a driver side wiper blade, the R/S was an option. Many cars had only one tail lights, R/S was an option. Passenger and rear seats in many cars were also an option. Seat belts, heaters and defrosters,spare tires,rear view mirrors and many more items were also an option, you paid more for those things. If you ever drive a car missing any one of those options the police can't write you up or hold you responsible, if the car came that way.I know because I'v had many cars like those.Even to day I'm stoped by police in my 55 Corvette for having sreens over my headlights and a plastic cover over my Ca. plate.I just need to inform the cop that the Corvette came that way.

[Dave Suesz]

Funny you should mention...

the screens and plexi. When we moved to NJ in the late 60's DMV inspect. failed our car for them (obscured plate, they said). So my Dad removed them and sent Mom to Insp. It was winter. It was snowing. Plate recess filled with blowing snow. Plate was invisible. Car passed, proving: 1) GM was right 2) NJDMV was stupid. Coupla' years later (so the legend goes) a lawyer with factory sides (which failed) sued the state. The court held that if the state allowed dealers to sell an item, inspection had to accept it.

[Earl G.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Todd,

You are so right on. If this alleged accident happened in California I know for sure that somebody (NCRS) could standby for the BIG RAM. I do traffic accident reconstruction and I am in a court a lot. You have the intent of NCRS to encourage the items you listed, and yes, the deep pockets is always present. The question is not if it happens, but when it happens. The NCRS people and their legal counsel better take a close look at this thread.

Earl

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Patrick,

In all honesty I'm just not sure how to respond.

I posted what I believe to be a fundamentally worthwhile technical and potential liability issue for discussion, opinions and raised awareness.

However in both this post and others you seem intent upon moving the discussion away from tires and public safety and liability and personalizing it towards, about and around 'ME' while speculating about myself, my spare time, my occupation and my motives of disrupting the status quo. I'm not taking the bait and don't find it to be particularly constructive in it's tone or intent.

To attempt to bring the discussion back to the salient points, perhaps you could elaborate on the standards applied to judging and operating a Corvette with respect to vintage or modern replacement brake hoses?

Why doesn't NCRS give points for correct original rubber brake hoses as in the case of original rubber tires?

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Roy I would tend to suggest that the intent of my scenario was that a vintage Corvette (well it's driver) was already clearly at fault in the eyes of the investigating officer and further that the accident was deemed to be tire related (e.g. a sudden blowout or skid or something...). Let's say the Corvette crossed the median or yellow stripe and struck another vehicle and their resting places made the matter clear cut in that regard. Beyond that of course remains the question of responsibility re NCRS, tire selection, service replacements, tire makers and what not... Could NCRS be pulled in as contributing to the responsibility?

Perhaps the question isn't so much what came with the car originally but whether or not the car was being properly maintained at the time of the accident by continuing to run 'original' tires (or brake hoses). I don't know the definitive answer. But I'm not sure I would want a legal setting to determine the answer for me in the aftermath of an ugly accident with an unfortunate victim being paraded in front of a jury.

====

Excellent point about the 'history' and evolution of safety and I wondered about this very aspect myself. While many of those old cars fell by the wayside, or owners may or may not have upgraded certain things like wipers and what not, were there any large organizations advocating NOT upgrading wipers systems and lights and seats and such while encouraging said vehicles be operated on public roads? It is also worth considering that many of the items are not 'wear' items whose service replacements have notably improved like tires and thus could conceivably never need service. E.g. there's a difference between 'adding a 2nd wiper' and 'replacing an existing wiper' if you follow my meaning.

At present it is not illegal according to any state law or federal law I'm aware of to operate a car w/ 30 or 40 year old original tires or brake hoses presuming they pass whatever safety inspection a state may require, if any (which usually focuses simply on tread depth). Clearly brand new reproduction bias ply tires are also available complete w/ purported out-of-roundness and what not. And people are largely free to put inappropriately sized tires on rims as far as I can tell.

Now w/ some exceptions the US is generally fairly tolerant of a variety of vehicle vintages sharing the roads. I don't believe there is a whole lot that is expressly forbidden though we may all want to watch for further changes affecting (all?) tires between now and 2007. In most cases it is perhaps assumed that attrition removes older vehicles over time.

But just because state or federal laws do not expressly forbid (or require) an item, does the subsequent encouragement of it's use (an ancient tire for example) constitute a responsible policy on the part of the organization?

So to summarize, if original equipment is legally 'acceptable', is acceptance necessarily 'good enough'? It seems to not be good enough in brake hoses but good enough in tires perhaps. Or is it?

My question or caveat here is in the aftermath of a serious accident in which the investigating officer asks why the owner has 30 or 40 year old tires or reproduction bias ply tires or tires not appropriately sized, installed? - What's the answer? 'My club gives me more points'? And if you had modern tires in good condition, would the question even be raised (presuming we're not talking Explorers & Firestones!)? Beyond that, my concern is whether or not the liability could be further broadened to include an organization that specifically rewards and thus encourages the installation of such tires on the vehicle that may be further operated on streets for additional points?

At any rate, you bring up an excellent point about what was installed originally - wondered if someone would bring it up.

(I feel for you on those older 'installed' items and police - been there, done that - another common one is the lack of shoulder belts - that's one cops sometimes watch for and ticket on thinking you aren't wearing any belts now that we have seat belt laws in many states)

[Patrick H.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Todd,

I would have to say that I just don't agree that you brought up a "fundamentally worthwhile technical and potential liability issue for discussion, opinions and raised awareness." I think the message is "Don't drive on old tires." No one in NCRS forces you to. There are unwritten rules in old car safety just like there are unwritten rules of safety when I go out in the field hunting with my guns. Sometimes common sense has to play a part in our daily lives.

Brake hoses generally fail from the inside out. There is no easy way to inspect them and assure that they are going to be in good mechanical condition on the inside, which is the side that needs to be working. As such, they are a part (the only part of the whole car?) that is allowed to be non-original with respect to judging. If thre were some way to easily verify their inner structural integrity with ease, they might be added back into the judging formula.

Tires, on the other hand, generally occur zero wear on the inside, are easily inspectable on their wear surface, and are relatively eaasily replaceable on the judging field (or in the parking lot next to the field) before judging occurs. One can often see wear, cracking, dry rot, etc. on an inspection of the tires. If one is inspecting the tires, then you are likely to be smart enough to realize that you shouldn't drive on older tires past their prime.

As I noted initially, NCRS does not discourage you from driving new tires any more than they encourage you drive old ones. The standards are for the Judging Field, not for what you do with the car on public roads.

And regarding your occupation or motives, the smile face means a remark is made in humor.

Patrick

[Mike G.]

I don't think a lawyer would take this case

The public has become so fed up with cases like these that fewer of them are brought to court. Lawyers generally finance these cases themselves and juries are much less sympathetic to the "It's someone else's fault, they should pay" cases than they used to be.

I saw a statistic recently that filings of cases like this are down something like 40% for these reasons. Don't quote me, but it was something like that.

Plus there are couple things NCRS has going for it. First, their (our) pockets aren't THAT deep. Second, we're a well meaning non-profit organization. Those factors make us a very unattractive target.

- Mike Greene

[John H.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

I think this whole discussion boils down to two issues:

1. There are too damn many lawyers microscopically investigating every aspect of our lives searching for opportunities to line their pockets with our money.

2. The entire concept of personal responsibility for one's actions and attendant common sense has gone right in the toilet, and has been replaced by the new concept of "Anything that happens to me is someone else's fault, and I'm gonna make them PAY".

Although the NCRS penalizes "original" tires less on the judging field than they do for any type of later replacement, anyone (especially a "car guy") with an I.Q. exceeding that of a pine stump should have enough common sense (remember that old concept?) not to drive on 30+ year-old "judging" tires. NOBODY requires ANYBODY to drive a car on the highway with old "judging" tires - that's purely an act of personal stupidity. Will I pay $2,000.00 for a set of "original" judging tires to get a few more points? Nope. If I had a set of those $2,000.00 tires given to me, would I drive on them? Nope. I'll take the points hit and drive the car on decent replacement radial tires; I understand that I'm solely responsible for any stupid decisions I make (which pisses off the lawyers who bottom-feed around issues like this).

[Earl G.]

Re: I don't think a lawyer would take this case

Mike,

Since we both live in California, we are more in tune with the various legal law suites that can and are brought to court. Even if NCRS' pockets aren't that deep, rest asured that they will be named in the case and either give up the insurance coverage amount or have the expense of fighting the court case. The "well meaning non-profit organization" won't cut crap when the JG is brought into court and read. NCRS may not be the primary target, but believe me they will be named in the case. The lawyers will name everybody and everything assocated with the tires (in this case) and will take what they can from whom they can. Unattractive target, maybe, but do they have money?

I have been involved in cases where I could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the party I was representing had nothing to do with causing the accident, but the insurance companies rolled over and paid the amount of insurance policy just to get out of court. Of course this type of cost is just passed onto people like us the next time we renew our insurance.

Earl

[Craig S.]

Amen John! *NM*

[Earl G.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

I feel your pain, hehe. I understand and agree, but you know it doesn't work that way. I think it is called CYA.

Earl

[Patrick H.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

John,

Thanks for stating the point even more emphatically than I did. And if someone wants the points with newer or repro tires, then DRIVE the car to the meet with those new tires and earn 'em back!

The NCRS doesn't care if you drive 500 miles one way, or 500 times around a 1 mile square block on the way to the meet. Drive it, earn the points, and make your choices.

For those who wonder, my 72 obtained its first Top Flight on BFGoodrich Radial TA's. It CAN be done!!! The second TF was after driving 535 miles and installing original tires on arrival (best of both tire judging worlds). For the third TF (at Hershey) I trailered it, and installed the original tires upon arrival. Next year, I drive it with BFG's (in NCRS-approved 215/70R15, if you wish to know) to Windsor for my attempt at Bowtie.

Patrick

[Art A.]

Re: I don't think a lawyer would take this case

Earl. I agree with your last statement------GM rolls over and settles cases almost every day just to get out of court and avoid the negative publicity----- even if they have done nothing wrong.

Of course this is just my opinion.
Art

[Bill Stephenson]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

John,

-------Quit sugar-coating those opinions and just tell us what you really think!.......Bill S

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Ah interesting... relevant courtroom experience speaking hear!

But thanks for the words Earl. I'm not arguing the right or wrongness of it, I'm simply throwing out for discussion whether or not a potential liability exists in the way the current judging process works and what is encouraged via the judging manual.

Since you have some relevant experience and insights, let me ask you this: Let's say in a year or so from now, NCRS does indeed find itself defending itself from the charge that certain ill adviced behaviors were encouraged per the judging manual in a suit dealing with an old tire failing while driving to an event that resulted in some bicyclists death.... What if a lawyer were to tread thru the NCRS archives and stumble across this and other similar threads and print them out to submit as evidence? Could the lawyer make a point that this very issue had previously been discussed on NCRS' very own BBS just a year prior? Just a thought.

thanks