In July of 2008, a bill that would have made it mandatory for tire dealers in California to disclose tire age information for each unit sold was withdrawn the day before it would have been voted on by a state senate committee. In 2010, the Florida state senate also considered a bill that would have required tire dealers to make tire age information transparent; however, that bill died in committee. And earlier this year, a similar bill proposed in Maryland failed to gain the support it would have needed to be passed by a state senate vote as well.
Three separate-but-similar attempts to protect consumers and three failures beg the question of “Why?” Why is it so difficult for lawmakers to pass bills that require something as simple as providing warning labels on products? The question becomes even more prominent when you consider that Ford Motor Company has already publicly acknowledged that tires should typically be replaced after 6 years. Additionally, major tire manufacturers have also recommended that tires be replaced after 10 years.
Perhaps the answer to our question is in the discrepancy of years between what Ford is telling consumers and what the tire companies would have its customers believe. The answer is, in fact, complicated, but it sheds light on an ongoing concern that consumers may not be aware of, with tire failure and defects causing as many as 400 deaths annually.
For additional information about tire legislation and consumer hazards, please visit the Newsome Blog.