Big brothering by Discount Tires

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
How about we blame the owner for not rotating the tires and letting two wear out prior to all four?

The other two were replaced due to blowouts...had nothing to do with not rotating them, which I do on a regular basis...

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Yes, I ran into Big Brothering from The Tire Rack when I wanted to buy Kumho Ecsta STX light truck tires for my 3/4-ton Dodge Ram. They flatly refused to install them because they said the maximum load rating for the truck exceeded the load rating of the tire. The sales guy was sure I was going to overload the truck and destroy a tire and die, then my family would sue Tire Rack.

I could not cajole them into doing the work, so I bought them loose and had another shop install them. I've had 4 sets of those tires on the truck totaling about 160,000 miles of driving and have never had a problem.


That's a little different, since the rating of the vehicle does exhibit a legal load rating in excess of the tires. I think the tire rack is in the right there.

Here were more talking about a somewhat arbitrary safety philosophy.

You want to see real sticklers, look at electricians who stick to the rules of NEC to a T. And the basis for those rules because of all sorts of "what ifs".

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Hollow
Oh look, it's this thread again.

Shows up almost as much as "What is the best oil?" and "Pennzoil is made of candle wax".

Agree. This topic seems to come up once a month here. Same s..., different day.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: grampi
This big brothering garbage is getting ridiculous!

There are a lot of moron and/or inexperienced drivers on the road. Most drivers can't safely handle oversteer and they are also happy to place the blame on someone else and sue if an accident happens. Therefore, DT's policy is fully understandable to me. They're not trying to big brother you. They are just trying to assure their business is not wiped out by frivolous lawsuits.


That doesn't make things any less of a PITA for customers...I suggested what these places should do; if a customer wants something done other than what is standard procedure, then the business should have the customer sign a waiver that releases them from all liability...and don't tell me that can't be done, there are all sorts of businesses that do this all the time...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Hollow
Oh look, it's this thread again.

Shows up almost as much as "What is the best oil?" and "Pennzoil is made of candle wax".

Agree. This topic seems to come up once a month here. Same s..., different day.


And yet instead of just ignoring it, you have to put your 2 cents in...

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: grampi
I suggested what these places should do; if a customer wants something done other than what is standard procedure, then the business should have the customer sign a waiver that releases them from all liability...and don't tell me that can't be done, there are all sorts of businesses that do this all the time...

Not all such waivers hold up in liability cases, by the way. But I think this kind of waiver should cover the shop in case of a lawsuit.

Where it wouldn't help is in the court of public opinion...

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Where it wouldn't help is in the court of public opinion...

I was thinking the same thing. Regardless of the case's outcome, it may generate enough negative publicity that the companies just don't want to go there, period.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: grampi
And yet instead of just ignoring it, you have to put your 2 cents in...

I'd have nothing to read on BITOG if I ignored every duplicate thread.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: grampi
And yet instead of just ignoring it, you have to put your 2 cents in...

I'd have nothing to read on BITOG if I ignored every duplicate thread.

This isn't a duplicate thread...in order for that to be the case I would've had to start a thread before covering the exact same scenario...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: grampi
I suggested what these places should do; if a customer wants something done other than what is standard procedure, then the business should have the customer sign a waiver that releases them from all liability...and don't tell me that can't be done, there are all sorts of businesses that do this all the time...

Not all such waivers hold up in liability cases, by the way. But I think this kind of waiver should cover the shop in case of a lawsuit.


Where it wouldn't help is in the court of public opinion...


I'm sure a company this size has legal beagles and I'm sure they could come up with something that would be both legal and satisfying for the customer...

 

[bdcardinal]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: grampi
I suggested what these places should do; if a customer wants something done other than what is standard procedure, then the business should have the customer sign a waiver that releases them from all liability...and don't tell me that can't be done, there are all sorts of businesses that do this all the time...

Not all such waivers hold up in liability cases, by the way. But I think this kind of waiver should cover the shop in case of a lawsuit.


Where it wouldn't help is in the court of public opinion...


I'm sure a company this size has legal beagles and I'm sure they could come up with something that would be both legal and satisfying for the customer...


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the general legal standing on waivers is as an "expert" in a field, you are not allowed to let someone give up their rights when you are knowingly doing something outside of the "recommended practices" in your industry.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: grampi
I suggested what these places should do; if a customer wants something done other than what is standard procedure, then the business should have the customer sign a waiver that releases them from all liability...and don't tell me that can't be done, there are all sorts of businesses that do this all the time...

Not all such waivers hold up in liability cases, by the way. But I think this kind of waiver should cover the shop in case of a lawsuit.


Where it wouldn't help is in the court of public opinion...


I'm sure a company this size has legal beagles and I'm sure they could come up with something that would be both legal and satisfying for the customer...


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the general legal standing on waivers is as an "expert" in a field, you are not allowed to let someone give up their rights when you are knowingly doing something outside of the "recommended practices" in your industry.


Have we actually arrived at a point in time where someone else has to make all of our decisions for us?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the general legal standing on waivers is as an "expert" in a field, you are not allowed to let someone give up their rights when you are knowingly doing something outside of the "recommended practices" in your industry.


I do not think you are wrong.

Legally the expert has to protect the uninformed. Even the know it alls who buck the recommendations...

 

[bdcardinal]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the general legal standing on waivers is as an "expert" in a field, you are not allowed to let someone give up their rights when you are knowingly doing something outside of the "recommended practices" in your industry.


I do not think you are wrong.

Legally the expert has to protect the uninformed. Even the know it alls who buck the recommendations...


That was always how it was explained to me at Sears, and at the dealer ever more so. Like I am not allowed to knowingly sell the wrong part to a customer kinda deal.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the general legal standing on waivers is as an "expert" in a field, you are not allowed to let someone give up their rights when you are knowingly doing something outside of the "recommended practices" in your industry.


I do not think you are wrong.

Legally the expert has to protect the uninformed. Even the know it alls who buck the recommendations...


That was always how it was explained to me at Sears, and at the dealer ever more so. Like I am not allowed to knowingly sell the wrong part to a customer kinda deal.



And it's not too hard to understand. The ornery types who need this protection are the first ones to come back with a lawyer when things go south...

 

[hattaresguy]

Most people don't know how to control a skid and over steer so they panic and stuff it in the ditch.

I always put my best tires on my steering wheels.

Typically this is not a problem except in extreme circumstances. If one set of tires is just slightly more worn than the others the differences are very small.

I have only ever owned 2 FWD cars and the first time I drove one in the snow I stuffed it into the curb...I was used to RWD and when trying to make a turn at about 15 since it was slick I started to slide a bit. NP I let off the brakes and goosed the gas trying to get the rear end to come around slightly and the front tires to bite...only problem was it was FWD...I went straight. Horrible design really.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy


Typically this is not a problem except in extreme circumstances. If one set of tires is just slightly more worn than the others the differences are very small.




Perhaps the best point of the whole dang thread.

If the "worn" tires are actually different enough to cause any appreciable change in under/oversteer by being on one end of the car vs. the other, they shouldn't re-install them on the car in the first place. I've never found that a set of tires with 30% of their tread left actually handle worse than new tires unless the wear is significantly uneven. Sometimes they may be a little better because the worn tread blocks flex less than fresh taller tread blocks.

 

[KD0AXS]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: grampi
I suggested what these places should do; if a customer wants something done other than what is standard procedure, then the business should have the customer sign a waiver that releases them from all liability...and don't tell me that can't be done, there are all sorts of businesses that do this all the time...

Not all such waivers hold up in liability cases, by the way. But I think this kind of waiver should cover the shop in case of a lawsuit.


Where it wouldn't help is in the court of public opinion...


I'm sure a company this size has legal beagles and I'm sure they could come up with something that would be both legal and satisfying for the customer...


Yes, they could. It's called a settlement. I'm sure the customer would be satisfied with $1 Million instead of the $5 Million they were suing for.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Most people don't know how to control a skid and over steer so they panic and stuff it in the ditch.

I always put my best tires on my steering wheels.

Typically this is not a problem except in extreme circumstances. If one set of tires is just slightly more worn than the others the differences are very small.

I have only ever owned 2 FWD cars and the first time I drove one in the snow I stuffed it into the curb...I was used to RWD and when trying to make a turn at about 15 since it was slick I started to slide a bit. NP I let off the brakes and goosed the gas trying to get the rear end to come around slightly and the front tires to bite...only problem was it was FWD...I went straight. Horrible design really.


I had a blown rear tire and an America's Tire location honored the pro-rated hazard warranty because it got shredded. I paid $30 for the tire and $20 for installation, so I thought it was a good deal for an ExtremeContact DWS. They said it was within the guidelines for a Subaru because the difference in wear with the front wasn't as high.

They of course wanted to put it in the back. I wanted it in the front because the wear patterns would mean that the fronts would eventually wear down beyond the recommended difference in tread depth. They made me acknowledge this directly.

Still - I wonder how they reconcile this with normal tire rotations. With most vehicles you're talking about better tires on the rear if it's a set of 4 bought together and it's the first rotation or (assuming regular rotations and even wear with mileage) odd-numbered rotations.

As for controlling a skid, a Farmers commercial says "turn into a skid". That's always what I learned in driver's ed and taking the written test in CA. I always thought that once you lose control it tends to turn you around opposite of the way you turn.

 

[hattaresguy]

With skids you have to think about where the force of the vehicle is being transferred to the tires. In short you can only ask tires to do so much. For example in snow when you slide your better off getting off the brakes and just ask for some steering, deeper tread helps this. Its the same as at the track you brake before a corner, since your at the limits of the tires anyway.

If the rear comes around by steering into it your taking load off the rear tire/s that are losing traction. By steering away from it your making the situation worse. Of course with throttle this can be entertaining in the form of a drift. Than open rear ends, vs LSD, vs traction aids come into play.

Most Toyota Camry buyers would prefer to think about the IPhone 6 than these principles...so shops afraid of lawyers stick the good rubber in the back to avoid litigation.

Again sadly our society is geared toward prevent the lowest common denominator from hurting themselves.