Comment by nehal3m
9 hours ago
That depends whether regulators interpret “intended for use on motor vehicles” as “for road use”. The bill’s sponsors seem to think so:
USTMA research shows that more than 30 million used tires are available for sale nationally each year. The legislation does not ban all used tire sales. It targets used tires that have specific, well-established, unsafe conditions. “This is a common-sense, pro-safety, pro-consumer bill,” said Anne Forristall Luke, USTMA president and CEO. “Preventing these unsafe used tires from operating on New Jersey roads will reduce the risk of crashes and save lives. It’s that simple.” [1]
Seems clear to me this is intended to affect road use, although the bill could use an amendment to that effect. I could not find jurisprudence implying resale of racing slicks is illegal under this law.
[1] https://www.ustires.org/newsroom/new-jersey-assembly-advance...
> That depends whether regulators interpret “intended for use on motor vehicles” as “for road use”. The bill’s sponsors seem to think so:
That was their intention, but the effect of a law is not always the same thing -- that's the point. If you go to the local tire place and want to pay them to fit your track car with used tires that have minimal tread on them, is the clerk going to read the legislative history and take the risk that the judge takes that interpretation despite the law saying something else, or are they going to fob you off because corporate says they're not allowed to sell tires like that?
In my experience companies tend to err on the side of making money, so they'd probably just fit them and take the risk of a 500 dollar fine.
You're not thinking like a corporation. What happens if you crash your car after they broke the law to sell you the tires? Corporations will throw away epic amounts of money in the interests of not getting sued.