Interesting point about the new tyres in the article, but that doesn't automatically mean they were replacing defective tyres - I mean, how many drivers replace tyres close to a test even if they're still legal? It's just a good time to do it.
Note also that the press used the strapline as follows (which isn't included above):
Lancaster Guardian wrote:
Safety checks on taxis in Morecambe and Lancaster revealed illegal tyres and empty fire extinguishers.
But the article only mentions
expired fire extinguishers, which is obviously a different thing, and makes it sound a lot worse than the rest of the article (and, while there may have been empty extinguishers, expired extinguishers sounds a bit more plausible).
In particular, do fire extinguishers actually have an expiry date? I think they actually have a manufacturing date, and if the indicator remains in the green then it's still regarded as valid irrespective of age, at least by many councils.
DVSA inspector wrote:
“The lack of police presence probably had a negative effect, as they can often pick up those reluctant to be inspected.”
What's that supposed to mean, precisely? Presumably it's alluding to drivers who say they can't attend the test? Makes you wonder why any of them attended the test at all - I mean, surely the ones with defective tyres must have had a good idea that they were at least borderline? So why attend the test if it required police to compel them to attend?
On the other hand, maybe those who did attend thought there would be consequences if they didn't turn up.
So well done, Mr DVSA - you've let the cat out of the bag for next time round