OKO KO'd by AA, but still OK?
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I SINCERELY hope that you are able to make public our very strong view that the AA report on tyre sealants is totally inadequate. It would appear that the tyre manufacturers preconceived ideas (no evidence for the negative claims from tyre manufacturers has been forthcoming) have been put down on paper with absolutely no thought behind them.
The AA have stated that OKO was tested on a -simple type of puncture,'" yet the 5rnm size used represents less than 1 per
cent of all punctures that occur on the road.
If the AA was genuinely trying to find out how successful OKO was, then they would have taken into account the following: Tests on different size of puncturing objects; tests in the same proportion as punctures occur in the tread area of a tyre, and tests on a respectable sample size (a sample of five tyres is laughable).
The AA has not furnished any information on where in the tyre the punctures were made, nor is any mention made that in inner tubes the success rate was 100 per cent (a statistic with which we would be delighted, but in all honesty would not expect to be able to maintain).
However, nowhere in the AA report does it prove that OKO is dangerous, and if the statistical evidence is looked at as supplied by the Forensic Science Laboratory, it can be conclusively proved that OKO contributes in far greater proportions than the minute risk that may be caused.
We have two police forces in advanced stages of testing — and both are extremely pleased with OKO. One has asked for technical evidence from a tyre manufacturer to back up their negative accusations, but nothing has been forthcoming so far.
We should like to plead publicly for an independent test to substantiate the product once and for all. We are prepared to contribute towards the cost, but we should like the Government, through the Department of Transport, to oversee the test. We know that Renault in France and Motobecane would not private label a dubious product nor would police forces seriously consider it.
The controversy has now come to a head. Who is going to believe a small thriving company whose only product is OKO Tyre Sealant (most of which is exported), when the tyre manufacturers and the AA are publishing innuendos and outright accusations without a shred of evidence supporting them.
It is interesting to observe that those organisations without financial vested interests in the tyre market, or without an outdated and dogmatic view on the subject, have grasped the tremendous contribution that OKO can make to road safety. N. A. EVANS Managing director Yewpalm Ltd Watford, Herts