NHTSA Complaint #10415078 — 2001 TOYOTA AVALON

FLAT TIRE, JAN 2011, WHILE DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING. TIRE WAS SEPARATED AT TREAD-SIDEWALL ON BRIDESTONE POTENZA, 205/60/16. I ASSUMED MY DAUGHTER DID NOT PULL OVER IMMEDIATELY AND THAT CAUSED THE SEPARATION. DAUGHTER SWEARS OVER THE BIBLE SHE WASN'T FAR FROM DRIVEWAY (STILL IN NEIGHBORHOOD) WHEN SHE REALIZED SHE HAD A FLAT AND PULLED OVER IMMEDIATELY. THE SEPARATION BETWEEN TREAD AND SIDEWALL HAD ME DOUBT MY DAUGHTER, AT LEAST UNTIL JULY 2011. JULY 2011, TOOK SAME VEHICLE TO THE SAME DEALER THAT REPLACED THE FLAT IN JANUARY, (AUTO TIRE OF ST. LOUIS), FOR TIRE ROTATION, BALANCE, AND ALIGNMENT DUE TO EXCESSIVE VIBRATION IN STEERING WHEEL. AUTO TIRE IMMEDIATELY CALLED ME TO STATE THAT THREE OF MY TIRES, (BRIDESTONE POTENZA, 205/60/16) WERE DEFECTIVE AND NEED TO BE REPLACED. I ASKED DEALER TO SHOW ME THE DEFECT AND THE DEFECT WAS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE TIRE THAT WAS REPLACED IN JANUARY, EXCEPT NOT AS SEVERE - MEANING THE SEPARATION WAS ONLY A FEW INCHES IN LENGTH AND SEPARATION WAS MUCH LONGER ON THE TIRE THAT HAD GONE FLAT. IN JANUARY, I ASSUMED THE SEPARATION WAS CAUSED BY DAUGHTER DRIVING AFTER TIRE HAD GONE FLAT. I DID NOT SUSPECT IT TO BE A DEFECTIVE TIRE SINCE BRIDGESTONE IS A REPUTABLE COMPANY. THE DEFECTS ON THE THREE TIRES REPLACED AT NO CHARGE IN JULY 2011 WERE IDENTICAL TO WHAT WAS OBSERVED ON THE TIRE REPLACED IN JANUARY 2011. THE DEALER, AUTO TIRE, DID NOT MAKE A WARRANTY CLAIM TO BRIDGESTONE IN JAN 2011AS THEY SHOULD HAVE, THEY TREATED IT AS A FLAT REPLACEMENT AND NOT A DEFECT AND BRIDGESTONE WOULD NOT COMPENSATE ME FOR THE FLAT TIRE I REPLACED. SO WHY AM I FILING THIS COMPLAINT? TO WARN OTHER CONSUMERS THAT BRIDGESTONE IS AWARE THEY HAVE A DEFECTIVE LOT OF BRIDESTONE POTENZA, 205/60/16 AND AS A CONSUMER YOU MAY HAVE A FLAT AND NOT KNOW THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A WARRANTY DEFECT. *TR