I agree it's good to be aware of the age of the tires one is buying in the interest of full disclosure.  But if someone wants to make some laws, they ought to make some laws against the kind of sensationalist paranoid jounalism practiced by ABC in that story.

Pictures of burned up cars with car seats and "little sneakers" followed on by separated tread along the highway, meant to make you think every separated tread you see on the highway is due to old tires that killed children, when 99.9% of them are re-treads from semis that enable you to buy groceries at reasonable prices.

Get in somebody's face when he says the "recomendation" you're citing has no data behind it, get on him when he says he doesn't know what the basis of the recommendation is, and yet offer no basis for using it yourself, when you're the one who brought it up in the first place.

Not one scrap of data offered anywhere in the entire story.  Even the opening guy with his sadly dead son said the tires were 4 years old when he bought them, so no problem by the proposed 6 year rule.

Again, know about what you're buying, no question.  Replace your tires on the basis of age as well as tread wear, no question.  Did ABC say anything about either of those good practices that might  help people do themselves some good?  No.  Never at any time do they offer anyone anything that could be considered as constructive help.  Just sensationalist reporting, tantamount to another E-mail spam whipping people up into thinking Fabreze is killing their pets.  What a crock.  ABC ought to be twice as ashamed of what they were doing in that story as any store manager selling old tires.

Just my opinion.

-Dave G.