studded tire tax

[fishing is life]

after watching some news commentary last night i wanted to see how some feel on this issue. i feel that studded tire owners should be paying a user fee for studded tires. studs account for most of the damage done to our roads yet a very small percentage of people are using them. you rarely need studded tires if you drive carefully. i think we need to start distributing the costs more fairly. i think a measure is in order. any other comments?

[1pump]

My ex-father-in-law should be paying a tax. Every year, around November, he'd put 4 studs on his 4x4 Cherokee AND 4 more on his 4x4 F250. And he lives in Gladstone. Other than elk hunting, he never went anywhere. And those tires stayed on 'til March. Nothing like overkill.
Some RWD vehicles handle poorly on snow/ice, so I can understand using them. But not for 5 months at a time. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]
Actually I'm suprised anybody's still using them. The last few winters have been bluebird weather, RWD cars are becoming a thing of the past, lightweight studs have been around for a while, and there's a lot of state-of-the-art studless snow tires on the market now. As far as damage to the roads, I'd be inclined to blame increased traffic (especially trucks) and no money to repair them.

[ 01-23-2003, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: 1pump ]

[WaterDog]

Studded tires dont need to be taxed. They need to be OUTLAWED. As someone who works with maintainence of public roads, money spent to repair studed tire related repair is a waste of gas tax dollars. The above example absolutely boggles my mind. Why anyone in the valley needs studs is beyond me. [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img] Buy good quality tires and studs are unnecessary. There are some really good "winter" tires out there that are studless (lots of sipeing). I have driven all over the place in a 2wd pickup in ice and snow and never had a problem. On a RWD just add weight. 4wd does help but you need to drive with caution and common sense.

However I can see some exceptions east of the mountains where the cold can settle in for a long time and the amount of traffic is significantly less.

:smile:

[TheRogue]

As someone who lived in Ontario for 4 winters and Klamath Falls for 3 winters, I can definitely relate to the need for studded tires!! HOWEVER, I've been back on the west side of the Cascades for 8 winters now. We commute approximately 80 miles each day (in 4-banger Honda, so nobody jump on me ). Anyway, I can honestly think of only one time when we honestly NEEDED studded tires for more than just a short stretch of road.

I would agree to outlaw them on the west side of the mountains, except I'm not sure how that would be enforced....I wouldn't agree with taking them away from the East-siders. Just tax the crap out of them, $10 a tire should be enough to start.

TR

[GutshotApe]

Yes, studded tires should be heavily taxed if not outlawed completely.

Not only do they cause expensive damage to the highways (rutted pavement) but the damage creates unsafe driving conditions.

The freeway ruts fill with water whenever it rains. I could have hydroplaned :shocked: from Salem to Albany the other night in a heavy rain. Tried to straddle the ruts but whenever my car drifted into them or when I crossed the ruts it was a real thrill even though traffic was going only about 50mph.

And then, after the front moves thru and the temperature drops to 32, the water standing in the freeway ruts freezes making I-5 a long, skinny high-speed ice rink :shocked: .

So yes, let's get rid of studded tires.

[TheRogue]

Not a highway transportation engineer, but I would have to believe that the majority of the rut problem is due to heavy trucks.

I-84 from Arlington to Boardman was absolutely HORRIBLE!!! The drastic temperature changes probably had a lot to do with the rutting there, along with truck traffic.

My uncle has owned and operated logging trucks all his grown life. 72K used to always be total gross weight, except for certain permitted applications. Now we see 78K, 80K, and 88K on a regular basis. Coincidence??

I'm totally pro-trucking. It's not really fair to compare studded tires to heavy trucks...one's unneccesary, the other is ultimately important to our economy. I just think that they manage to shirk a little responsibility for road damage sometimes

TR

[WaterDog]

Yes trucks account for most of the damage on roads. However there is different types of rutting. AC is a flexible pavement and will rut over time due the frequent loading. If you look at the ruts you can see spalling of the material. That is generally stud related. Obviously concrete doesn’t rut since its rigid but I know there are places on I-205 where you can see “ruts” from studs.

ODOT BLURB ON STUDDED TIRE DAMAGE

Trucks do pay a weight mileage fee so they do keep up on paying their share plus they pay fuel taxes. The weight rating on trucks I believe is based on axle configuration and that is why some trucks go up to 109k lbs.

[FallRiverGuy]

Come drive on the East side for a while and then tell me studded tires are not needed. I don't need studded tires for snow, but for all the ice we get. Having said that, I agree that they cause damage and I would be willing to pay a large tax to cover the road damage they cause. They are that important to me and the safty of my faimily.

[1pump]

TR,
88K? I wish. I run 104-105.5k on a daily basis. Chip trucks, dump/transfer trucks with pups, tankers, maxi-flats and 4 axle vans gross out at 105,500 lbs. Probably 1/5 of all trucks on the road in OR have extended weight permits.
Which is why we have bridges that are disintegrating. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]
Waterdog, concrete doesn't rut? Have you seen the center lane of I205 lately? Like GSA said, when it rains you might as well have skis instead of front tires. The Banfield was just as bad until last fall when Morse Bros paved over that 20 year old concrete with ER (elastic recovery) asphalt. I was told that I205 is due for the same treatment this year. Finally! :smile:

[CATCH AND EAT]

Waterdog I agree with ya. Outlaw studded tires. They cost tax payers tons of money. They ruin the highways that are already not being taken care of properly because of the a "lack of funds". I see no used for them in the PDX area.

Plus, they add to noise pollution on the highways. Can't hear the hum and clanking from my desiel engine when a 4X4 rolls by with studs on it. :shocked:

[WaterDog]

Concrete does not rut like AC. When concrete fails it cracks then breaks. If there are ruts in concrete its from wear. When AC ruts it is fatigue from repeated flexing. :smile:

C&E, I always cringe when I hear cars that sound like they are driving on a gravel road. Clanking? :shocked: Dude if your PSD is clanking you got problems! Some call it clatter, I call it purring. :grin:

[1pump]

Oops, sorry WD. I misunderstood your implication. :smile:

[CATCH AND EAT]

Hey Rich, it knocks with a purpose. POWER STROKE!!!!!!! :grin:

[JCJ]

Yep,gotta agree with Waterdog on this.As one who works in the tire business I always have to wonder at the people coming in and putting studs on their 4x4's and their all wheel drive Subaru's .And I sometimes ask them if they go to the mountains much and 90% of the time the answer is no.Taxing them would just result in more paperwork for the state and probably would not pay off in the long run,a better idea is just outlaw them .Then when you see or hear them you dont need to wonder if they paid the tax.With all the new studless tires out there that perform just as well on snow or ice and are a lot safer on wet or dry pavement,there is no reason to have studs anymore.The company I work for is not even dealing in studs this year at all.

[fishing is life]

i would like to see them banned too, but i was worried that some folks really need them. i think the majority of people in OR feel these things should banned or cost the owner the cost of fisxing the roads back up. i think we need to tell our politicians what we think. better yet start a measure. i have no idea how to do this but i am worried people are not passionate about this enough.