To the Oregon drivers who get stuck behind me while I drive the speed limit. (Portland: taxes, licensed)

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

You forgot to add "in Portland".

Winter tires are advertised as "good in most snow conditions". We don't drive in a lot of "snow conditions" east of the Cascades. We drive on a lot of black ice. Winter tires are not so good on black ice.

But of course, Portlanders who don't need studs are eventually going to ban studs everywhere in Oregon, and that will cause hardship and more frequent deaths on the East side. That won't matter even a tiny bit to the progressives in Portland because they are completely indifferent to how their new laws affect people who don't live in Portland. I suspect that they aren't really aware that people live outside of Portland and that those people live under different conditions.

So, do me a favor. If you want to ban studded tires, just ban them in the Willamette Valley and leave the people who depend on them alone.

I personally would prefer their be a yearly fee for studded tires. People should be able to have them if they want or need them, but that fee should go to repairing the roads that the studded tires damage. Plus it might curb people who don't actually need studded tires.

[Metlakatla]

Or it might just curb people who need them but can't afford them but can't afford yet another fee.

Maybe ODOT should start charging a yearly fee for bikes and requiring that they be licensed. After all, someone has to pay for those bike lanes.

Oregonwoodsmoke was spot on. A lot of people in the valley seem to think that the only reason anyone would use studs is to drive to the Cascades for skiing or whatever.

Originally Posted by j_k_k

The PNW's dirtiest secret might be the prevalence of revenue-based policing directed primarily at people who would not drive back to fight the ticket.

Have you never left the PNW? Revenue-based policing that targets people who won't bother to drive back to fight it happens just about everywhere you have a smallish town near a highish traffic road. It is in no way unique to the PNW.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Or it might just curb people who need them but can't afford them but can't afford yet another fee.

Maybe ODOT should start charging a yearly fee for bikes and requiring that they be licensed. After all, someone has to pay for those bike lanes.

Oregonwoodsmoke was spot on. A lot of people in the valley seem to think that the only reason anyone would use studs is to drive to the Cascades for skiing or whatever.

Because bikes tear up the roads? That is a weak argument....

If you can afford to ski, then you can afford a fee to put studded tires on your vehicle.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Because bikes tear up the roads? That is a weak argument....

If you can afford to ski, then you can afford a fee to put studded tires on your vehicle.

Bikes "tearing up the roads" wasn't my argument.

I think you just proved one of the points that Oregonwoodsmoke made. Not everyone who drives in the Cascades and east of there are skiiers or other urbanites coming to play. People actually live in these areas.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Bikes "tearing up the roads" wasn't my argument.

I think you just proved one of the points that Oregonwoodsmoke made. Not everyone who drives in the Cascades and east of there are skiiers or other urbanites coming to play. People actually live in these areas.

Well they still have to pay for gas, studded tires, and maintenance to their vehicle, if they can afford all that but not a fee to pay for the damages those studs do to the roads, then they have a problem.

Charging bikes a road fee makes no sense because it encourages more people to drive and more cars and more traffic, and the damage bikes do is extremely minimal compared to studded tires.

[Metlakatla]

Charging bikes a road fee or requiring that bikes be licensed makes perfect sense, but I've never heard anyone in the bicycle community express anything but a weird sense of entitlement when it comes to everyone else's money. Where the $613 million for Portland's Bicycle Plan for 2030 going to come from? Again, I made no claims that bikes damage the roads.

I guess I could make the same point about bikes. If you guys can't afford a road fee or licensing, you've got problems. You'd think that dedicated bicycle enthusiasts would be glad to put their money where their mouths are, but I guess they've got much more of one than the other.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

You forgot to add "in Portland".

Winter tires are advertised as "good in most snow conditions". We don't drive in a lot of "snow conditions" east of the Cascades. We drive on a lot of black ice. Winter tires are not so good on black ice.

But of course, Portlanders who don't need studs are eventually going to ban studs everywhere in Oregon, and that will cause hardship and more frequent deaths on the East side. That won't matter even a tiny bit to the progressives in Portland because they are completely indifferent to how their new laws affect people who don't live in Portland. I suspect that they aren't really aware that people live outside of Portland and that those people live under different conditions.

So, do me a favor. If you want to ban studded tires, just ban them in the Willamette Valley and leave the people who depend on them alone.

They should be banned everywhere. If you depend on them, then you don’t know how to drive right. You don’t need studded tires for winter driving. Primarily you just need to learn the correct way to drive on it. Fortunately for me I first learned to drive on snow and ice in my dad’s 1972 Country Squire Station Wagon with cheap low tread summer tires. After that, driving with good quality all-season tires, was a breeze. I have never used studded tires in my life and I have driven in some pretty severe winter weather, and have never had a problem. I have never wrecked, and never slid off the road.

[zed42]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

You forgot to add "in Portland".

Winter tires are advertised as "good in most snow conditions". We don't drive in a lot of "snow conditions" east of the Cascades. We drive on a lot of black ice. Winter tires are not so good on black ice.

But of course, Portlanders who don't need studs are eventually going to ban studs everywhere in Oregon, and that will cause hardship and more frequent deaths on the East side. That won't matter even a tiny bit to the progressives in Portland because they are completely indifferent to how their new laws affect people who don't live in Portland. I suspect that they aren't really aware that people live outside of Portland and that those people live under different conditions.

So, do me a favor. If you want to ban studded tires, just ban them in the Willamette Valley and leave the people who depend on them alone.

You seem to forget that as far as bureaucrats in Salem go, they don't know anything east of the I-5 corridor exist. You should here some of our friends who live in Ontario, Burns, Baker, and La Grande area have to say. Note I left out Bend because it is full of Portlanders.

Your neighbor east of Ontario

[wanderbygrace]

After being here for five years, having moved from Ohio, I'm still not sure how I feel about studded tires.


In Ohio, I'm not sure if studded tires were allowed or not, because I literally NEVER saw them in the 40+ years of living there. Between snow plows/salters, all-season tires, wise driving, experiencing Ohio winter roads, and a bit of bravery, I never even considered studded tires as a possibility before moving here. Heck, despite the crappy road conditions at times, I didn't even think about chains. And we're talking about days when the snow plows couldn't keep up and you had 4-6" of packed snow on the roads in a matter of four hours. As long as you didn't try to drive your Camaro or FWD pickup, you were fine.


However, the Willamette Valley is very different. In a near total absence of salting/plowing equipment (exactly opposite of places like Cleveland), wintry mixes on the road can bring a city to it's knees very quickly. Coupled w/places with some serious hills (e.g. 26 around the Zoo), and I can understand the need for studs. This past Monday, I had an employee that was absolutely needed at work but too scared to drive (lifelong Oregonian), so I had to drive from Damascus to Hillsboro to pick her up, then drive to work in north Portland. Wasn't sure if I was more amused or irritated at having to leave my house at 3am.


But.....that's what - a handful of times per year? Yet people have studs on 24/7 on the roads for five months, doing millions of dollars in damage that doesn't disappear when the studs come off. And when it rains, the divots in the road left behind from studs causes water to accumulate and causes hydroplaning.


Therefore, I'm very against studs & the damage they do, but also very much understand their necessity on those 3-4 days per year in Portland that they coming in handy in the hills. To that end, I'm not sure they're worth it in the warmer winter climates of western Oregon, but I'm also not sure I'd ban them outright.

As far as "east of the Cascades" goes, I have rarely been there in the winter, so I cannot even consider voting against studs over there, as I'm well aware that winters west & east of the Cascades are like night & day.