|
Make Winter Tires Mandatory in Manitoba  A rant by: Rigel I just noticed that Quebec has made winter tires mandatory for all vehicles in the province. Now I know some people will argue that La Belle Province leads the nation in introducing stupid laws; e.g., a variety of regulations regarding the French language, but in this case it has the right idea. Incidentally, Finland and I believe Sweden also makes winter tires compulsory. When I bought my current car I figured I could go with the all-season types since the vehicle has traction control and front-wheel drive. I quickly realized that the standard rubber gets too hard as the temperature falls and loses much of its capabilities, and this applies even on supposedly dry pavement which often develops a glaze when the mercury rises. After getting stuck a couple of times and having to resort to a shovel and a pair of traction ladders to get myself out, I bought a set of dedicated winter tires plus rims, and these have made a huge difference during the past three winters. Not only have I never been stuck but the overall grip for pulling away, stopping and cornering is greatly enhanced. And considering you don't need these types for more than 4 months per year, they should last a decade under normal driving conditions. So if you amortize the cost over that period, they'll wind up costing you no more than $80-100 annually depending on their type. In addition, when you consider all the distracted, stunned and incompetent drivers who have trouble handling their vehicles even under ideal conditions, they need all the help they can get. << Back Add a Comment Comments ( Add a Comment ) GreatFlatLand says: 2008-01-02 16:23:35 This comming from the guy who advocated against mandatory imobilizers in vehicles. I find it strange that the same person could on one hand chastize MPI and the government for making imobilizers mandatory and then advocate for government to force people to buy winter tires. You must be a tire manufacturer. Rigel says: 2008-01-02 20:08:21 I'm not in the tire business, but when you consider that Manitoba drivers must deal with streets and highways that are under some form of snow or ice for about one-third of the year, and when every test of all-season vs. winter ones proves the latter will provide superior performance 90% of the time, it's obvious which ones are better. The clinching test I saw was featured last winter on one of the US automotive sites that used a Mercedes-Benz E350 station wagon equipped with AWD, stability control, limited-slip differential, ABS and all the other safety devices befitting a vehicle costing nearly S75,000. The regular tires were Pirellis costing about $220 each,and the car was put through a run on a winter testing facility in northern Michigan. After the results were recorded, the tires were replaced by Pirelli Scorpions, the winter replacements for the original rubber,and the differences were huge in every aspect of braking, acceleration and cornering. As for the idea of making drivers pass winter driving tests, I believe this requirement, or part of it, might be the law in some Scandinavian countries like Sweden and/or Finland. If enforced here, it would disqualify at least 25% of the drivers. Besides, no government would have the political will to implement such a policy, and it would face court challenges that would probably last until 2050. IJustWannaSayThis says: 2008-01-03 12:43:03 While I wasn't seriously suggesting Manitoba (or anywhere else in Canada) would start doing winter testing, I disagree that "no government would have the political will" to introduce such a measure. And - be honest - if it would happen anywhere in Canada, socialist Manitoba would be one of the first places it happened. What court challenges could there be? It's not discriminating on any basis. What court challenges were there when graduated licensing was introduced? And how many court challenges were spawned by the mandatory immobilizers? The fact is that if the government decides to implement such a requirement, there is little the public could do to fight the measure. Here's another reason why such a measure would be useful. My wife was born and raised in the Southern U.S. and didn't move to Canada until she was in her early 30s. To get her Manitoba driver's license all she had to do was turn in her state license, fill out a form and pay a few dollars. She'd never driven on snow or ice in her life, and here she was legally allowed to drive. Thankfully for all concerned she practiced driving in the stuff before hitting the roads, but it's still quite an adjustment every year for a week or so. Not to sound racist or anything, but when you consider the large amount of immigrants coming to Manitoba, only a very small percentage come from areas which typically see snowfall. I'd say it's in everyone's best interest to require mandatory winter driving licensing. GreatFlatLand says: 2008-01-08 14:08:25 Rigel: I love your comment about no government having the political will but when Manitoba brought in mandatory immobilizers you crapped all over it. I guess there was no political will there. Regarding the mandatory use of snow tires, I think there are two issues. 1) people would freak because it would be an increased cost to them. To the greatest extent possible, MPI and the Government tried to make the immobilizer program cost neutral. In the case of tires, in requiring people to use them a responsible government would also do what they could to mitigate any additional cost to citizens. I don't see any government paying for tires. The second big reason is that I think that MPI does not view this as an area that will save ratepayers in the long run. Though snow tires work, I would guess that there is no evidence to show that it compensates for bas driving. It may lower the risk but does not eliminate human error. In that case, the savings involved would be negligeable and we would still have winter accidents at relatively the same rate as we do now. People say all the time that SUVs are better in the snow and in bad consitions yet you see alot of SUVs in the ditch because of bad driving. Rigel says: 2008-01-08 19:57:56 IJustWannaSayThis has too much faith in the resolve of socialist governments. As soon as one tried to make winter tires mandatory, there would be howls of protest from "the poor" who couldn't possibly afford them. But don't the same "poor" have to ultimately replace their regular tires and if so, haven't they figured out that with winter tires on, the regulars would be experiencing zero wear for typically four months per year. Meanwhile they'd have the added margin of safety while prolonging the life of the originals. Then when they change cars, they could keep the winter ones for the next vehicle provided they aren't switching from a Chev Cavalier to a BMW 645. But getting back to the lack of resolve issue, all one has to do is look at the lack of it in banning the use of cellphones by drivers of moving vehicles. Even though the AAA has proof that in the US 33% of traffic accidents result from driver inattention, how many governments at any level---municipal, state, provincial, or federal---have enacted legislation on this issue in North America? The same goes for numerous other safety devices. Meanwhile GreatFlatLand may be right about bad drivers still being bad regardless of what type of safety devices are introduced, but here again it boils down to government resolve about suspending the licenses of such drivers and/or impounding their vehicles. Even before that, bring licence testing up to European standards, but that would disqualify 25-30% of drivers, and I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't court challenges over some sort of discrimination. IJustWannaSayThis says: 2008-01-11 09:43:51 Rigel - are you trying to criticize me and defend me in the same sentence? ;) Actually I DO believe that socialist governments have a lot of resolve, at least as any other type of government. Heck, I believe a socialist government would go so far as to pay for the poor to have snow tires, or at least have snow tires installed and uninstalled, just like MPI subsidized immobilizers. With the immobilizers there were howls of protest, people had their car's wiring fried because of a bad install, but in the end the program was not removed and Manitobans just rolled over and took it like they always do. GreatFlatLand says: 2008-01-11 11:54:40 Rigel- Driver's licenses are taken away for bad driving, it's done all the time. In addition to that, MPI also assesses negligence in some cases and has moved to a better system where bad drivers end up paying more while good drivers don't. For example, those at fault for an accident need to pay their deductible, are assessed a $200 surcharge on their license and their merits (provided they have some) are suspended for one year. That's just for the first accident. Should a person be at fault for a second accident within three years of the first they are assessed a $400 surchage on their license. The surcharge increases to $800 on the third accident and keeps increasing should driver have additional at fault accidents. This ensures that bad drivers are the ones that pay while the rates of responsible drivers remain affordable. It really is a good way to promote and reward those who take driving seriously and do what they need to do to keep people safe. Doomed says: 2010-01-26 16:45:52 Learn how to drive. You don't need winter tires, it's yet another scam. If you look at past history you'll discover that we did this cycle, and then all-season radials were introduced as the next best thing. Geez, do people every learn? dssdave says: 2010-03-23 19:00:08 all winter tires do is help you go further in the ditch and it costs and extra $50 for the tow trruck driver to hook up and extra chain. Secondy i was driving on bald tires for a 2 years on rear wheel drive truck with no weight in the box never had an accident. It doesn't matter what kind of tires you have if you drive to fast for conditions you will have an accident and if you haven't had one yet it is just a moment of time! |
|
I agree that this will probably avoid some accidents. Properly used there is little debate that snow tires offer better traction and somewhat better stopping ability in slippery conditions. So for that reason the legislation is good. However, much like the debate over hockey helmets, perhaps some people will be a little more careless now, expecting their tires to be miracle workers. I'm all for making the world a safer place, but at what cost? I'm no wild-eyed libertarian. I expect and accept some degree of government intrusion into my life. But at what point do I have a say in my own life? If I don't want to put snow tires on my vehicle, it should be my right. Frankly before requiring every car to have snow tires, I'd just as soon require every driver to have winter driving lessons. How many of today's drivers passed their driving test on bare roads? There is a huge difference knowing how to drive in the summer versus driving in the winter. Why should one test be sufficient? I passed my driving test on one of the snowiest days in a small town in the "snow belt" region of SW Ontario and I consider it a matter of pride. I have driven the 401 in blizzards and I know what is required. Having snow tires on my vehicle might help but ultimately it is knowing how to drive in the conditions that will make the most difference. I just wish the driver flying by me on an icy road had the same training!