Typical fine for studded tires in Southern Ontario?

Moderators: admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Reflections, Decatur, bend

ElectricMayhem
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 14
Joined:

Typical fine for studded tires in Southern Ontario?

Unread post by ElectricMayhem on

Based on Nordic country test reports, I'm considering getting studded winter tires. I live in Eastern Ontario, though, so this is in violation of Regulation 617/05, which says that only people who live in Northern Ontario are allowed to have them.

I'd be doing this as a conscientious objector because all the literature I've read (including this one: http://www.engr.uaa.alaska.edu/research ... Alaska.pdf )indicates that the research on which Ontario relied when it instituted the ban (before I was born) is no longer valid with today's much less aggressive studs. I don't think there's any other jurisdiction in Canada that has this ban, so Ontario is out of step. I would argue that the economic benefit of fewer insurance claims and accident benefit payouts outweigh the damage caused to the road.

My question is what kind of fines I could expect? Have any forum members been charged, and what was the amount of the fine you paid? Have you been pulled over and only warned about your studded tires?


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

Unread post by hwybear on

$110 ticket for driving with studs....plus MV could be towed to a prevent the repetition of the offence
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

Unread post by hwybear on

ElectricMayhem wrote:I'd be doing this as a conscientious objector because all the literature I've read (including this one: http://www.engr.uaa.alaska.edu/research ... Alaska.pdf )indicates that the research on which Ontario relied when it instituted the ban (before I was born) is no longer valid with today's much less aggressive studs.
from that study...

- In the Canadian province of Ontario, that nation’s only studded tire ban has been in effect since 1973. In the face of criticism from motor vehicle safety analysts, questioning the nearly 30-year old policy, (CBC 2003a), the Ministry of Transportation reconsidered the studded tire ban during
1999-2000, conducting an extensive review of studded tire policies in other national and regionaljurisdictions. Their findings supported the continuation of the studded tire ban “because, despite advances in technology, the disadvantages of studded tires continue to outweigh their
advantages.” The specific disadvantages cited included the “considerable health and road safety problems” caused by studded tires, the “limited potential [safety] benefits” compared to the negative impacts

The Ontario Ministry of Transportation estimates that it spends approximately $39 million Canadian per year on increased road maintenance due to pavement damage associated with studded tires (Ontario 2001).

- Studded tires also contribute to the overall road dust toxicity. Road dust source apportionment studies have identified that wear of metal tire studs can contribute to the presence of heavy metals and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in the airborne dust. Dust produced by studded tires “grinding” the asphalt contributes to the heavy metal content of the
dust.

Just looked up health reasons...
The following health effects can occur after several years of exposure to PAHs:
Cancer: Benzo(a)pyrene, a common PAH, is shown to cause lung and skin cancer, lung tumors
Reproductive Effects: Reproductive problems and problems in unborn babies’ development that were exposed to benzo(a)pyrene.
Organ Systems: A person’s lungs, liver, skin, and kidneys can be damaged by exposure.
In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed. However, the seriousness of the effects may vary from person to person.

With the huge number of vehicles in southern Ontario....the higher PAH emitted, might be a good thing we do not allow studs down here?
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined:
Location: Orillia
Contact:

Unread post by Squishy on

Although studs can make almost any tire a great performer in the winter, you do have studless alternatives that come close to matching performance as well as offering better dry-road handling. If you live in an area that is regularly plowed, meaning the majority of winter is spent on slushy and icy roads, I recommend either of the latest revisions of the Blizzak or X-Ice2. They are pretty much the cutting-edge in ice-oriented tire technology and still handle decently in snow. A friend of mine had been wanting to install locking differentials on his RWD Lincoln Town Car, but after installing Blizzaks last year he no longer felt the need to.

For deeper snow with occasional slushy roads, the Goodyear Nordics are a cheap tire but quite the sleeper in performance (I run them in Orillia). They have big blocky shoulder treads to dig into the snow and have decent tread void to self-clean. They're siped and sticky enough to do well on icy roads, although the lateral grip is no match for the X-Ice in those conditions.

A/T and M/T tires in a floatation size might give you an even bigger edge on a truck-like vehicle in rural areas, especially if you live on a sideroad. You might get eight inches of unplowed snow and it's a day or two until the plow shows up - a floatation tire will give you a few extra inches of ground clearance by floating your vehicle on the snow. The large tread voids will keep your tires from becoming a big ball of snow, but the lack of siping compared to something like the Nordics do mean you need to be careful during the spring thaw (a time when studs would help).

The only time I have gotten stuck with the Nordics was on Jones Baseline north of Fergus. Dip in the road collected almost two feet of snow and I got hung up on it. I had to hike to Fergus to get a tow truck, and it was a good reminder to always keep a flashlight and survival equipment in your car. I had flares, a headlamp, a flashlight, and a shake-light, a blanket, and a full set of tools. I also had 40 feet of recovery straps, which made the difference when the tow truck couldn't get close enough to me.

Actually, why not just keep a set of chains in the car? Also illegal, but you wouldn't have them on normally and would only use them if you are truly stuck and no help is around (like my situation above). You can get quick-release chains that don't require you to move the tire to roll them on. Plastic chains are also available, and the advertisement I read claimed that they were legal on Ontario roads.
         Image


ElectricMayhem
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 14
Joined:

Unread post by ElectricMayhem on

Thanks for the informative and reasoned responses.

In looking at recent European tests, in particular one including studded and unstudded versions of similar tires (both from Gislaved), I notice that the dry braking distance from 60 km/h was 22.5 m for the studded and 22 m for the unstudded. I consider this difference to be negligible, and well within experimental error considering there was a human driver. The performance on ice was, however, much better with studs (43 m versus 59 m on glare ice).

I'll have to consider the health implications, but surely the stuff that comes out of the exhaust pipes of my car and the diesel trucks I share the road with are just as bad?

The Ontario MoT study is highly suspect - if you actually read it they don't cite any kind of methodology or research that led them to their conclusion. I consider the European and Japanese research to be of much higher quality, and they come to the opposite conclusion. The study in Japan following their stud ban indicates a marked increase in accidents. Even if that 39 million dollar figure from MoT is correct, if you prevented 39 million-dollar accidents studs would be of net economic benefit. It doesn't take much health care to add up to a million dollars after an accident.


ElectricMayhem
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 14
Joined:

Unread post by ElectricMayhem on



User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

Unread post by hwybear on

ElectricMayhem wrote:. The study in Japan following their stud ban indicates a marked increase in accidents. .
Could this be the fault of complacency? where drivers rely more on the equipment or lack thereof....and don't readjust their driving habits?

I see this every snow storm......the invincible drivers that refuse to slow down for changing road conditions.

this is the winter tire we use on our vehicles...goodyear ultra grip. I have never had a problem in any winter condition with these. I have worked in the northern (bush/logging, lakes) country, eastern Ontario and now in the southwest ontario.

Image

I carry a bag of "kitty litter" in my trunk for any small applications. Having said that, if the roads are that bad, I'm not on the road with my own vehicle.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined:
Location: Orillia
Contact:

Unread post by Squishy on

Vehicle exhaust may be just as bad as the heavy metal dust, but adding equal amounts of "Bad Stuff B" to "Bad Stuff A" makes it twice as bad.

There is no question in my mind that studs are safer overall. While the latest round of winter tire technology has greatly closed the gap, nothing beats studs on ice. However, I'm under the impression that studs are banned mainly for road maintenance costs. Studs and chains tear up the soft asphalt more than rubber tires, and I think you can regain the safety margin of studded tires using studless tires if you drive just a bit more carefully, mainly by keeping a longer following distance, braking sooner, and entering turns more slowly.

I also agree with Bear on the Japanese findings - I bet that if they had mandated winter tires at the same time they banned studded tires, accident levels would have remained roughly the same (if not improved, since people who never ran studs now had winter tires).

Another issue with your plan - you'll have a tough time finding any shop to stud your tires in Eastern Ontario due to liability issues. You would have to drive up north to have it done, and then drive back there again when you lose a stud.

Kitty litter and a foldable shovel are good items to have. I have kept a set of chains before when driving through really bad areas.
         Image


Off_Camber
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 66
Joined:

Unread post by Off_Camber on

theres a few places along Highway 17 Cavers Hill, Rossport, Montreal River Harbor where I actually think the MTO is irresponsible for not having pull offs and a chain up reguirement for trucks during certain weather
Ive spun out many times attempting to pull a set of b-trains up those hills in the winter only to have to wait for the salter or throw a set of chains on the drives just to get me up..

but im with highwaybear on his belief--know how many times Ive had seen a guy in his Jeep Rubicon fly past me in a snowstorm only too see him in the rhubarb 15 minutes later?
Adjust your driving for road conditions..


ElectricMayhem
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 14
Joined:

Unread post by ElectricMayhem on



User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

Unread post by hwybear on

even better solution....drive where there is no ice

Image

and when tired of driving.....

Image
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


ElectricMayhem
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 14
Joined:

Unread post by ElectricMayhem on

If you accept the ~4% accident reduction attributable to stud use in the 10-year-old meta-study linked below, and refer to the Ministry of Transport's 2006 accident statistics, you conclude that 737 fewer people would sustain a personal injury every year if everybody used studs. (I considered winter to be from November to March inclusive). If you accept the 39 million dollar extra-maintenance figure, that means the Man considers each injury to be worth less than $53 000 on average.

From a property damage point of view, the number of accidents per year eliminated by studs would be 2998. With the 39 million dollar cost figure, that means that for the stud ban decision to be economically rational, each accident would have to be worth less than $13 013.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 86a0c715f6


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined:
Location: Orillia
Contact:

Unread post by Squishy on

Some of that cost, perhaps most of that cost, is paid by those responsible for the accidents (through insurance or out-of-pocket). Where allowing studs would spread that $39 million across all provincial taxpayers, even those who don't use studs, the way it is now has those who can't drive according to conditions paying more than those of us who can drive without causing accidents.

The total cost of damage caused by hit-and-run or drivers who otherwise manage to dodge the bill probably adds up to less than $39 million a year. Just a guess, though.

I believe that no amount of equipment, save for having everyone roll around in rubber hamster balls, can make up for driver education. The easier it is to weed out drivers who can't handle safe operation of a vehicle, the better.
         Image


User avatar
racer
VIP
VIP
Posts: 959
Joined:
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Contact:

Unread post by racer on

ElectricMayhem wrote:If you accept the ~4% accident reduction attributable to stud use in the 10-year-old meta-study linked below, and refer to the Ministry of Transport's 2006 accident statistics, you conclude that 737 fewer people would sustain a personal injury every year if everybody used studs. (I considered winter to be from November to March inclusive). If you accept the 39 million dollar extra-maintenance figure, that means the Man considers each injury to be worth less than $53 000 on average.

From a property damage point of view, the number of accidents per year eliminated by studs would be 2998. With the 39 million dollar cost figure, that means that for the stud ban decision to be economically rational, each accident would have to be worth less than $13 013.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 86a0c715f6
Having had a nice close look at the OHTA 172, I'd say that the government does not much care about saving lives at the expense of taxpayers' money. 172 is a cash cow, with questionable benefits to overall public safety, but it is being vigorously enforced. It also seems that nearly all of the 172 charges are laid due to exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 km/hr, not due to 7 or so other provisions prescribed by the law.

So, we have 172, makes government a ton of money, questionable benefit to public safety, vigorously enforced to generate tons of revenue.

Then there is a repeal of no-studs law. Questionable benefit to public safety, but there is a negative revenue impact ($40 million per year). Not a snowball's chance in hell that this law will be repealed.
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"

www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined:
Location: Toronto

Moderator

Unread post by Radar Identified on

Squishy wrote:I believe that no amount of equipment, save for having everyone roll around in rubber hamster balls, can make up for driver education. The easier it is to weed out drivers who can't handle safe operation of a vehicle, the better.
This I agree with, although the primary cause of collisions is inattentive driving, which is difficult to enforce, although we do have the "hands-free only" law coming into effect tomorrow. It's not great, it should have covered ALL use of cellphones including hands-free, but it's better than nothing.

Side note: I grew up in eastern Ontario, learned how to drive there, never had a need for studs. The last winter I lived there, I used Michelin Arctic Alpins, and had no problems - no spinouts, collisions, or unscheduled excursions into stationary objects or the ditch. I'm not sure about the benefit of studs versus good winter tires. It is mandatory in Quebec to have winter tires on the car, but no studs. Every winter we get multiple large pileups in Ontario. How often do you hear of them in Quebec?
Squishy wrote: Kitty litter and a foldable shovel are good items to have. I have kept a set of chains before when driving through really bad areas.
I also keep a tow rope and high-powered flashlight. Actually... when living in Ottawa... I ended up using it to pull a few people out of the ditch in winter snowstorms using the rope. Most of them were SUVs. I was pulling them out of the ditch with a '98 Corolla. :lol: :shock: That's a good example of not adjusting for conditions, people think that they've got 4WD so that means they can stop faster and steer better when they go around a sharp icy curve at 90 km/h. :roll:

Last Christmas morning, roads in Toronto were covered with snow, I was driving on Avenue Road at 6:00 AM, going around a curve (speed limit 50). Max safe speed was about 40 km/h, which is what I was doing. Some bonehead came roaring up behind me at about 75, attempted to take the curve, lost control and augered into a snowbank, sending an artistic plume of snow about 15 feet into the air. Studs or not, he was going to dig a snow tunnel. Seeing that sort of stuff regularly, I think that in most parts of Ontario, you probably would only need snow tires as opposed to studs and most of the collisions/inadvertent off-roading is caused by bad driving.






Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”