Author Topic: Chains required, but apparently not common sense.  (Read 5369 times)

hbsteve

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1701
    • View Profile
Re: Chains required, but apparently not common sense.
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2016, 07:56:40 AM »
Some laws are stupid.  When we lived in Montana, we had Blizzak tires on our AWD SUV.  We were planning on a winter trip to Calif., so I called Calif. Highway Patrol about the chain laws.  I was told that legally, we still had to carry chains in chains required areas.  And if an CHP officer stopped us for any reason the officer could ask to see them.
Then the officer I was talking to said that with those tires, if chains were still required, we probably weren't going anywhere.

PonoBill

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 25870
    • View Profile
Re: Chains required, but apparently not common sense.
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2016, 08:48:40 AM »
When I used to do nutty things in snow I chained all four wheels on 2wd, so the front wheels would actually steer. I don't chain all four on 4wd, just the fronts.
Foote 10'4X34", SIC 17.5 V1 hollow and an EPS one in Hood River. Foote 9'0" x 31", L41 8'8", 18' Speedboard, etc. etc.

Tom

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2996
    • View Profile
Re: Chains required, but apparently not common sense.
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2016, 09:57:10 AM »
OK, I've got a snow chain question.  I have a 4wd vehicle that I will be towing a small two wheeled camping trailer that weighs less than 2,000 lbs. Does the trailer need chains if I am towing it? I will not be towing/driving in snow that is so bad that I would need chains on the 4wd vehicle.

digger71

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Chains required, but apparently not common sense.
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2016, 10:08:34 AM »
Then the officer I was talking to said that with those tires, if chains were still required, we probably weren't going anywhere.

My experience driving 395 to Mammoth is exactly this.  Caltrans has 3 requirement levels http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/chcontrl.htm

R1 conditions are pretty normal and basically just mean snow tires. 
R2 everyone is required to carry chains - I have been checked several times in my 4wd 4Runner. 
R3 requires all vehicles (including 4wd) to have chains installed.

In practice they just close the road rather than go to R3.  So I have a 3yr old never used set of chains in the back of my vehicle.

Tom

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2996
    • View Profile
Re: Chains required, but apparently not common sense.
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2016, 10:38:52 AM »
Then the officer I was talking to said that with those tires, if chains were still required, we probably weren't going anywhere.

My experience driving 395 to Mammoth is exactly this.  Caltrans has 3 requirement levels http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/chcontrl.htm

R1 conditions are pretty normal and basically just mean snow tires. 
R2 everyone is required to carry chains - I have been checked several times in my 4wd 4Runner. 
R3 requires all vehicles (including 4wd) to have chains installed.

In practice they just close the road rather than go to R3.  So I have a 3yr old never used set of chains in the back of my vehicle.

The good thing with R2, is they don't check if the chains fit your tires. That way you don't need to buy new chains every time you get different size tires.  If I need chains on 4wd, I'm not driving.

PonoBill

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 25870
    • View Profile
Re: Chains required, but apparently not common sense.
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2016, 08:08:20 PM »
You don't need chains on the trailer, but if you have electric brakes on the trailer, and need them for safe stops, then it's a good idea. Having a 10,000 pound toboggan sliding out of control is never fun.
Foote 10'4X34", SIC 17.5 V1 hollow and an EPS one in Hood River. Foote 9'0" x 31", L41 8'8", 18' Speedboard, etc. etc.

Tom

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2996
    • View Profile
Re: Chains required, but apparently not common sense.
« Reply #21 on: December 28, 2016, 07:45:01 AM »
You don't need chains on the trailer, but if you have electric brakes on the trailer, and need them for safe stops, then it's a good idea. Having a 10,000 pound toboggan sliding out of control is never fun.

Good point. I do have electric brakes, and I think I can work out something to temporarily disable them.

PonoBill

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 25870
    • View Profile
Re: Chains required, but apparently not common sense.
« Reply #22 on: December 28, 2016, 08:36:54 AM »
I wouldn't disable them, just set your controller down to a much lower setting when you know it's slippery. I drop a few increments even for rain. I was taking my two-axle trailer to the storage space after unloading it here in Canyon Lake, and when I got on the brakes to stop for a stoplight I heard screeching behind me and the heavy trailer bounced around. I had the controller set for the previous load.

Duh. 
Foote 10'4X34", SIC 17.5 V1 hollow and an EPS one in Hood River. Foote 9'0" x 31", L41 8'8", 18' Speedboard, etc. etc.

deepmud

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Chains required, but apparently not common sense.
« Reply #23 on: December 30, 2016, 08:44:25 PM »
I don't think 4wd  should get you an chain exemption. Real snow tires - sure.  Here in Alaska, they never require chains - or snow tires. Perhaps they should. We have a stooopid number of crashes on my morning commute and I think it's mostly because 4wd and ABS makes people feel "safe" when they are not. "Back in the day" most cars were crap in snow, and so were the tires - so chaining up was "normal" and driving was safer (can't really speed with chains).  All cars have 4 wheel stop, and the only way to improve that is ABS (helps some) or REAL snow tires like Nokians or Blizzaks (helps a LOT).

I do have a set of chains for the wife's 4x4 Touareg, as well as the Blizzaks. The chains are for ice with sudden warm temps or rain on top - SLIPPERY  - for less than a foot of snow I don't bother with the chains.


If I really have to go somewhere in the snow  - I bring out the Samurai :D







TallDude

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 5714
  • Capistrano Beach
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Chains required, but apparently not common sense.
« Reply #24 on: December 30, 2016, 10:13:25 PM »
My wife has an old 99' Mitsubishi full size Montero.  The thing is a tank in the snow.  It even has a ' snow hold ' button that prevents excessive torque being applied even though shifts. It just crawls without missing a beat up steep un-plowed hills. After 17 yrs and 250k miles it's still going strong . Original engine,  transmission,  and transfer case. I've pulled more people out of snow berms and up icy hills than I can remember over the years.  To bad they quit selling them in the US. It's the most popular SUV everywhere else in the world.  They don't like twin turbo diesel engines on car in the US? I'd buy a new one in a heartbeat if they ever started selling them again.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 10:15:29 PM by TallDude »
It's not overhead to me!
8'8" L-41 ST and a whole pile of boards I rarely use.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal