SageBrush wrote:^^ You are not making any sense. Try again, since:
Californians buy AWD and skip on winter tyres to a large degree.
If the routes to the ski resorts require 'R2' then they are obliged to put on chains whether they have AWD or not.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/cttravel/chain-controls.htmlRequirement 2 (R2): Chains or traction devices2 are required on all vehicles except four wheel/ all wheel drive vehicles with snow-tread tires on all four wheels.
NOTE: (Four wheel/all wheel drive vehicles must carry traction devices in chain control areas.)
Requirement 3 (R3): Chains or traction devices are required on all vehicles, no exceptions. . . .
Snow-tread Tires: The California Vehicle Code, Section 558 defines a snow-tread tire as follows, "A 'Snow-tread tire' is a tire which has a relatively deep and aggressive tread pattern compared with conventional passenger tread pattern". Snow-tread tires can be identified by examining the sidewall of the tire where the letters MS, M/S, M+S or the words MUD AND SNOW have been stamped into the sidewall.
SageBrush wrote:If R1 the AWD with poor tyres is allowed to use the route but they have sacrificed safety for convenience.
Sure, the question is how much. For example, in Yosemite Valley the roads make a 14 mile loop. Often, they'll be completely dry except for two locations extending about 100 yards each, where frost//snow/ice can build or stick longer. Either can easily be driven without chains, even on bald tires. I know this because I once wrecked a set of rear tires and chains on my (RWD) Impala while I was staying there for a week, as they had chain controls up for the entire valley loop even though these were the only two patches of road that weren't completely dry. After I wore a chain cross link away on one of them (the other chain's cross links were getting pretty close) and spent a half hour under the car at night untangling the first chain (it had wrapped itself around the axle when it broke), I removed the other one before it broke and I had to go through a second untangling, and proceeded to exit the valley climbing 2,000 feet in the process over mostly snow covered roads on bald rear tires. I took my time, but had zero issues. The tires had been in good shape when I arrived, but were bald after a week of chains grinding on them on pavement. I would have relished having a ranger stop me, because I was furious and would have loved to tell them just what I thought of their chain control practices.
Even if they don't have controls up for the entire valley loop, they may put them up for just these two spots, which is ludicrous - one's completely flat, and the other's a slight curve on a very gentle downhill, where you're already driving slowly - I have no doubt that an idiot could get in trouble at either, but they can do that anywhere. Even when the Valley roads are snow covered they're almost entirely flat, and anyone paying even the slightest attention can drive them sans chains on regular tire, never mind snow tires. Given the option of dealing with that or similar issues (parts of I-80 and SR-120 can dip in and out of bare pavement for substantial distances) on a regular basis, or just buying a car with 4/AWD with M+S tires to avoid the hassle, which do you think most skiers here choose? You rarely see R3 here, because instead of putting that up they're more likely to just close the road. Although I've always carried chains in my 4/AWD cars, I think I've only had to use them (and was glad to have them) once in 30 years.