Okay, but in the absence of a heads-up display of which drivers are dipshits, which are high/drunk, and which are excellent drivers, I'd rather not see Mustangs on the road in snow.
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
I 70 sucks
Okay, but in the absence of a heads-up display of which drivers are dipshits, which are high/drunk, and which are excellent drivers, I'd rather not see Mustangs on the road in snow.
Maybe we need like flashing dipshit lights on cars..automated by onboard AI..I think you're onto something!
Probably help the Teslas out too...
Quite a few things can be done to discourage driving in adverse conditions in an unworthy vehicle.
1- Insurance is not valid in a rental vehicle (without severe winter weather tires) during the period that Traction Law is in Effect (the most strict one)
2- If you are in an accident or get stuck and cause a delay during the time said Traction Law is in effect you will be fined at least $600 if it turns out you do not have severe winter weather tires.
3- All CMV's MUST stay on the right lane at all times during the time said Traction Law is in effect. No exceptions. No passing, nothing. Includes all vehicles with trailers.
4- All this must be accompanied by a media campaign.
The point is, if conditions are bad, wait it out!
1- Insurance is not valid in a rental vehicle (without severe winter weather tires) during the period that Traction Law is in Effect (the most strict one)
2- If you are in an accident or get stuck and cause a delay during the time said Traction Law is in effect you will be fined at least $600 if it turns out you do not have severe winter weather tires.
3- All CMV's MUST stay on the right lane at all times during the time said Traction Law is in effect. No exceptions. No passing, nothing. Includes all vehicles with trailers.
4- All this must be accompanied by a media campaign.
The point is, if conditions are bad, wait it out!
Common sense can't be legislated ! Or is it sorely lacking so some of these laws are needed.!During severe storms they should have even more restrictions / requirements. If people without proper winter tires would just wait until the roads are clear most accidents would not happen. But its hard to legislate awareness and judgement / decision making.
Well that didnt take long at all... https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...le-crash-closes-eb-i-70-at-eisenhower-tunnels
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Posts
- 6,329
Fine. I trust you'll be changing the law to insist that all winter rentals out of DEN (including the dumping ground TX,AZ,NM plates) have proper winter tyres.
Its not that, its so that people dont attempt to drive those vehicles through the high country while the "severe" Traction Law is in effect. It is to discourage. No severe winter tires, then you drive at your own risk and risk getting a big fine if the Traction Law is in effect and something bad happens. It wont affect the rental car operations at all. Business as usual for them. But just like they wont cover you if you damage the rental vehicle while driving on 4WD only roads they wont cover you if you damage your vehicle or others while the Traction Law is in effect. Its pretty simple.
It doesn't matter how great a driver you are. Without traction, you won't get up the steep grades on I-70 during a severe storm.
You either need all-wheel drive or snow tires. Without either of those, you won't make it, and you'll block the road.
Unfortunately, the new law doesn't require snow tires for 2WD vehicles. It will still allow 2WD vehicles with all-season tires that won't have sufficient traction in a severe storm.
If you fly into DIA and want to make it into the high country during a storm either a) rent an AWD or b) take a shuttle. Otherwise, wait out the storm. Please.
You either need all-wheel drive or snow tires. Without either of those, you won't make it, and you'll block the road.
Unfortunately, the new law doesn't require snow tires for 2WD vehicles. It will still allow 2WD vehicles with all-season tires that won't have sufficient traction in a severe storm.
If you fly into DIA and want to make it into the high country during a storm either a) rent an AWD or b) take a shuttle. Otherwise, wait out the storm. Please.
This is really all that needs to be said on the matter!
I agree. I don't schedule any work activities that I have to show up for on Mondays. It is amazing if you just wait until things have cleared or spend the night and allow the plows to do their job.
Good luck enforcing that. Might as well say home insurance isn't valid during hurricane season too..
Fun fact: Cdot actually has a traction law code that is more severe than the one you see talked about. Code 16 mandates all passenger vehicles have chains or autosock device. They never use this code 16 though, only the code 15. https://www.codot.gov/travel/winter-driving/TractionLaw
What we need is what many other jurisdictions have already figured out and would be equivalent to a code 15.5. Mandatory mountain-snowflake rated tires no matter the type of drive train or chains/autosock with 2WD.
What we need is what many other jurisdictions have already figured out and would be equivalent to a code 15.5. Mandatory mountain-snowflake rated tires no matter the type of drive train or chains/autosock with 2WD.
I was walking around the Toyota dealer yesterday and spent some time looking at tires. I couldn't find any that were not stamped M+S. Granted, Toyota doesn't make any fast cars (except Supra coming soon, right?) that have high-performance tires. But, their inventory is a pretty good indication of what tires are out on the road.
This Corolla SE has performance oriented all-season tires that are stamped M+S. Even brand new, these tires are not going to make it up the steep grades on I-70 in a severe storm.
My little exercise also highlighted how difficult it will be to enforce this law. It's not easy finding the M+S stamp on most tires. Many tires are obviously M+S, but those vehicles already have AWD or 4x4. Cars are not so easy.
I had to look hard to find the M+S stamp on that tire. It took me a while:
Imagine finding that M+S at a checkpoint in a blizzard. Roadside checks are not practical for M+S tires. And again, those tires won't even make it up the grades, so what's the point?
Which brings me to a solution that I think could solve the problem. RFID tire enforcement!
Here's the idea: Charge $20/year for a tire check to be done at a tire store. If you have tires that meet the requirement, you get an RFID pass that allows you on I-70 during a severe storm. Nobody else is allowed on the road.
The $20 tire check fee goes to enforcement. The tire store can charge whatever they want to do the check, but they'll probably do it for free to generate business.
Tire check RFID could be part of the Express Toll system or not. Enforcement could be through both checkpoints and the State Patrol being able to scan vehicles in route. The fine for cheating is enormous, and 100% goes to enforcement. Make it cheaper to buy new tires than to be caught cheating.
It also would put us one easy step away from the next level of winter tire laws we need: severe storm tire requirements of either four-wheel drive or mountain snowflake tires. That could be as easy as a legislation and software update away.
What do you all think?
This Corolla SE has performance oriented all-season tires that are stamped M+S. Even brand new, these tires are not going to make it up the steep grades on I-70 in a severe storm.
My little exercise also highlighted how difficult it will be to enforce this law. It's not easy finding the M+S stamp on most tires. Many tires are obviously M+S, but those vehicles already have AWD or 4x4. Cars are not so easy.
I had to look hard to find the M+S stamp on that tire. It took me a while:
Imagine finding that M+S at a checkpoint in a blizzard. Roadside checks are not practical for M+S tires. And again, those tires won't even make it up the grades, so what's the point?
Which brings me to a solution that I think could solve the problem. RFID tire enforcement!
Here's the idea: Charge $20/year for a tire check to be done at a tire store. If you have tires that meet the requirement, you get an RFID pass that allows you on I-70 during a severe storm. Nobody else is allowed on the road.
The $20 tire check fee goes to enforcement. The tire store can charge whatever they want to do the check, but they'll probably do it for free to generate business.
Tire check RFID could be part of the Express Toll system or not. Enforcement could be through both checkpoints and the State Patrol being able to scan vehicles in route. The fine for cheating is enormous, and 100% goes to enforcement. Make it cheaper to buy new tires than to be caught cheating.
It also would put us one easy step away from the next level of winter tire laws we need: severe storm tire requirements of either four-wheel drive or mountain snowflake tires. That could be as easy as a legislation and software update away.
What do you all think?
Last edited:
I doubt that they are causing the most crashes. But that doesn't mean as a percentage of their volume vs I70 total volume, they don't cause an abnormally large percentage.
The vast majority of accidents I personally see on I70 are caused by reckless driving.
I guess I just get a bit peeved when I read some of this thread because I and many others I know personally fit the stereotype for the I-70 theoretical 'problem.'
We are tourists from places it seldom snows.
We rent cars and drive them. Very rarely have I driven a SUV. In my experience, the SUVs in rental fleets are not better (from a traction standpoint) than a minivan or sedan and they cost substantially more with less functional cargo space.
So I guess I am glad that the law is pretty 'weak'. I and none of my 'touron' friends have been in or caused accidents on I-70 (knock on wood).
Would love to see some hard data on the leading cause and demographics of those in the accidents. If there is a specific cause for the problem, then the law should address that specifically.
We are tourists from places it seldom snows.
We rent cars and drive them. Very rarely have I driven a SUV. In my experience, the SUVs in rental fleets are not better (from a traction standpoint) than a minivan or sedan and they cost substantially more with less functional cargo space.
So I guess I am glad that the law is pretty 'weak'. I and none of my 'touron' friends have been in or caused accidents on I-70 (knock on wood).
Would love to see some hard data on the leading cause and demographics of those in the accidents. If there is a specific cause for the problem, then the law should address that specifically.
Sponsor
Members online
- Kyle
- Brian Finch
- VickieH
- Even_Stevens
- Samoro
- scrubadub
- eric100
- KMP
- skiki
- ilovepugs
- Powder High
- tromano
- Ogg
- Aeolian
- Philpug
- mdf
- ski otter 2
- tw90
- slidingmike
- David
- Jwrags
- Dwight
- coldski
- neonorchid
- P-Ute
- GregK
- The Retired Skier
- Mothertucker
- dan ross
- mikes781
- Nomax
- BrianB
- Johnny V.
- BlueSky
- tomahawkins
- ZionPow
- maximlloa
- Dean
- Snookit
- Prosper
- hrandersonn
- MaryG
- JerryVep
- Kite Pilot
- wiread
- jt10000
- geepers
- ted
- John O
- TDub