Talk:Snow tire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First post

Encyclopedia Britannica has a snow tire article. Chergles (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This article can grow. We can include material on how the rubber is different, tread pattern, manufacturers, use of studs, where studs are illegal and why, etc. Chergles (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't snow tyres compulsory during winter, in Germany? I came here to find out more about that, but the article is just a stub. Jason404 (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No, they aren't. They are just compulsory if the conditions require them. Some areas of Germany get snow so irregularly that it would be pointless to have a blanket requirement for them. You're not supposed to drive in snow with summer tyres though.

Quebec first to implement snow tyre law? Winter/Snow Tyres have been a legal requirement in Sweden since Dec 1999. 188.223.101.209 (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Winter tires in Norway

I see plenty of websites saying that winter tires are not compulsory in Norway, but I tend to give more weight to this official U.S. website, which says that they are required "from November to April". I will see if I can find any official Norwegian source for this. Mikenorton (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Winter tires are required only on heavy vehicles. For light vehicles there is only a general rule saying that the driver is obliged to use tires that gives sufficient friction. Studded tires (tires wiht spikes) are allowed April-October only according to conditions. I have modified the paragraph. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

When first marketed?

It would improve the article to give some history on snow tires, for example, when were they first marketed? Possibly before WW 2 (1939 - 1945)? Or after? I would assume that prior to the advent of snow tires, the installiation of chains was the primary method of obtaining satisfactory traction on heavy snow or ice.--TGC55 (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Some history: http://www.wintertyres-yorkshire.co.uk/winter-tyres-a-brief-history/ JSoos (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Dead link

Please remove all links are dead! Thanks for earlier!--109.67.200.83 (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Disadvantages?

Presumably winter and snow tires have disadvantages, or they would be used throughout the year. Can anybody add information about this? --Ef80 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  • They wear out quicker. Some claim they make more noise. They often have directional tread pattern. Load ratings and speed ratings are less. If you feel the need to add this, you can do so, but I don't have any of this sourced so any entry could be deleted. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Studded tires are banned in some inner city areas of Scandinavia in the winter, because of the fine particles produced from the road surface when snow/ice is not there - this has been linked to an increase in breathing difficulties for some people. I got that from someone in Sweden, so I don't have a source to hand, but I'll take a look around. Studded tires are also only used in winter because of the damage they cause to the roads (it's also why several countries ban them completely). More generally with snow tires, they are presumably not optimum for grip and/or wear during non-winter conditions. Sorry not to be able to support any of that with sources, but If I find any I'll be back. Mikenorton (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Swedish laws

Here is the link to the office publishing the regulations: http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/en/road/Vehicles/winter-tyres/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.175.124 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be extended

This article should be more detailed especially for something which is so much a part of everyday life for many of us. The section about requirements in Europe is insufficient considering there are 51 countries in Europe. Why no mention of Poland, Russia, Sweden and other countries?--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 19:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sweden is one of 15 countries that are listed, but we do need information on Russia, Poland, Serbia, Belgium, Denmark, Albania, Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Montenegro, Macedonia, Netherlands, Liechtenstein, Ireland and Iceland. Spain, Portugal and Greece probably use them in mountainous areas, although we can probably leave out Malta, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City. Perhaps a table would be good way of presenting this information, when we get it? Mikenorton (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Snow tires vs. winter tires

Somebody thought these articles were describing the same thing and combined them. Snow tires have been around for the better part of a century but winter tires are something new in the last few years being promoted by the sales people as having softer rubber compounds for use in cold weather. Snow tires have large lugs on them for grip in snow or sand. After some research I have never found the softer rubber compounds claimed by tire manufacturers. Some real references would be good to validate the sales hype . These articles or at least descriptions need to be kept separate. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. In the Nordic context winter tires and snow tires is one and the same thing, and have been so for some 40-50 years. There are perhaps some special purpose "Mud & Snow" types made for offroad driving, I don't think these are used on public roads in the Nordic area. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the current snow tires/winter tires distinction doesn't make sense. See for example Nokian tyres English page for passenger cars, it talks about winter tyres throughout. Similarly, Michelin and Goodyear also categorize all of their winter/snow tyres as winter tires. Additionally, all the current references of the article seem to be talking about winter tires, not snow tires. 109.204.245.233 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Regional rules

Why is much of the article taken up with regional rules for use of snow tires? This appears to me to be much too detailed and particular to specific regions—not of general interest, especially where there is no requirement. There are no citations, as well. So, I propose drastically condensing this section. Anybody disagree? User:HopsonRoad 04:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of images

IP user 208.100.156.100 has twice deleted images here. The images illustrate the concepts described in Snow tire#Tire–snow interactions. Please don't delete these images without a good explanation. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 20:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

hi i removed a non-applicable picture of a car and added an applicable picture of a snow tire, along with improving captions and formatting, please check the edit diffs next time instead of assuming all IP edits are vandalism, thanks! 208.100.156.100 (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, here, 208.100.156.100. I apologize if I misread your intentions. I did check your contributions history and it did not lead me to conclude that you were experienced in WP—a risk that an IP editor runs who doesn't edit from a single spot.
As to the Russian street scene, I chose it in place of some earlier, irrelevant images, because it was one of few images available on Wikimedia Commons that illustrated the need for snow tires in real conditions. Otherwise, the article only shows the tire and its immediate reaction with snow. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
commons has a bunch of better snowy roads roads than that one too, thats where i found the other snow tire pic, i will see what i can do 208.100.156.100 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your interest in this, 208.100.156.100. I felt that the Russian picture showed tires on snow, whereas your recent choice shows only delayed traffic, which could happen with an accident ahead. The opposite lane has no traffic, so an accident may have occurred further up. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued efforts, 208.100.156.100. The Japanese image shows tire-road interaction, but the road is little more than wet—not that big a challenge for regular tires. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Russia already covered

An IP user keeps creating a special mention of Russia as follows: "In Russia light vehicles and buses must be equipped with snow M+S or 3PMSF tires on all axles from December through February and have a minimum tread depth of 4 millimetres (0.2 in)". This violates WP:UNDUE, since Russia is already covered in equal measure to other European countries in previous edits. I leave it to someone else to address this in order to avoid WP:3RR. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Studded tyres in Great Britain

FozzieHey, there appears to be no direct legislation, barring studded tyres in Great Britain. According to this source, "Although there is no specific legislation in the UK which references the use of studded tyres, they are generally considered not fit for use in the UK. Correct usage of studded tyres requires thick and even levels of snow on the road. So, under the laws that revolve around suitable use of items on automotive vehicles – studded tyres would most likely be found unsuitable. They also cause damage to the roads, so this too would likely result them being deemed not suitable." HopsonRoad (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: Thanks, I found that source as well. This does seem to be the correct answer, other sources do say that it is illegal but provide no references to any specific legislation which would indicate that being the case. FozzieHey (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Snow tire → Winter tireWinter tire – Article is for both 'winter tire' and 'snow tire', but the former is by far the more utilized phrase. Further, people are regularly confused that snow tires are only for snow, and that there is no improvement in having winter tires when it is cold but not snowy, which is not the case, and dangerous. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Weak support. I agree with the nominator's point that the term "winter tires" is more broadly applicable. The usual sources for assessing COMMONNAME, though, do not seem to support the move. This Ngrams search shows that "snow tires" is more common than "winter tires". Google Trends (searches, not sources) shows a very small preference for "winter tire". Jstor, not known for covering this kind of topic, shows significantly more results for "snow tires" than "winter tires". Toadspike [Talk] 15:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Snow tire is the common name, per Toadspike's stats. There is no indication that winter tires and snow tires are two different things, rather than alternative names for the same thing. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support: Just looking at this it seems that 'snow tyre' is a very rarely used combination (indeed not one that I've ever heard used in the UK). I'm not suggesting we turn 'tire' to 'tyre', but I think there is an argument to use 'winter' per WP:COMMONALITY. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Now that is an interesting new rationale, and one I can get behind. FWIW, this might be a European thing: The German, French, Italian, and Spanish Wikipedia articles are all at "winter", not "snow". Toadspike [Talk] 05:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Toadspike, that's interesting. I assumed it was a marketing thing, because in the UK we don't get massive amounts of snow (apart from last week, or maybe in Scotland) but it does get cold enough to justify a winter tyre. The other countries you mention do get significant snow, however. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONALITY says to use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed. But I am doubtful that 'winter tires' is universally accepted. For example, Wikipedia's articles use 'snow tires' by a very large majority. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Our article is at the title "snow tire", so obviously all the links go to "snow tire" (including Julier Pass, where the words "snow tire" were added by yours truly).
    Your point stands, though: A more accurate search compares to , which gives 67 hits for "snow tire" and 10 for "winter tire" (not case sensitive). Toadspike [Talk] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, for a start 'tire' is not a universally recognised spelling. Secondly, using Wikipedia itself is off limits because WP:WINARS. Thirdly, you being doubtful is not evidence. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not saying 'tire' is universally recognized. I'm just saying that WP:COMMONALITY pertains to cases when there is a universally recognized spelling. And if WP:COMMONALITY does not apply, then we ought to heed WP:COMMONNAME. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed, and 'snow tyre' is not widely used in the UK, but 'winter tyre' is. Both 'winter tire' and 'snow tire' are both widely understood in the US, even if 'snow tire' is more common. That's WP:COMMONALITY. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose at least in the USA it seems snow is slightly more preferred but used rather interchangeable. google trends shows a definite bias towards snow. But again lots of mixed useable between winter and snow, partially due to some of the reasons provided above. TiggerJay (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think unfortunately this is just a case where Google Trends is being unclear. Although it is clear about how it is unclear, as at your link it states "This comparison contains both Search terms and Topics, which are measured differently.". You are comparing the "search term" of 'winter tire' with the "topic" of "snow tire". But there's much more to it than that.
    The problem with using Google Trends to see which of two frequently interchangeably used terms is that for many results both terms will be used on the same page. In the past this could be accounted for by having Trends compare, for example, '"winter tire" -"snow tire"' to '"snow tire" -"winter tire"', basically explicitly excluding each item from each result, and also quoting to ensure the entire phrase is what's considered, rather than the two words 'winter' & 'tire', or 'snow' & 'tire'. Google Trends does not seem to facilitate this type of comparison any longer, at least not straightforwardly.
    Anyway if we modify your link to use a "search term" for both 'winter tire' and 'snow tire', the two become much closer.
    https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=winter%20tire,snow%20tire&hl=en-US
    If we put them in quotes, they become closer still.
    https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22winter%20tire%22,%22snow%20tire%22&hl=en-US
    The real issue is that these two terms aren't being properly separated from one another, even at this point.
    If you look at any of these links, the results simply do not match reality, and this is easily verified by doing two separate Google searches and looking at the number of results:
    When you compare these ordinary results to Google Trends', there is an inverse relationship, where Google Trends' results are the opposite of ordinary search results. This is because Google Trends simply is not able to differentiate between the two terms usefully enough. It really was and is not designed for this purpose.
    As you can see from the ordinary search results, 'winter' is really overwhelmingly more used. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Automobiles has been notified of this discussion. CNC (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Neither in the above discussion, nor in the article do I see any description of a "winter tire" that is not a snow tire. Unlike road tires, snow tires have a tread pattern that is designed to compact snow and create shear strength in the plane of the road surface. Some snow tires have studs to deal with ice, as well. No non-snow tires have studs to deal with ice only. These tires are specifically designed to improve traction on snowy surfaces. "Snow tire" clearly denotes the function of the tire. "Winter tire", no matter how widely used, is just an alternate term for snow tire. Neither term causes confusion about what is being described. "Snow tire" better describes the tire's function. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
    @HopsonRoad Some education. Specifically Winter tyre are tyres specifically designed to drive safely in temperatures below 7ºC, whether the road is snowy or not. Maybe 'winter tire/tyre' needs a separate page? YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is quite revealing about your citation is that it says They are identified by special markings, M+S and/or 3PMSF, situated on the sidewall of the tyre. where the “S” in both terms stands for “snow” and nowhere does it reference winter or ice or cold in their designations but quite clearly they believe that “snow” is the appropriate thing to indicate the type of tire/tyre design it has. TiggerJay (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
    YorkshireExpat, thank you for your observation. There are no tires designed specifically for temperatures below 7ºC, absent snow or ice. Normal tires can operate at very cold temperatures, they just perform poorly in snow because of their tread pattern. The tread patterns of M+S tires are designed to compact and strengthen the mud or snow being driven through in order to improve shear strength along the surface. 3PMSF (three-peak mountain snow flake) has a snowflake symbol on it, denoting the tire's purpose for use in snow. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
    @HopsonRoad well ok then, it's probably marketing nonsense to get stupid Brits to buy something they don't need. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe, but it's how they're trying to sell them that matters. As discussed above, most heavily populated areas do not get sigificant snow for long periods, but temperatures regularly fall below 7ºC, so marketing crap it is. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Going to relist this to give some time for Wikiproject comments, if any, since WP:AUTOS was just notified slightly over a day ago. Can still be closed at any time, of course. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose No compelling evidence that "winter tire" is more common. There might be WP:ENGVAR factors as well. See WP:BROKE. 162 etc. (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Based on the above discussion the primary purpose of these tires is to deal with snow, and the current name also appears to be the more common name (especially in places that use the 'tire' spelling). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Benzero75 WP:LINKSPAM?

1. There appears to be a WP:LINKSPAM WP:CITESPAM trend by Benzero75 regarding citing articles by "Whitehead, Ben" on "JIT Truck Parts" (JIT) website for wikipedia pages snow tire, snow chains, and brake fade. Whitehead is listed as a "E-Commerce Digital Content Specialist" and "SEO" for Autocar Parts LLC which lists the same Chicago suburb address as JIT Truck Parts, and both being part of GVW Group. This raises concerns of WP:COI WP:PSCOI WP:PE WP:PAID WP:SELFPUBLISH WP:YESPROMO.

2. The "contributions" also shows removing of citations to other businesses pages (16 December 2025, 24 January 2025) to replace them with JIT ones, versus just updating the citation with an archived-link.

3. Recently (12 January 2026), Benzero75 removed archived-link info from JIT citations preventing a cookie-free viewing of content, while leaving the JIT URL, a re-direct to a website explicitly requiring user-data collection and consent (for various purposes) to read any pages... including (ironically) its "Privacy Policy" page with no Opt-Out, while also commenting that other edits "may have been recently added by an AI spam bot or malicious actor seeking payment to edit Wiki pages" which fails to WP:AGF, and in light of #1 and #2 could be read or mistaken as misdirection or projection.

4. The same comment asserts "an archived URL citation would, by default, always be outdated and potentially not reflect current changes to the law." Archived-links have archival-value (company close, domain get lost or inaccessible). The most current changes to a law would be on that governing-body's website, not a blog's compendium. Wikipedia's utility benefits from numerous pages where the relevant law (e.g. statute number) for each respective state is given and linked to the respective page WP:RSPS (e.g. [state].gov/[statute number]), helpful in directing a user to which is applicable versus revertible WP:DEPRECATED ones.

5. In WP:GF, if it is a case of an editor where their work (paid) and "area of personal interest" overlap, the same citations, references, or info could independently be made or added directly to the relevant wikipedia page, and with a collapsible-table format to conserve space if appropriate (e.g. Dog Leash Laws by State: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, ...), rather than using wikipedia to re-direct user-data collection, and cite references where appropriate where no WP:COI exists nor could be implied.--RubberMeetsTheRoad (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I Benzero75 do not believe these allegations are merited in whole or part, and I'm concerned they are a personal attack and harassment for correcting RubberMeetsTheRoad's previous changes. I have a response to each allegation below, but I really don't know where to go from here.
I originally edited/removed "archived version" links that RubberMeetsTheRoad created that were inaccessible duplicates of live URL citations that were already present on each Wiki page. I was informed of these archived link additions by RubberMeetsTheRoad through channels external to Wikipedia, in which RubberMeetsTheRoad used an email address with a "thanks.org" domain, which appears to be a SaaS for the creation of AI bots. In response to me removing the archived links, which was the best and most immediate course of action, RubberMeetsTheRoad's has removed every edit and contribution to every Wiki page I've worked on. RubberMeetsTheRoad's has also now removed the original links that verified the Wiki content of these pages well and replaced those citations with other sources that have outdated content (legal information that needs to be accurate) on the same subject. RubberMeetsTheRoad has also engaged in further potential harassment outside of Wikipedia channels and engaged in direct harassment in Talk here by posting of personal/identity information and hounding by removal of all of my Wiki contributions.
Regarding #1.
The subjects of the snow tire, snow chains, and brake fade Wikipedia pages are about general topics and have no direct or promotional relation to the source/URL author or website. The citations previously added by Benzero75 (that's me) to the pages are objectively relevant to each topic and directly verify, strengthen, an expand information mentioned within the page topic or subtopics. Additionally, while the URLs are hosted on an ecommerce website (not unlike other existing citations on these Wiki pages or abnormal to where such reference information is usually found), the content and subject matter found at these URLs in clearly informative in nature and intended for general public use. These edits and citations were added voluntarily for the benefit of the Wiki page (without payment or direction of the host website/company).
[URL removed, see Snow_tire&oldid=1332781972 page history]
[URL removed, see Snow_tire&oldid=1332781972 page history]
[URL removed, see Snow_tire&oldid=1332781972 page history]
Regarding #2
No previous citations were removed for the purpose of replacing them with new citations or new sources. As noted in the Benzero75's initial edit contribution, any prior citations removed were removed only because the cited website was defunct or the link returned an error page AND a current or accurate archived URL from the same source could not be found. These URL citations hosted content about state laws (legal information). Displaying or adding outdated archived versions of legal content would directly weaken the Wikipedia page and promote inaccurate information on the topic or subtopic. In fact, one of the removed/replaced citations was itself an archived URL in which the content of the now-defunct website was last updated in 2010, meaning its content had 15 years' worth of inaccurate information. The overwhelming majority of other subject-matter sources for such a citation/reference also have outdated content that is inaccurate of current laws. The new citations added by Benzero75 contain comprehensive information that's current with existing laws as of 2026, explains the law for each state in plain terms for readers, and provides statute number references and links to every state law as well as the state's department of transportation to for reader's to verify the information is still current. Additionally, RubberMeetsTheRoad's most recent edits to these pages are doing exactly what they are alleging of Benzero75's citations -- with RubberMeetsTheRoad's now instead of archiving Benzero75's original JIT citations, removing the original them entirely and replacing them with less comprehensive, if not outdated, substitute sources.
Regarding #3
Benzero75 (me) did edit/removed "archived" links added by RubberMeetsTheRoad . The "archived" links RubberMeetsTheRoad added were inaccessible, archived duplicates of the exact same "JIT" sources added by Benzero75's that were already present on the page, and resulted in both a live link citation and archived link citation. The original JIT citations are live pages and did not require an archived version. As mentioned above, there is also no need for these specific citations to have an archived version due to their contents containing current laws, and any use of "archived" version over the live URL is destined to be inaccurate as laws change over time. In addition, the archived URL did not render the original URL properly to make it accessible to readers. This is due to the original URL website using JavaScript elements (common among many modern websites) that is unsupported by the archival source. What RubberMeetsTheRoad refers to regarding data collection is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill cookie consent disclosure required by recent (2026) laws for the majority of websites based in the U.S. and EU. It is not a "redirect" for data collection. This cookie consent law likely also applies to the "archiving" source used by RubberMeetsTheRoad based on that website's stated terms and conditions and noted use of cookies/data (https://archive.org/about/terms), but the archiving service is not yet in compliance with new "display" requirements of the law. There is no reason to archive original and still-live source links based on new laws regarding cookie consent disclosure for websites, as such a disclosure applies to most websites. There is no requirement, as RubberMeetsTheRoad seems to be suggesting, to create "cookie-free content" citations.
Regarding #4
As previously mentioned, the citations in question provide content on current laws, which can change yearly. Using archived citations of these specific URLs creates a scenario where outdated legal-information is save/retained and destined to become more and more inaccurate each year. That's not preventing link rot; it's creating it. In this specific case, it does not hold archival value. A missing citation from a dead page would be better than inaccurate archived one here. As mentioned above, one "archived" citation I removed contained inaccurate legal information because the source was last updated in 2010. While I agree with RubberMeetsTheRoad's statement that "the most current changes to a law would be on that governing-body's website, not a blog's compendium," this for U.S. states alone would involve adding more than 65 individual statute citations to the Wiki page plus supporting content. But in the meantime, the "compendium" found at the JIT link/citation added by Benzero75's (and later duplicated as an archive link by RubberMeetsTheRoad and removed later as well) already provides these 65+ links plus the relevant statute number based on the current year, additional winter-driving government resource links for each state, and explains the laws in plain terms for readers.
Regarding #5
It is being suggested the purpose of the links added by Benzero75's is for "re-direct user-data collection," but this is being misinterpreted from a common cookie consent banner that is now required by law for most U.S./EU websites as of 2026. While more information on the topic or side-topic the source link covers could certainly be added directly to the Wiki page, these are expansive subjects/subtopics that can change yearly and require significant context and resource gathering that is currently fulfilled by this external source (as noted in the response to #4). Benzero75 (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Response by Benzero75 is appreciated. It would facilitate matters if Benzero75 would state any relation (friend, family, work, or is one and the same) to "Whitehead, Ben", JIT Truck Parts, Autocar Parts LLC, and or GVW Group to which JIT and Autocar belong.--RubberMeetsTheRoad (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Removed WP:LINKSPAM URLs above and replaced with redirect to talk page history after neither reply nor follow up by Benzero75. --RubberMeetsTheRoad (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI