Doing the calculations in terms of life-years alone seems misleading to me. There are certain places you simply can't go without studs during some parts of some winters. But the point about who benefits and who loses is well taken. Perhaps there is a way to reduce the use of studded tires significantly. (I would love a system that extended them only when needed, but that seems unlikely)
That's really bizarre, forced logic to get a grabby headline. All of the "negative impacts" awkwardly linked to studs are conjectural, at best, and completely subjective.
I hate that this type of stuff is represented to the public as "science", and is therefore assumed to be "good science"
Ok I love science, but this is over reaching to find a conclusion. You could argue the same thing about just about anything that is manufactured today.
I don't really know anything about that subject but it feels very shaky to be able to measure the actual effect of "particles thrown in the air because of studs" or the effect of the "amount of cobalt used for the studs". I would think those amount are so tiny compared to all the other particles or cobalt usage that they would be within the overall margin of error.
And how can they measure the lives saved by the existence of studded tires vs not? I never drive in snow but I would expect people would be less willing to drive without the studs, so what about counting the effect of getting less fresh food during winter and relying more on canned food? What about the driving speed effect, e.g. to reach a hospital more quickly? What about the particles thrown in the air because more plowing would be needed?
Basically, my point is that it feels this study goes either too far or not enough into details to mean anything.
I live in a far north climate (65 deg north) and I am soooo sick of this PMxx.x fear mongering. If there is a forest fire then is natural, if the wind blows the silt off the river it is ok because it is natural. But if the wind blows dust off a road then STOP! Call in the PM hit squad and make regulations. If I start my wood stove then I am the devil...but if a forest fire starts then it is a natural process that should be left alone. This is like the new global warming chicken little stuff. People complain about breathing problems during the winter? Have they wondered if a good deal of that is because of super dry air (less than 40% humidity)? Nope...they don't it is always PM problems so that they can regulate and worry you to death. No, I am sick of it. Stop it. Give it a rest. Go live in your uber pure air bubble some place!
I had an argument about pure air last winter with a guy that insisted that PM was damaging him...all the while he was puffing on a cigarette!
"The researchers aren't counting the deaths incurred and avoided due to studded tires, but rather the years of life that are lost or saved."
Who cares about how many human lives saved? (Sarcasm!)
This clearly looks like a case of "choose (or create!) your own metric to get the result you want"!
Jon Smith
NO way I'm giving up my studded tires during Wisconsin winters!!! But I don't think anyone can complain about this as mine are on my non-fossil fueled pedal-powered bicycle and don't damage the bike paths too much.
My first question, is, will particles of asphalt be thrown up, if the road is covered in ice or snow? Obviously not. So the next question is, what is the proportion of mileage by vehicles on asphalt that is not covered by ice or snow, compared that with? Without that answer, its not possible to make a sensible conclusion, and if non studded tyres also produce particulates, and far outnumber the studded tyres, world wide, then is the question even worth asking?
/gianteyeroll This is ridiculous!
C7 GT1
What about plastic studs, that is the type of stud that is alowed in Oregon(USA).