This probably explains those speed rating law rumours:
http://www.tirebusiness.com/subscriber/opinion2.phtml?cat=3&id=1099679782 .
Here's a quote: "In Maine, the issue has come to a head as word has spread about a little-publicized state law enacted in September 2003. The one-sentence law states: “A vehicle may be equipped only with tires that meet or exceed the load and speed rating of the original equipment tires.”
Not related, but here's an interesting article on "performance tires":
http://expertpages.com/news/performance_tires.htmI have had less than H-rated winter tires (Q,T-rated) before and they were by no means "dangerous". Sure they were mushier but never dangerous IMHO.
Everyone makes out like the Blizzak tires are somehow unsafe when the roads are bare and dry. What crap. We had WS-50's on our Outback Wagon and while I wouldn't want to go autocrossing, dry handling was pretty reasonable, and excellent when considering it's ice capabilities.
When the roads are bare & dry (as they often are around here in the winter), I like to cruise along at 120 kph or so. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Are Q-rated winters dangerous at that speed? While I certainly find them unpleasant, as long as everything proceeds tickety-boo, I'd have to agree that they're not actually dangerous.
But what if a deer jumps out in front of me and I have to take evasive action? What if I have to swerve suddenly to avoid something on the road? ( yeah, yeah, I know... I should be paying more attention
)
On those mushy, Q-rated sidewalls, there's a much greater chance that I'll wind up in either the ditch or in front of oncoming traffic. That's where the danger lies, IMO, and that's why I'm happy to give up a little bit of snow & ice performance to gain a great deal of handling precision and stability.
