I5 in southern Oregon

[Chazz]

My opinion is that any car manufacturer that does not allow even for low-profile traction devices is doing an extreme disservice to their customers. Shame on Subaru for this. Makes having an "all-weather" car that cannot legally traverse areas requiring chains to be fairly useless.

[drm]

Since I don't downhill ski, it doesn't come up for me much because cross country/backcountry skiing usually has me turning off the road before they check. But the are literally gazillions of Subarus in these parts and apparently most do not take chains, so it must work out some way. I have seen signs that say chains required unless you have AWD.

[Tom of the Woods]

It works by ignoring the law, hoping not to get caught, and pleading ignorance when they do. Who knows, it might work?

I laugh at Subaru drivers in general but I do not think it's fair to single out Subaru regarding not being able to use chains, that's true of many new cars and even some trucks today. I work with several people who have cars that can't take chains. They'd never heard of such stupidity when they bought the car so they didn't know there was a question to ask. Now they own it.

In a situation like that, I'd ignore the road damage, run studded tires, carry a set of chains to be legal, and be sure to never drive where I actually needed them. AWD and studs, so long as the road is being plowed/bladed, are probably enough and if they aren't, y' probably shouldn't go. Save chains for after you've messed up so you have one more degree of capability than you used to get into trouble on tap for getting back out.

[drm]

drove through today and I5 was dry all the way to the state border and beyond. Won't be tomorrow.