MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Pumps the Brakes on Obama-Era Fuel Standards

The administration says its proposal will make cars more affordable and save lives.

Kosongraphic/Dreamstime.comKosongraphic/Dreamstime.comThe Trump administration wants to freeze Obama-era requirements that force automakers to manufacture more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Under the Obama administration's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, new cars sold in the U.S. must average about 54 miles per gallon by 2025. But a joint proposal released today by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would freeze those standards for post-2020 models, meaning cars would only have to average about 37 mpg by 2026.

The Trump administration is also trying to stop California and other states from being able to impose their own, stricter fuel-efficiency standards. NBC reports that

by lifting the California waiver put in place in 1975 as part of the original Clean Air Act, President Donald Trump's administration is effectively neutering a potentially significant challenge to any rollback of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards. By setting levels of automotive CO2 emissions, California regulators could effectively retain higher mileage targets. The 10 other states and the District of Columbia that have adopted the tougher California guidelines would also be impacted by the White House move.

Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler says the proposal would make cars more affordable and save lives. "We are delivering on President Trump's promise to the American public that his administration would address and fix the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards," a statement from Wheeler reads. "Our proposal aims to strike the right regulatory balance based on the most recent information and create a 50-state solution that will enable more Americans to afford newer, safer vehicles that pollute less. More realistic standards can save lives while continuing to improve the environment."

Environmental groups are already expressing their outrage over the plan. "How can we justify rolling back the most effective tool we have to fix global warming?" Rob Sargent, energy program director for Environment America, tells USA Today. "This latest move by the Trump administration means that our cars will continue to pump billions of metric tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere, further destabilizing the climate and sparking increasingly severe impacts of global warming," he adds.

But automakers and free market groups have hailed the proposal. "The administration's announcement that it will relax future fuel economy (CAFE) standards is good news for consumers," Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment, said in a statement. "It means that the federal government will have slightly less control over the kinds of cars and trucks people can buy. It might even cause car prices to stop increasing so rapidly."

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Global Automakers, two trade groups that represent some of the biggest carmakers in the world, issued a joint statement expressing similar sentiments. "We applaud the president and the administration for releasing this much anticipated proposal that includes a variety of standards for public consideration," they said. "Automakers support continued improvements in fuel economy and flexibilities that incentivize advanced technologies while balancing priorities like affordability, safety, jobs and the environment."

The EPA and NHTSA are giving the public 60 days to provide feedback to the new proposal. A final rule is expected this winter.

Photo Credit: Kosongraphic/Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Environmental groups are already expressing their outrage over the plan.

    An evergreen statement if there ever was one.

  • Kazinski||

    I just wish Trump would see the light on Ethanol subsidies.

    Looks like the EPA is figuring it out, but Trump is clueless about the damage that subsidies do to the economy and environment.

    You have to give credit to Trump for realizing the damage government obstruction and regulations do. If he ever figures out the government "helping" does at least as much damage then they should put him on Mt Rushmore. I mean the new non-profit running Mt Rushmore, not the government of course.

  • Rich||

    Under the Obama administration's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, new cars sold in the U.S. must average about 54 miles per gallon by 2025.

    Sheesh, 17mpg is *about* 54.

  • John||

    So leftists don't like it that people drive a lot and use a lot of gas. Their solution to this "problem" is to mandate that car makers make their cars more efficient such that the cost of driving a mile goes down and the benefit from buying a gallon of gas goes up. Their "solution" as such is to make gas a more efficient and desirable product.

    That is not how this works.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And the ever more advanced technology to accomlish these lofty goals is very expensive. Driving up the cost to acquire a new car and therefore reducing purchases. Which has the side effect of keeping older, less efficient,higher polluting vehicles on the road.

  • vek||

    They can never see the obvious, but supposedly unintended consequences, staring them straight in the face. Morons!

  • Kevin Tyssen||

    Then it will be time for another "Cash for Clunkers" campaign to take all the affordable cars off the road

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No. Just have govt. stay out of the way so prices of new cars can go lower.

  • John||

    Environmental groups are already expressing their outrage over the plan. "How can we justify rolling back the most effective tool we have to fix global warming?"

    If this is our most effective tool, we have no tools and should either come up with better ones or just stop worrying about something we can't change.

  • H. Farnham||

    That really stuck out to me, also. It seems most of these groups are convinced that coerced collectivism is the ONLY means by which to achieve their desired outcomes. It would be refreshing to see an environmentalist organization that focused solely on effecting change through individual, voluntary action.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    The most effective tool, from a pure engineering perspective, is to kill people. Nothing eliminates as much human CO2 emission as death.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yeah for The Donald for once!!!

  • John||

    Trump's reducing the regulatory state is a great thing. It is bigger than his court appoints, who may or may not turn out to be what they claim to be once they are on the bench. This is the first real reduction in the regulatory state in over 30 years. For all of the claims about Reagan being a great de-regulator, he really didn't deliver much. He didn't expand the regulatory state, but he didn't do much to reduce it either. Trump is actually reducing it in very meaningful and significant ways. I really believe the regulatory state is the biggest threat to our freedom.

  • Jerryskids||

    I really believe the regulatory state is the biggest threat to our freedom.

    Amen. Whether you call it the regulatory state, the administrative state, the nanny state, or the deep state, it's unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats running the government. Can you think of one agency or one program started to address a particular problem where the bureaucrats have gone back to Congress or the president and said, "Ok, we took care of that problem so we're just going to pack up our stuff and go home now, you can zero out our budget."? There's not only the "We've got to protect our phony baloney jobs!" problem, there's the incrementalism problem where each succeeding step takes more effort for less results than the preceding step - taking care of 50% of a problem takes 10% of the work and taking care of 90% of the problem takes 50% of the work and maybe you should just stop there. At some point, the benefits just aren't worth the cost, but if it's your benefit and somebody else's cost, who gives a shit about costs and benefits?

  • Holmes IV||

    Forgive my ignorance, but is this the first time The Donald has made a significant impact on reducing regulation? I'm no fan of Trump* but i have appreciated him rolling back items that stop progress.

    *See me signaling so that I don't get jumped on? Signal signal, i'm a good libertarian and certainly not one of those awful conservatives -- am I doing it right? It seems very popular to make sure everyone knows you hate him even if you agree w a policy or two.

  • Kristian H.||

    In depends on how you measure things, but generally, he is creating fewer new regulations and repealing faster than any 1st term president since Reagan, and maybe ever. How much that has actually reduced the regulatory burden is a much harder thing to measure at this point.

  • John||

    You are right that the number of regulations is not the proper measure. But, when you look at him killing things like this and the clean coal program and some of the other things his administration has done, especially at EPA, it is significant.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Much of the work done by Pruitt was not following the Administrative Procedures Act, and has been blocked by courts.

  • John||

    NO it hasn't. Stop lying.

  • BYODB||

    'Much' is a weasel word. It means Chandler doesn't know how much.

  • sarcasmic||

    I know I've told this one before, but here's a good time to tell it again.

    An old coworker of mine was filling his giant Suburban, and some woman topping off her Prius says "How can you drive that... that... thing?"
    He immediately quipped "If you were to be in an accident, which of these two vehicles would you rather be in?"
    She sputtered and frothed at the mouth a bit, but had no words.

  • John||

    The gas that goes into your Suburu is the worst thing ever, but all of the rare earths and toxic chemicals that go into the batteries on her Prius are what rainbows and puppies are made of.

    Didn't you know that?

  • Tony||

    If only we could be certain that your motive is to thoughtfully endorse the least environmentally costly option and not simply to suck more Republican dick.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Why does motivation matter?
    I care about results, about acts, not about fantasized content of other people's mental state.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I thought the latter was your preference. His point is that environmentalists are either stupid or hypocrites. Pick your poison.

  • Tony||

    Whereas people who don't give a shit about maintaining a habitable environment for the human species are... what? Smart?

  • Rebel Scum||

    people who don't give a shit about maintaining a habitable environment

    Straw-man is made of straw. Maybe one day you will learn.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It is always fascinating to observe half-educated, science-disdaining, superstitious right-wingers -- proprietors of hundreds of substandard, censorship-shackled, nonsense-teaching schools -- suggesting that others (their betters) should do some learning.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Not as fascinating as watching mouth-breathing hicklibs pretend they know something.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Gee Arty, I've never seen any indication that you have the slightest background in science or engineering. So you can take your plattitudes and fuck off.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Smarter than doomsday death cultists.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    Don't worry, when the doomsday predictions don't happen, they just move the hockey stick out a little farther. Something, something, goalposts...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, I doubt you know the first thing about automotive technology or emissions. For example, we're you aware that the manufacture of an electric powertrain for an EV frontloads approxiamtely eight years worth of emissions relative to a comparable car with a traditional ICE powertrain? This is not in dispute.

    ICEs are till far better technology than EVs so far.EVs are only being sold as the replace,ent because Obama and his commie friends decided to force it on us. Instead of letting the market work itself out.

  • ||

    He immediately quipped "If you were to be in an accident, which of these two vehicles would you rather be in?"

    I would've gone for the children. "If your kids were going to be in accident, which car would you prefer they be in?" Plenty of zealots out there are sure it won't happen to them and are willing to trade one abstract risk for another. Metaphorically forcing them to shove their kids in front of a speeding SUV requires a bit more moral calculus. Of course, there are some who still would, but at least then you've done yourself the favor of identifying an inhuman monster as opposed to just tallying yet another more benign crazy person.

  • MikeP2||

    The most offensively stupid thing environmentalists preach about cars is gas mileage as a function of 'impact'.

    Most cradle-to-grave analysis show hybrids to be very poor overall and large SUVs tend to have the least environmental impact.

  • Utilitarian||

    Hybrids are overrated, but there is no way that a Suburban has less of an environmental impact than...say...a Toyota Camry.

  • ||

    The problem, as he points out, is 'impact'. If you consider CO2 to be a/the pollutant and miles commuted a/the metric of productivity, the Camry wins. However, lead acid is an actual pollutant and/or toxin and both vehicles use approximately the same amount. If you measure the productivity in terms of lbs. miles, the Suburban crushes the Camry. There's plenty of evidence that massive diesel powered (or diesel-hybrid) vehicles beat out smaller gas and gas-hybrid vehicles in loads of applications.

  • Utilitarian||

    Using lbs * miles as the measure of productivity is idiotic. Putting 200 lbs of dead weight in the back of an SUV would make it even more "productive" using that measure, but all you rally end up doing is spending more money (gasoline) to do the same amount of work (work defined as transporting passengers from point A to point B).

  • ||

    Using lbs * miles as the measure of productivity is idiotic.

    Tell that to the people who ship more goods and move more product in a day, by pretty much any metric, than all the electric car companies of the past decade (maybe ever) have moved combined.

    I didn't say it was *the* metric and I said "if you measure" indicating you don't have to use it. Point being, the term 'environmental impact' doesn't delineate between either metric or even useless nonsense.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Should have to,d that bitch with the Prius that you would get rid of the SUV if she could let you use her Prius the next time you needed to haul drywall, or had a load of garbage for the dump.

  • ||

    There's plenty of evidence that massive diesel powered (or diesel-hybrid) vehicles beat out smaller gas and gas-hybrid vehicles in terms of lifetime efficiency in loads of applications.

  • Utilitarian||

    SUVs are not massive diesel powered vehicles and are pretty much always used for the application of transporting people. Apples and oranges. No one disputes that large diesel vehicles are more efficient at transporting large loads than a Volkswagen Golf TDI.

  • ||

    Are you intentionally this stupid or does it come naturally?

    The point is 'environmental impact' is subjective. If I can take an SUV at the end of it's useful life and convert it into two Camrys, is the environmental impact of the SUV twice or a third of the Camry?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Are you intentionally this stupid or does it come naturally?

    Did you graduate from an accredited university?

    Backwater religious schooling does not count.

    If you were homeschooled by a substandard mother in Lower Yahooville, you have my condolences and I will refrain from mocking your deficiencies.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Look, hicklib, just because you're jealous that your childhood acquaintances had the functional strength to turn a screwdriver without help, doesn't mean you need to project your inadequacies onto everyone else.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, you're just a high school dropout. Stop embarrassing yourself.

  • Rossami||

    If you're talking a standard motor Camry, you're right. The Camry is lighter and uses less fuel and lots less aluminum and steel than a Suburban.

    If you're talking about a hybrid Camry, several analyses of the lifecycle costs of the car (included, as noted above) all the heavy metal processing and eventual disposal), are actually negative. This remains true even if the only environmental consequence you consider is CO2 production. It takes so much CO2 to mine, process and transport all those heavy metals that my Prius (which is a really fun car) is actually worse for the environment than a traditional car. And yes, even than a Suburban.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    On Car & Driver's 75 mph highway test loop, they achieved 45 mpg with the 2018 standard 4 cylinder Camry. The highest of any non diesel or non hybrid equipped vehicle. With 32 mpg overall. Which is especially impressive, as C&D staff writers are notoriously lead footed.

    All that without the added expense and complexity of a hybrid.

    The fact is that today's ICE equipped cars are extraordinarily efficient, and the government should not be subsidizing replacement technology that hasn't proven itself in the market, and is not ready to compete with subsidies.

  • MikeP2||

    Apparently you don't adequately understand the concept of a 'cradle-to-grave' analysis.

    Taking energy, cost, and environmental impact from the initial mining/extraction/harvesting of the raw materials, through use and consumption of the product, then recycling disposal. It's a very difficult and intensive analysis to do right, particularly as 'environmental impact' is not a single definition.

    This analysis has been done for hybrids versus 'gas-guzzling' SUVs, and hybrids fail pretty bad.
    The lithium mining and processing alone is an enormous environmental impact which folks in the US never see, nor even want to talk about. But hybrids don't exist without lithium and a host of other specialty materials that are environmentally costly to produce, and have limited recycleability.

    The most simplistic cradle-to-grave analysis that most people are familiar with is bio-mass diesel versus petroleum diesel. It takes 8 gallons of petroleum diesel to produce 9 gallons of bio-mass diesel, largely due to the farming equipment and transport. When factoring in purification, waste management, etc, bio-mass diesel is not sustainable and has a worse environmental impact than petroleum diesel.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That's for sure: My mom always bought big boats like an Olds 88 for that exact reason. Survived a really nasty wreck where she got t boned by a steel hauler, because of that. Car had so much crush space you could barely tell from the inside it had been in an accident, even though it was totaled.

    I've been working as an engineer in the automotive industry all my adult life, and the CAFE standards have been horrible for automotive safety. You need mass and space to make a car safe in an accident, and pushing up mileage requires sacrificing both.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Depends on the accident. Hitting a wall? The mass of the Suburban works against you. Hitting a curb? Suburban is more likely to roll over, which is much more dangerous than just about any crash that doesn't involve a rollover. Something where a more nimble car could avoid the accident in the first place? The Prius, without a doubt.

    About the only time the Suburban is better is in a head on collision, but that's because bigger cars are more deadly to other cars and not safer themselves.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Prius has Radioflyer wagon wheels. Not built for sport handling.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Still much more nimble than a Suburban.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Neither vehicle is nimble. I win!

  • ||

    The Suburban performing at the Bolshoi Ballet would be far more entertaining.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    My 550i only averages about 20mpg amd takes premium, but I'll stick with that over a fucking hybrid. I've also got a half ton Sierra on a business lease for hauling and inclement weather.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Ironically, the only reason the SUVs originally caught on, was the CAFE standards making it very difficult for the automotive companies to sell what the public wanted at the time, station wagons. The station wagons were regulated as ordinary passenger cars, the SUVs fell into a different regulatory category, utility vehicles, and were thus allowed to have worse mileage.

    So they could still be sold.

  • ||

    Depends on the accident. Hitting a wall? The mass of the Suburban works against you. Hitting a curb? Suburban is more likely to roll over, which is much more dangerous than just about any crash that doesn't involve a rollover. Something where a more nimble car could avoid the accident in the first place? The Prius, without a doubt.

    The Toyota Prius and Highlander got the same NHTSA safety ratings in every category. Rollovers account for a tiny fraction of collisions and a minority of traffic deaths, mostly single-vehicle collisions and in rural/suburban areas. The overwhelming majority of rollover deaths are a direct artifact of the transportation methodology (lots of people moving at speeds that invert the vehicle) and have little to do with the car design. More people were injured in Fewer people die falling out of the sky in a Prius than a 737, that doesn't make a Prius the safer transportation option.

    Not that any of this has one fucking iota of *direct* correlation with powerplant technology or fuel efficiency.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I'll stick with my 5 Series BMW. It's designed to keep me alive even in high speed autobahn crashes.

  • Kristian H.||

    The regulations are a particularly regressive burden (hits poor people much harder than rich), so 'Yay!'

    Want to make the OVERALL American car fleet more fuel efficient? Get the price of newer cars and trucks (in particular) low enough so those made in the 70s-90s get retired, either by new or a later model used cars move down market.

    This would also likely make the roads less deadly (if not safer).

    And might reduce car insurance costs for, so more people could afford insurance and not be subject to ruin or financial nit picking by the using the Police as tax collectors for the state.

  • John||

    Fuel efficiency isn't the only thing that matters in cars. There are other things like safety and convience and speed and so forth. Moreover, fuel efficiency is at odds with other things. The best way to make a car more fuel efficient is to make it lighter. That means either making smaller or less safe or both. The obsession with fuel economy has made cars less safe than they would have been. It also has caused automakers to concentrait an inordinate amount of their R&D on making their cars more fuel efficent at the expense of safety and reliability and other factors.

    Like all forms of central planning, these regulations distort the market and produce results at odds with the desires of consumers. All federal regulation of cars should be ended. Before 1966, there was not a single federal regulation of cars. And car safety had steadily improved every year. Car makers had an interest in not killing their customers. There was no reason for any of it. The market solves these problems better than any central planner ever could.

  • Utilitarian||

    Do you want to bring back leaded gasoline?

  • Rhywun||

    At least lead is a proven danger. The climate hooey is completely made up.

  • Utilitarian||

    No, climate change is not made up. The effects of it are exaggerated. For example, saying a particular hurricane or war was caused by climate change is retarded, but the planet is getting warmer due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That is undeniably true.

    By the way, there are still lots of people who try to argue that lead is not toxic.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The only thing undeniably true is that in a dry atmosphere CO2 will absorb and scatter OLWR in the 3-15um range. Everything after that, including changes in the hydrologic cycle and albedo, ECS, and TCR, is up for debate, very much including the net impact of CO2 on GMT.

  • Utilitarian||

    Then you agree with me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What is the acceptable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

  • Utilitarian||

    That's a bizarre question that does nothing to refute my statement.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    How much CO2 is good vs bad?

    The fact that nobody can answer that is reason enough to not force people to pay more for products based on lack of scientific support for your claim.

  • Utilitarian||

    I never said I advocate forcing people to pay more for products. That's something you have assumed. It is possible to not be a climate change denier while also opposing government-imposed solution for climate change. It's not a popular position, but that's where I stand.

  • Pudgeboy||

    How much is CO2 causing temperatures to rise? Answer: not enough to quantify or worry about.

  • Utilitarian||

    Pudgeboy: Government should not intervene no matter how much CO2 is causing temperatures to rise. That's where we disagree. For you there is some number where you think the government should intervene. For me there is no number. The answer is always no government intervention.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, he's claiming that it isn't a problem. The voices in your head translated it into government action.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Reading comprehension fail.

  • Rhywun||

    Temps are down the last couple years. There are likely other factors at play besides "human intervention" that are as yet unquantifiable and are more powerful than anything we're capable of.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Climate Scientists cannot even explain away natural Earth variations based on distance from the Sun and other natural events.

    Of course, humans change our environment compared to what might happen if we were not here. Does it matter? Is it significant to necessitate massive government power increases and costs?

    No.

  • Bearded Spock||

    "By the way, there are still lots of people who try to argue that lead is not toxic"

    *raises hand*

    I'm not going to argue that lead is NON-toxic, but like every substance there is a dose or concentration below which there are no significant toxic effects.

    EVERYONE has lead in their bodies. EVERYONE breathes, eats, or drinks small amounts of lead every day. EVERYONE lives in a place where there is some amount of lead in the environment.

    The toxic effects of lead in humans depend completely on the dose, not the lead itself.

    Anyone who claims there is "no safe amount of exposure to lead" doesn't know what they are talking about.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The climate hooey is completely made up.

    As always, I am grateful my children and grandchildren get to compete economically with these half-educated, gullible, right-wing yahoos.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, you have no children. You live above some couple's garage, like so much Fonzi. Just a high school dropout emptying wastebaskets for your conservative boss, who takes pity on your progtarded ass.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Better, ethyl gas.

  • miketol||

    I think tetraethyl lead would be gone by now even if the government did not ban it. Tetraethyl lead is a cheap way to boost the octane rating of gasoline but it also increases the maintenance cost of a vehicle a great deal. An old vehicle using leaded gas needed new spark plugs about every 6,000 miles due to lead fouling. Most modern vehicles using unleaded only require the spark plugs to be changed every 100,000 miles. Also, refinery technology has improved over the years and refiners now have other methods to increase the octane rating without tetraethyl lead.

  • Busterpos||

    That's the government's M.O. People want something and set out to do it and then a few years later government mandates it and then takes credit for the benefits. Child labor? A thing of impoverished families. Get a wealthy enough nation and you don't need it anymore and then the government outlaws it when it's convenient and takes credit for ending it. Same with mandatory education, all EPA regulations, labor laws in general, the list goes on. Bunch of child fuckers.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Yeah, but if you want to reduce total environmental impact, keeping old cars going, and NOT building new ones, has a much more positive effect.

    Thus, wait for it, BAN NEW CARS!

  • Happy Chandler||

    Cars are more fuel efficient, and vehicle fatality rates have been going down for decades.
    Two small cars crashing is safer than two large cars crashing.

    The reduction in smog in just LA saves more lives.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Have to you been to LA lately. Its still smoggy.

    For decades there has been a new health threat to the air- smug.

  • Happy Chandler||

    It's not like when I was a kid. Every summer, we had to look in the paper to see which level of smog alert we were at. If it was level 2 or higher, we couldn't play outside. That was normal.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What what the safe level for smug?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Smug levels can be greatly reduced via a lead injection system using a gas fired assembly and a lead projectile packed with sulfur, and other ingredients.

    Results are immediate.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Two small cars crashing is safer than two large cars crashing."

    Socialism: it wants everyone to be the same.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Not what I said.
    It just shows that the safety argument is bullshit. More small cars equals fewer times a big car will hit you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Jesus, you people will say whatever nonsense pops into your brain.

    Following your idea, the more larger vehicles on current roads, means less vehicles. The less vehicles no the road the less accidents.

  • commentator||

    the more larger vehicles on current roads, means less vehicles


    Yeah no. That requires assuming that cars are almost always at full capacity for their size, and don't often contain just the driver.

  • Utilitarian||

    kinetic energy = 1/2 mv^2

    It is undeniably true that reducing the mass involved in a crash reduces the energy involved, which generally means less damage. That has nothing to do with socialism because Physics does not have a political ideology.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Now do strain energy absorbed. Wait, that's dependent on modulus and lighter materials have less modulus? Unpossible!

  • Utilitarian||

    More information is needed to perform those calculations.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    As a EE who isn't "into mechanical things" I can certainly understand why you need more information. A lot more.

  • Utilitarian||

    No one could perform that calculation with the only known quantity being mass.

    I'm not into classical mechanics because it's boring. Quantum mechanics is much more interesting.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Utilitarian, you will fit right in with our resideent knuckleheads Tony, Buttplugger, Chanandler....

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And no one could make any claim about the relevance of the energy of impact by limiting themselves to KE.

    And it's fortunate for you that despite your disdain for the macroscopic world you don't have to worry that the bridge is going to be there when you drive over it. Or that the diffraction pattern in your phase shift mask is going to let you pat yourself on the back that you've accomplished something.

  • Utilitarian||

    That's silly. Of course you can make claims. People do it all the time without realizing it, even you, because every calculation involves countless assumptions. Implying a strong correlation between kinetic energy and damage, which is what I did, is good enough when responding to a post by someone who doesn't know the difference between a safety claim and advocating for socialism.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    OK, then make a claim including strain energy.

    Implying a strong correlation between kinetic energy and damage, which is what I did, is good enough

    Looks like someone failed freshman physics. Remind me what a lever does again. Energy is conserved but oddly different things happen on the two ends. Energy alone tells you almost nothing. I could sum up the heat energy you produce in a lifetime and easily show how that would vaporize you. So you've demonstrated exactly... nothing.

  • gaoxiaen||

    When the car crashes you are neither dead or alive until the EMT checks inside the car?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Schrodinger's automobile crash victim?

  • MikeP2||

    What do you think is wrong with cars made in the 70s to 90s? Only the best made, highest quality cars from that era are still on the road.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I don't know about that. There are a number of early-mid-90s Toyotas that I'll see from time to time, and those really do represent the peak of Toyota's quality control efforts. However most of the cars from that era that are still on the road that I tend to see are econoboxes like the Geo Metro/Suzuki Swift types, K- and Panther body creampuffs owned by senior citizens, and beat-up trucks from the late 80s-early 90s.

    Today's cars are far more efficient in that you get far better power coupled with really good gas mileage. Today's V-6 Camry has more horsepower than Magnum PI's Ferrari, and you still get over 30 mpgs on the highway.

    One thing I'll say for the cars from that period is that they were FAR easier to work on than today's models. With all the electronic shit they're putting in vehicles now, doing self-repairs tends to be a lot more trouble than it's worth.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But Magnum got more pussy in one weekend with his Ferrari than you did the entire time you owned your Camry.

    (As for mechanical ease, the 70s and 80s tend to be a disaster, with lots of Rube Goldberg grafted-on electro-mechanical bits. By now, most digital control systems are pretty reliable, and the aftermarket has caught up with plug-in scanners for the home mechanic.)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    But Magnum got more pussy in one weekend with his Ferrari than you did the entire time you owned your Camry.

    That would be difficult considering he's a fictional character.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Which makes him all the more remarkable when you think about it.

  • Kazinski||

    Magnum may have been fictional, but I'm sure the pussy Sellick was getting playing Magnum was real.

  • ||

    Get the price of newer cars and trucks (in particular) low enough so those made in the 70s-90s get retired, either by new or a later model used cars move down market.

    How do you propose going about doing this? Are you under the impression that automakers want to sell one car to everyone and then close up shop? Do you think your local car manufacturer looks at a 40-yr.-old car and thinks "There's the future of our industry!"?

  • ||

    For a really effective 1-2, he should've followed this up with a pre-emptive pardon for Winterkorn.

    Everybody I know who owned a car that was 'affected' by the emissions scandal made out like a bandit.

  • John||

    Yes. And the difference in emmissions between the standard and what those cars actually emmitted was minisquel. Cars are incredibly clean today. Those cars were only "dirty" in the sense that they failed to meet an insane standard. Modern cars literally produce emissions that are cleaner than the air in some cities. That means the air that comes out of the tailpipe is in some cases cleaner than the air that comes through the air filter.

  • ||

    Those cars were only "dirty" in the sense that they failed to meet an insane standard.

    Pretty much everyone acknowledges that the issue started not with the fact that Volkwagen was designing and building "dirty" cars but that they designed clean cars for production and California/EPA/Obama Administration, changed the standards and labelling under them between design and production. You can buy a diesel engine far dirtier than the one's VW sold today and legally drive it on the road. The manufacturer just has to produce/sell so many 'clean' engines to offset the dirty ones. Moreover, there's plenty of evidence that other manufacturers are dealing with similar discrepancies between design standards and road testing standard changes in a similar manner and have well before Tier II/ULEV was implemented.

    Going forward, it's not entirely clear that software manipulating the car to perform up to emissions standards when tested isn't the unintended, but totally intentional, consequence of safety and emissions standards and testing. Once again, the fundamentally conflicted and internal absurdity of the green movement is stifling one of it's most potentially beneficial (to it's nominal goals anyway) assets.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Thanks to the government, small displacement turbo Diesel engines are largely done in the US. VW has dropped their TDI engines from the US market entirely. Other automakers are starting to follow suit.

  • Doug Heffernan||

    You may have stumbled upon the solution. All that needs to be done is to run a lot of these air cleaning cars in the dirtiest of cities and then the air will be cleaner in no time.

  • Shirley Knott||

    That goes back to the early days of emissions standards and catalytic converters.
    Cars driving through Gary IN left the air cleaner than when it entered the engine.

  • Happy Chandler||

    The Jetta was found to have emitted 0.61-1.5 g/km of NOx, compared to the limit of 0.043. This is not a minuscule amount. These emissions lead to smog and cause illness.

  • John||

    yes it is. Your numbers speak for themselves. That is a minuscule amount. You are just profoundly ignorant.

    What is it like being as dumb as you are?

  • Happy Chandler||

    Well, gee, that's convincing.

    Name calling, that all you got?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It isn't. He also explained how the numbers you posted are insignificant.

  • ||

    This is not a minuscule amount. These emissions lead to smog and cause illness.

    Actually, they don't. Or they do, but only in the poorly-designed hellhole that was 1980s Los Angeles. You're using the Tier II standards which are based around a bunch of false assumptions and include a bunch of eco-marketing gimmickry (Which is worse, smog or CO2?). Tier I standards (1.6 g/km) effectively reduced the amount of smog in the Los Angeles area. However, even zero-emissions commuter vehicles won't push LA to 'zero smog' as the port and weather patterns are the primary drivers/factors.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That's under a heavy load, and is still insignificant. It's also nothing compared to an older used car that is not properly tuned. Which can put out emissions dozens to hundreds of times higher.

    That's the problem with you environmental types. Ost of,you don't understand the science behind it, amd have n grasp of proportion. The fact is that the amount to excess emissions from TDI engines was basically harmless.

  • Tony||

    This administration, its party, and its policies are all coming from a place of denial of established scientific fact that drastically affects humans worldwide. If this were any kind of civilized government they would all be ejected from power forever on that basis alone.

  • Nardz||

    Now do gender

  • Tony||

    It's really none of my business unless I'm on a date.

  • Happy Chandler||

    That's a social construct.

  • Busterpos||

    Please tell us how a 0.01 degree reduction in global temperature by 2100 is cause for doubling the cost of cars and fuel. Asshole.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Totally not a religion.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "This administration, its party, and its policies are all coming from a place of denial of established scientific fact that drastically affects humans worldwide. If this were any kind of civilized government they would all be ejected from power forever on that basis alone"

    Which scientific fact Tony? How does this fact affect humans worldwide? Please explain so,aim, and be specific.

  • 2whlrider||

    To meet these CAFE requirements, automakers spend billions developing battery electric vehicles that nobody wants--at least not anywhere near the price that it costs to make them. The entire BEV segment loses money and lots of it. Carmakers are putting $10k and more on the hood to sell them. Who pays for this? Folks that don't want BEVs. This BEV subsidy is especially hurtful to small OEMs, like Mazda, that can't amortize the costs of developing money-losing BEVs, that nobody wants, over the rest of its lineup. If Trump can remove remove these draconian requirements and standardize the rules across all the States, I will remove half my curse on him.

  • Utilitarian||

    No one wants BEVs? I'd love to have one for the simple fact that I hate oil changes and transmissions.

  • Grakkus||

    You hate a 5 minute procedure?

  • Utilitarian||

    An oil change is not a 5-minute procedure. It usually takes 15-30 minutes (depending on how busy the shop is) and that doesn't include the time required to travel to and from the shop.

  • Grakkus||

    "An oil change is not a 5-minute procedure. "

    Yes it is. You drop the drain plug, come back 5 minutes later, put it back and change the filter.

    "It usually takes 15-30 minutes (depending on how busy the shop is)"

    There's your problem.

  • Utilitarian||

    What you describe is not a "problem". I have different preferences and skills than you. I am certain there are things you pay other people to do that I do myself.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It takes skill to turn a wrench?

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    No, but beta males spend good money on manicures and would hate to ruin them doing such brutish work.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So, you have "a certain set of skills"?

  • Rossami||

    So then why haven't you bought one yet? More to the point, would you still be willing to buy one if you had to pay the full unsubsidized cost?

    I'm not super fond of oil changes either but I won't pay very much to avoid a task that at its worst only takes a half hour out of my day every 10,000 miles.

  • Utilitarian||

    Owning a vehicle that doesn't require oil changes is a luxury, not a necessity, and I have other financial priorities at the moment (paying down debt, maximizing retirement contributions, expensive daycare for children). There will be a point in the near future where I will splurge on that luxury, probably 5-7 years from now. I am a disciplined spender. Just because I want something doesn't mean I'm going to rush out and buy regardless of other concerns.

  • Grakkus||

    Honestly it sounds mord like you're just an imbecile.

  • Utilitarian||

    Yeah, not changing my own oil and having a solid financial plan is pretty stupid.

  • ||

    A) You have kids. Your solid financial plan isn't solid. If it's solid, you're lying or your kids will just have to suffer with unexpected broken bones, second rate schools, and crooked teeth or whatever.

    B) You're exchanging a 30 min. wait every 1-2 month and 5-10 min. weekly fuel ups for $10K more money, and weekly, or less, 30 min. waits and acting like you come out ahead in... money? convenience? smugness? You're lying to yourself and arguably attempting to deceive others.

    C) As an extrapolation from B, it's not entirely clear where you go to change your oil, but it can generally be done cheaper and faster on your own at home. However, you don't exactly care how fast and cheap it gets done, you just want technology to take care of it automagically. You aren't really thrifty, industrious, or have things planned out. You're just smug and lazy.

  • Utilitarian||

    LOL, you're making so many assumptions in a cloud of profound ignorance. It's quite astonishing because you clearly put a lot of thought into your post.

    A) You don't have enough information to effectively judge my financial plan.
    B) I said it's a luxury. If you're detecting smugness, that is smugness you have imagined.
    C) Changing motor oil does not interest me (I'm an electrical engineer, not mechanical) and I never said I was looking for the most cost efficient way to get my oil changed.

  • ||

    A) You don't have enough information to effectively judge my financial plan.
    B) I said it's a luxury. If you're detecting smugness, that is smugness you have imagined.
    C) Changing motor oil does not interest me (I'm an electrical engineer, not mechanical) and I never said I was looking for the most cost efficient way to get my oil changed.

    Keep talking. Eventually you might convince somebody that you aren't smug and lazy.

  • Utilitarian||

    Lots of projection in your posts.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Who the hell is changing their oil every month or two? That's a lot of miles in a short period. My truck goes about 6k miles between changes, and my car almost 8k.

  • ||

    Who the hell is changing their oil every month or two? That's a lot of miles in a short period. My truck goes about 6k miles between changes, and my car almost 8k.

    A decent point or at least raises one. I may not drive the miles but I change the oil (for now). About every other month I'm on my back doing it. I would have to buy multiple EVs (or have more kids) to avoid dealing with transmissions and oil changes.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Are you taking your car to tracks days? Oil generally lasts longer than a few months without a problem unless you drive a lot of miles, or really hard.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You prefer the 30 minute quick charge time or the home tethering.

  • ||

    I'd love to have one for the simple fact that I hate oil changes and transmissions.

    What about if you give up oil changes and transmissions but also give up 100 mi. of range?

  • Utilitarian||

    That's a trade off I'm willing to make. The range anxiety that most people feel about electric vehicles is irrational. I rarely drive more than 50 miles in a single day. If I need to make a road trip, I have the option of renting a gasoline vehicle.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    FYI: The Tesla battery pack 100 kWh (360 MJ), has a range of 335 miles.

    The more people demanding electric cars, the better battery tech will get.

  • ||

    FYI: The Tesla battery pack 100 kWh (360 MJ), has a range of 335 miles.

    Not at the $35K or an otherwise equivalent price point it doesn't.

    The more people demanding electric cars, the better battery tech will get.

    Now do it with unicorn farts.

  • Utilitarian||

    Unicorn farts are unnecessary. The cost of lithium ion batteries (per kWh) is less than 25% of what it was in 2010.

    I know that, culturally speaking, electric vehicles are "liberal". I couldn't care less about that nonsense.
    I'm not going to hate on something just because it's viewed as "liberal".

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And they still cost significantly more than ICE. But wait, there's more! The world is gonna have a hell of a time getting enough rare earths let alone cobalt to have EVs become significant players.

  • Utilitarian||

    Every new technology costs more than the technology it stands to replace at the beginning. We've seen this happen a thousand times in the last century and people with your negative attitude never learn.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    HAHAHA. Oh that's my favorite argument. I call it the Tinkerbell Argument. See, if you just believe hard enough it's gotta happen. Ignore the orders of magnitude lower specific energy of batteries. Ignore the fact that cars were originally electric (after steam) only to fail miserably due to exactly the same limitations they have right now. Ignore the fact that even if batteries maintained their 7% pa specific energy growth rate it would still take them until the end of this century to hit effective parity with gas (and about 2146 to achieve the same total energy density). Ignore the fact that the improvement curve is flattening instead.

    Why, you're right. It's just nattering nabobs of negativity. Now what were you saying about physics not caring about your politics?

  • Utilitarian||

    Belief has nothing to do with it. There are countless examples of naysayers thumbing their nose at a new technology, as you are doing, and them being completely and utterly wrong.

    Parity with gasoline's specific energy is not necessary. The thermal efficiency of ICEs is 35% under best case scenarios. The thermal efficiency of electric motors is around 85-90%.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And there are countless examples of perpetual motion machine advocates whining about naysayers too.

    Which is exactly why I said

    effective parity with gas

    Now include the round trip efficiency of the batteries. Include the loss in efficiency to maintain both warmed battery packs and a tolerable interior temp in the winter. The efficiency loss in maintaining sufficiently LOW temp in both in the summer. The loss due to self-discharge. The ~7% transmission loss. But even funner? Calculate just how large the cable needs to be to feed the MW level power required to do a 5 minute charge (assuming the batteries could handle that rate, which they can't).

  • Rubbertoe Gonesalads||

    Nope. Toyota announced a 2.0 liter at 40%. And a 5% efficiency gain applied to an energy source as dense as gasoline is a big deal. There is also the weight penalty for batteries. Here's the deal, electric cars and electricity storage aren't new tech. You're using the wrong saw.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Not if you include the thermal efficiency of producing the electricity.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "The thermal efficiency of ICEs is 35% under best case scenarios."

    Wrong. Toyota debuted new high thermal efficiency tech in the latest 4cykinder campy that exceeds 40% efficiency.

    https://tinyurl.com/ybcxuc6c

    Additionally, given the line losses, and other massive inefficiencies encountered in bringing electricity to an EV, they are effectively a very inefficient means of fueling a passenger car.

  • ||

    Every new technology costs more than the technology it stands to replace at the beginning.

    The voltaic pile and electromotive force predate the ICE.

  • Utilitarian||

    And burning wood predates the voltaic pile. Both are irrelevant when talking about ICEVs and EVs.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Clap your hands and Tinkerbell will FLY!

  • ||

    Every new technology costs more than the technology it stands to replace at the beginning.
    ...
    And burning wood predates the voltaic pile. Both are irrelevant when talking about ICEVs and EVs.

    Your ignorance continues to impress.

    The first production electric vehicle, The Studebaker Electric, predates the Model A by a decade but none of that matters when comparing ICEVs to EVs because...

    When Henry Ford made cheap, reliable cars people said, 'Nah, what's wrong with a horse?' That was a huge bet he made, and it worked. -Elon Musk

    ...reasons.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Henry Ford wasn't getting billions of dollars in government,ent largesse to build Ford. Cars were also a new thing entirely and were hardly a mature market.

  • BYODB||


    The world is gonna have a hell of a time getting enough rare earths let alone cobalt to have EVs become significant players.


    ^ This. And people think oil is rare.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Utilitarian, stop trying to help. You're making it worse.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Battery energy desnsity is not increasing very fast though. That's a problem. As is the current rate of charge. Although Porsche claims to have solved that problem. I tend to put stock onto their claims, as I can't recall any incidence in at least a decade where Porsche did not deliver on a technological claim.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    mad.casual, Yup the market is full for unicorn fart ideas. Cell phones, cell phone batteries, the internet..

    We get it, you hate solar, batteries, and electric cars.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    High TV superconductors. Buckeyballs. Graphene. Solar without massive subsidy.

    Full of it alright.

  • ||

    mad.casual, Yup the market is full for unicorn fart ideas.

    I would *love* to have an electric motorcycle. The concept sound fantastic to me and the Johammer J1 is an absolutely bitching design of a bike (I'm not this big of a Star Wars fan, but I bet if they made them look and sound a speeder bike, they wouldn't be able to make enough of them).

    Unfortunately, setting aside performance, the price and availability sucks. There is no domestic electric motorcycle company. Even in places where motorcycles and green energy is a bigger phenomenon, electric motorcycles barely get any traction. The same is true for ATVs, light industrial, heavy industrial, RVs, self-propelled industrial machines, etc. I won't deny that the technology is advancing and has it's applications (I'm still not 100% clear on how electric motors haven't displaced diesel engines in many cold-weather applications). However, all of the above, combined with Elon Musk and Tesla's cronyism (and Fisker, Coda, Aptera, etc.) makes the cronyism seem more like fervent socialism than investment capitalism.

  • ||

    Electric vehicles dominate the golf cart market and practically created the segway/hoverboard/one-wheel market and struggle to maintain viability there relative to plain old legs and the inertia which Utilitarian seems to have no shortage of.

  • Rubbertoe Gonesalads||

    HD is releasing an electric bike.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    There are lots of good ebikes on the market anymore. I'm probably going to buy or have one made custom for me in the next year or two.

  • ||

    HD is releasing an electric bike.

    I saw it and liked it in Age of Ultron. There are no solid numbers, but even here it's pretty clear that you're going to get an off-the-shelf street bike priced equivalent to a larger, more feature-rich touring or custom ICE bike. That aside, more my question/point is: Why now? and Why not BMW, Suzuki, Yamaha, Honda, Kawasaki, *and* Ducati? I know plenty of guys who gave up riding rather than change the oil and tune the bike every Spring and/or Fall. Shouldn't they just be opting for electric bikes instead? Doesn't the fact that HD is offering and relatively no one else mean the arguments about "Americans are a car culture" (by which they mean, oddly, Americans hate electricity) and "If we just find a more liberal market, for the technology, it'll sell." are between mostly and complete hokum? If the technologies were roughly equivalent, shouldn't the scooter/moped market be like 50/50 electric? Shouldn't BMW and Vespa have had *at least* 30 electric models in the last decade rather than 1-2 coming in the next one?

  • ||

    We get it, you hate solar, batteries, and electric cars.

    In 1974 Geraldine Elizabeth Carmichael (a.k.a. Jerry Dean Michael) founded the Twentieth Century Motor Car Corporation and conned a bunch of money out of people to market 'The Dale' which was supposed to get an unheard of 70 mpg.

    It was a gasoline engine and wasn't effectively subsidized by the taxpayers. That doesn't mean I was a fan. It just means that false claims about automotive or energy efficiency are not any more new than the people who buy in and perpetuate them.

  • MikeP2||

    There is no current known technological pathway to EV replacing ICEs. Both in terms of energy-weight efficiency, as well as raw material availability. People love to talk about peak-oil, but put their hands over their eyes and ears when any points out the far more serious 'peak-lithium'.

    It will require an innovative breakthrough in battery technology. Many people are betting a lot on that breakthrough, not with sound investment, but because they 'believe'. It may come to pass, but frankly it's more likely that we'll find that the Russians are right and that 'fossil fuels' like NG are not actually fossil anything but rather abiotic production in the mantle. More likely that the ICE will transition from gas/diesel to NG then we'll see widespread EV.

  • Jerryskids||

    The administration says its proposal will make cars more affordable and save lives.

    "We've already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease not the cure." - Paul Ehrlich

    TMYK

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Yes, cuz the population bomb killed us all years ago.

  • MikeP2||

    CAFE standards are a moronic feel-good action that has no real impact on the environment. Only idiots like Tony thing this matters.

    To hit higher and higher CAFE requirements, means eliminating extraneous weight in the car. This weight is steel...one the most readily recyclable materials around. To maintain structural integrity, other lighter metals could be used, but this is prohibitively expensive. So instead, composites, plastics, structure foam, and other non-recycleable materials are used. All of these are most expensive than steel, have shorting working lives, more prone to material fatigue, and are almost entirely non-recycleable. This means higher production costs, far less time on the road, and limited recycleability.
    So all those light-weight, high fuel efficiency cars that Auto makers spend a future producing, are actually worse for the environment than SUVs using a proper cradle-to-grave analysis.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    All plastics are recyclable to one degree or another. The issue is the cost.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Cost is pretty much the limiting factor in solving all environmental problems.

    You could take the water from the foulest stretch of the Nile or Ganges and make it safe enough to drink; it just depends on how much money you are willing to spend to do it.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Jeff, you actually make a relevant point. Cost is the key factor in all of this.

  • MikeP2||

    That is factually wrong.

    Most plastics are not recycleable. The vast majority of consumer plastics get retasked, not recycled, into things like composite products like decking. There is a limited market for this and most plastics, even though they are put into a recycling can, end up in landfills anyway. But this is only consumer plastics.
    Steel, aluminum, bottle-glass are all simple to recycle. Plastics, no.

    The particular plastics used in automotive applications are not recycled. Most simply can't be, no matter how much money you throw at it. It's chemically and physically impossible to reuse/reform/retask/recycle most of them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    GOOD! No more auto-stop feature for vehicles. I refused to buy the new cars that had that feature.

    Hopefully next is ending the requirement for backup cameras.

    Save money and turn your head while backing.

  • Utilitarian||

    I turn around when I back up, so a backup camera doesn't help me avoid hitting another car. But I can't see anything that's below the level of the rear window, like a small child. I don't think they should be required, but I use the backup camera when backing up in the parking lot of my son's daycare because small children are unpredictable and do stupid things.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Depends on the car. In my Toyota 4Runner a backup camera is a necessity; the sight lines to the immediate rear of the vehicle are fairly terrible.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You cant check behind you SUV before you get in and then immediately back up?

    Its all about costs vs utility. If you want a backup camera as an option, you pay for it.

  • ||

    You cant check behind you SUV before you get in and then immediately back up?

    Its all about costs vs utility. If you want a backup camera as an option, you pay for it.

    Grew up with outdoor dogs, worked around farm equipment, and used to hold a CDL. Confirm your potential 'obstacles' visually outside the blind spot and then they can't be in it. Most back over deaths are either people who are old, mature, and generally aware and able enough to get out of the way (or should've avoided getting in the way in the first place) or people too young to be mobile. Most of the time, the issue is more brain-cognizance or "I forgot to look." rather than hand-eye or "I didn't see." and a bright red note on the dashboard saying "CHECK ALL YOUR MIRRORS, BLIND SPOTS, AND ANY OBSTACLES SEEN OR UNSEEN WITHIN THE PATH OF THE VEHICLE BEFORE PUTTING IT IN MOTION!" would be as (in)effective at preventing the accident.

    I wouldn't deny anyone a backup camera (mostly because there will come a day that I might need one and 'I didn't see' does happen) but they are generally a high-tech crutch for the infirm, lazy, and/or stupid.

  • MikeP2||

    "...but they are generally a high-tech crutch for the infirm"

    ^^^

    sucks when the old neck and back hurt so much that it's too painful to fully turn around when backing up. The camera helps fill in where the mirrors are inadequate.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Save money and turn your head while backing."

    My folks necks don't turn like they used to. So a backup camera is very useful for them. I also like it in my truck, where it's easy to not see shit behind me when backing up.

    I don't they help much in small, low slung cars though.

  • jomo||

    I don't have any problem with backup cams per se, but I do believe (and it is especially evident if you look at modern ads) that we have an issue brewing in that people are no longer even trying to teach their kids how to actually drive. Much of the content and gist of new car marketing these days is basically premised on "you don't have to worry about teaching your panic-stricken daughter to actually drive, she can just keep texting away and the car will probably stop itself for her."

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If you really want to promote careful driving, remove all safety gear, including seatbelts. Then fasten a metal spike aimed right at the driver's heart to the steering wheel.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Environmental groups are already expressing their outrage over the plan. "How can we justify rolling back the most effective tool we have to fix global warming?" Rob Sargent, energy program director for Environment America, tells USA Today.

    If this is the most effective tool we have, God save us. China sure as hell won't.

  • Doug Heffernan||

    Not one comment yet about the constitution/federalism and/or states' rights?

    Poor california should be forced to submit to federal authority?

  • Utilitarian||

    I'm not really surprised by the lack of comments about that. Most people are openly hypocritical when they benefit from the hypocrisy, even libertarians.

  • Grakkus||

    Sorry, the Commerce Clause is implicated here, no hypocrisy necessary.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Ayp, but that's different because feelz.

  • Utilitarian||

    No, the commerce clause is not implicated.

  • Grakkus||

    Yes, actually it is.

  • Utilitarian||

    No, it's not.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I can see where this is going, so Automobiles and air quality are interstate matters.

    Congressional authority preempts California's wants and desires on these subjects.

  • Utilitarian||

    Automobiles should be a state matter.

    Air quality is different, but California's regulations would not reduce air quality below any federal standard.

    I know (liberal) courts view the interstate commerce clause differently than I do, but I am not obligated to agree with them. Their overly broad application of the interstate commerce clause is a serious problem. It's not something that should be defended.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And why should the interstate sale of cars be a state matter? Well, reasons.

    This is literally the reason for the commerce clause.

  • Utilitarian||

    What a bizarre argument. California regulations have no authority when it comes to automobile sales in Tennessee.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    But they restrict the importation of cars made in Tennessee. Are you really this dense?

  • Utilitarian||

    That's where I disagree with your liberal interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. I think that's irrelevant. You agree with liberals that that is grounds for federal government intervention. California is not allowed to decide what can be sold in its own borders. The federal government gets to decide.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Utilitarian, you're jsut wrong about the application of the Commerce Clause.

    We know, people like you hope all sorts of Constitutional provisions are different than what they are. But they are not.

  • Utilitarian||

    I never made a claim about how the commerce clause is applied. I stated how it SHOULD be applied. I'm having a philosophical discussion, not a legal discussion. Legal discussions are boring.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You're officially an idiot. That isn't a "liberal" interpretation of the commerce clause. It is a strict reading of the constitution. No amount of pouting changes that. You are the one arguing FOR the stronger government policy here by arguing that CA can preempt the choices of its residents and can impose stricter regulation on products imported from outside its territory. Do you think that there's something magical about state imposed authority over federal imposed authority?

  • Utilitarian||

    LOL, no. That's not a strict reading of the Constitution, lib.

    Also, I'm not making an argument for California's policy. I'm making an argument that California should be allowed to institute its policy without intervention by the federal government. I couldn't care less what the policy is. The federal government should stay out. If Californians have a problem with the policy, they have ways to remedy that at the state level. They don't need your paternalism to save them from themselves.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So in your version of Earth 2 we are still living under the Articles of Confederation. And yes, you do think that there's something magical about state imposed authority versus federal, because reasons.

  • BYODB||

    So, in your view it would be legal for California to tax vehicles made in Texas because they're less fuel efficient, or ban them outright or through the backdoor thus creating their own cottage Californian vehicle production scheme then.

    A curious reading of the commerce clause to be sure.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    CA should be brought to heel. CARB should be sued out of existence, and people like the Mayor of aoaklamd arrested by the feds.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Now do Roe.

  • Happy Chandler||

    That other part of the 10th amendment. "or to the people".

    Easy.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So just like CO2 emissions then. Glad we cleared that up.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The Commerce Clause can be invoked for Obamacare plans despite the fact that premiums are determined on a state-by-state basis, but not for automobiles in which a license to drive is considered transferrable from state to state and an interstate highway system is in place to aid in transportation of goods across state lines?

  • Grakkus||

    Shush, he's an idiot, be noce to him.

  • Utilitarian||

    The commerce clause should not have been invoked for Obamacare.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ObamaCare should have been deemed unconstitutional.

  • Utilitarian||

    I agree.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Absolutely. Roberts should suffer greatly for this when he gets to Hell someday.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Well, it's a little late for that, isn't it?

  • Utilitarian||

    Have you ever heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Which is a o,ay off the old porn industry adage "two dongs can make it airtight".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What constitution/federalism and/or state's rights are you referring to?

    You throw those words out but don't know what they are there for?

    California joined the union in 1850. It agreed to relinquish some state power to the federal government under interstate commerce. Automobiles are an interstate business. Air quality is an interstate affair.

    The federal government does not have to preempt state decision on these matters but it does and has for decades now. Furthermore, California tries to spread its diseased Lefty thinking outside its state lines all the time.

    Now that Trump is in charge of the Executive Branch and the EPA, California suddenly considers state's rights a thing? Fuck that.

  • Utilitarian||

    Your opinion is a great example of the hypocrisy I'm talking about.

    These things flip on presidential elections. When a Republican is in the White House, Democrats care about states rights and Republicans don't. When a Democrat is in the White House, Republicans care about states rights and Democrats don't.

    I don't agree with the CAFE rules, but if California wants to set certain rules within its own state I believe they should be allowed to do so. I don't contort or abandon my principles depending on whether or not I support or oppose a particular policy.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Well given that you are a utilitarian, the ends justify the means by definition.

    The ability of one state to impose punitive tariffs or regulations on industry outside of that state is precisely what the commerce clause is intended to address.

    It's truly hypocritical for a utilitarian to claim hypocrisy.

  • Utilitarian||

    I'm not a Utilitarian.

    California cannot impose punitive tariffs or regulations on the auto industry outside its state.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Which is EXACTLY what the commerce clause is meant to handle.


    Commerce Clause
    The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

    ...

    The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on the regulatory authority of the States. The "dormant" Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. Of particular importance here, is the prevention of protectionist state policies that favor state citizens or businesses at the expense of non-citizens conducting business within that state.
  • Utilitarian||

    No, that's not why the Founders put the commerce clause into the Constitution. You're just trying to justify your anti-states rights position on this particular issue. What you're doing is called mental gymnastics.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Says pretzel boy. Pray tell what jurisdiction DOES the commerce clause have? Shall we go to the federalist papers?

    necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each Canton is obliged to allow to merchandizes, a passage through its jurisdiction into other Cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany, it is a law of the empire, that the Princes and States shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the Emperor and Diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here.
  • Utilitarian||

    The commerce clause has whatever jurisdiction that courts say it has. So its power quite broad.

    As for what I think the commerce clause SHOULD be, I would limit it to levying tariffs on products from other states. In other words, it would be so incredibly weak that it might as well not exist.

    If California wants vehicles sold within its borders to have certain specifications that diverge from the rest of the nation, there is nothing preventing companies in Tennessee from manufacturing a "California" version of a vehicle. They could even charge a premium for the "California" models because the cost of production would be higher, passing the costs on to consumers in California. That's a market solution rather than a government intervention "solution".

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Again, your argument devolves to muh feelz. So a literal reading of the Commerce Clause doesn't apply and reading the rationale behind it from the framers doesn't apply, because, um, federalism or something. And where do we find that federalism? Well there's a pretty big chunk of it in the 10A:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    But oddly enough the Commerce Clause falls under "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution."

    Can you explain why CA can impose its rules on every subordinate jurisdiction? I mean, shouldn't Orange County be able to pass its own laws which override California's? I mean you're not the prog here. Like, rights, man.

    I would limit it to levying tariffs on products from other states. In other words, it would be so incredibly weak that it might as well not exist.

    Are you truly so dumb that you cannot see how a regulation is functionally equivalent to a tariff? Apparently so. But you're the liberty guy here, honest.

    And a "California" model to satisfy unconstitutional regulation from California is not a market solution any more than paying your taxes is a market solution. This is libertarianism 101, sport.

  • TxJack 112||

    I have to disagree. The GOP always cares about state's rights but the difference is the Democrats think that state's rights means they can re-write or ignore Federal law in defiance of the Supremacy clause. When the GOP was fighting issues on the premise of State's rights they were issues such as Obama's refusal to enforce immigration laws passed by Congress or writing laws completely by side stepping Congress. In contrast, Democrats are not upset that Federal law is not being enforced but rather that it is.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The real problem is that progressivism is a highly sociopathic political philosophy based on situational ethics and brazen hypocrisy. Things like federalism are ridiculous to them unless it can be used to their advantage.

    I promise you all, that if The Hag we're in charge, the progs would be wiping their ass with the 10th amendment.

  • Robert||

    The even-handed coverage of this item here sticks out. I don't mind it generally—we can & should make up our own minds about stuff—but it's just striking in the current milieu of reporting on the Trump admin.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The Left either can't grasp or else simply denies that economic decisions are always tradeoffs. Fuel efficiency is only one of the factors to consider when you're measuring the utility of a given automobile.

    I also suspect that the Left is not a fan of the Law Of Diminishing Returns. They probably think it should be repealed, along with that irritating Law Of Supply And Demand.

  • John B. Egan||

    More of Trump's BS.. He just wants to roll over state's rights... contrary to what he has claimed in the past.. The guy is a world-class serial liar. Even the auto makers don't want him screwing with mileage and smog.

    ** 'Climate Change Is Real,' Automakers Declare To Trump May 22, 2018
    ** Do car companies want Trump to trash emission standards? Maybe not. Mar 15, 2018
    ** Automakers don't want Trump's plan to freeze fuel efficiency rules May 11, 2018

    Trump should focus on his golf game and grabbing p*ssy.. Things he's capable of.. Presuming he doesn't cheat at golf.

  • Rockabilly||

    What ever man. Sounds like typical huge government business -- just business as usual.

  • ||

    ** Fake headlines misquoting vague sources followed by dates being construed as facts(?). Aug. 2, 2018

    It's like Tourette's with news blurbs. This may be one of the more advanced cases of TDS I've ever seen certainly one of the more overt manifestations.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Egan just throwas out soemtg like this and then never responds to any refutation. Just a propagandist troll.

  • Rockabilly||

    Expect ProgTarD explosions and MUCH weeping of TEARS!!!

    ProgTarDs !!! Trump Tissues are on SALE !!!

    They'll dry your communist tears === they are twice as absorbent as the most popular brand !!!

  • cc2||

    I have auto engineering friends and they tell me that it is simply impossible to meet the proposed 54mpg limit. That is the reason for the emissions cheating by VW--impossible rules. Thermodynamics limits what can be achieved. Much of the progress toward higher gas mileage has been due to replacing metal with fiberglass and plastic in the bumpers etc. That has reached a limit. Safety is also important, at least to me.

  • vek||

    Yup. Physics has its limitations! The only way they were EVER going to meet the target was through producing excessive numbers of over priced electric vehicles, which can on paper have far higher fuel economy ratings.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You can also use more carbon fiber in places, but it costs a lot.

  • tlapp||

    There were economical cars long before fuel standards existed. And people bought them based on their needs. All these standards did was kill large sedans and station wagons and created SUV's instead. By being in a truck category they beat the standards set for cars. You can't put the family and their things in a tiny car so instead you get a truck?

    Dumb useless regulation that should be eliminated entirely.

  • TxJack 112||

    There is a simple truth the environmental crowd refuses to acknowledge. To achieve these ridiculous standards cars are being made from lighter and lighter metals and more and more plastic. AS a result, since the 1990s, auto fatalities have increased dramatically. The environmentalists claim it is because there are more cars on the road which is true, but I have talked to friends who are police officers and they say accidents people survived 20 yrs ago, now kill them. They say it is obvious the reason is for all the safety features developed, newer cars simply cannot defy the laws of physics. The larger problem is as they have demonstrated again and again, environmentalists care more about their political agenda than the people who suffer because of it.

  • vek||

    Does anybody honestly think auto makers are just going to stop trying to produce a more efficient, AKA superior product?

    No. Of course not. They have tons of competitors, and efficiency IS a major selling point.

    They're just going to do it in a sane way, that technology reasonably allows, and include other trade offs like safety, features, price, etc in their planning. In other words they will make what people want... Nay, DEMAND. Whereas with these rules they were having to jack prices and try to deploy technologies that weren't ready and people didn't want, in order to please commies in government.

    I'll leave it up to GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota etc to figure out what people want before government lackeys.

  • ||

    Whereas with these rules they were having to jack prices and try to deploy technologies that weren't ready and people didn't want, in order to please commies in government.

    This is the part that kills me the technologies were ready and people do want them. Crossing myself a bit with regard to market demand and popularity, every hybrid on the road today uses software to artificially lower its average emissions to conform to emissions standards.

    As you point out above, it was a plan to reduce emissions that's turned into a mechanism to force car manufacturers and consumers to make and buy (the right brand of) electric cars.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Regardless, adding tech upgrades that are expensive, and feature at best marginal improvements over cold start tail pipe emissions is a piss poor way to improve air quality. The real gains are gong to be made getting people into new, or at least newer, properly tuned vehicles. And overall, US automobile emissions are greatly improved.

    The real problem with air quality are found with industrial developing countries like China and India. Where we have no control. US emissions are very efficfast ent relative to the rest of the globe, based on our GDP.

  • vek||

    With a lot of this stuff it hit the market as the auto makers thought it was viable. However the last round of stuff was forcing them to do things that were NOT things they would be doing otherwise, because people weren't demanding it. People like more efficient gas mileage... But if it comes at the cost of safety and an extra 5 grand in price, people don't want that.

    It's like as if the government had demanded that all smart phones had the processing power of the iPhone X... But in 2012. All this stuff WILL be coming, but if they had dictated that it was rolled out before it was affordable, we would have had $5,000 smart phones that were 5 times the size. Letting these things come about in their own time is a far better idea. I've always believed electric cars are likely the future of transportation, but if they had been mandated in 2005 it would have been preposterous. This standard was the same type of nonsense. Let it come about in its own time.

  • Chasman1965||

    I'm confused as to why this is being called a rollback by many in the media. This is not a rollback--a rollback would involve going to older standards or no standards at all. This is more of a freeze. The CAFE standards will be frozen at 2020 levels.

  • ||

    There's a question of authority about whether CA/EPA can do this, which Trump is rolling back but, as you say, the standards are in place and just not escalating going forward. Though I've heard the two ideas conflated as well.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The media has to lie so as to better attack Trump.

  • Flinch||

    About time. I'm tired of politicians thinking they can design cars by pulling a number out of their butt.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online