U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-08-2019, 12:57 AM
 
28 posts, read 3,885 times
Reputation: 57

Advertisements

CARB potentially violates interstate commerce provision by REQUIRING only certain trucks be able to deliver or pick up cargo in CA Ports and rail yards. You can't drive a truck from out of state to deliver to a port in CA without meeting the requirement. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdie.../multirule.pdf

Quote:
Diesel-fueled trucks transporting cargo destined to or coming from California’s ports and intermodal rail yards (including bobtails and transporting chassis) must be registered in the statewide Drayage Truck Registry prior to entry. Drayage fleets must comply with requirements by operating only vehicles with 2007 MY engines or newer.

By January 1, 2023, all class 7 and 8 diesel-fueled drayage trucks must have 2010 and newer engines. Trucks with 2010 and newer engines are fully compliant with both the Truck and Bus and Drayage regulations. The exchange of marine or rail cargo (e.g. containers) between compliant and non-compliant drayage trucks is not allowed anywhere in California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2019, 01:09 AM
 
82 posts, read 12,843 times
Reputation: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
You are talking in circles. I'm the conservative here wanting to go back before CARB was created. I want CARB to go away and there to be one Federal standards for emissions and safety and I want those standards to be relaxed. The Commerce Clause of the constitution certainly fits when it comes to vehicle standards if it applies to anything. I'm all for states becoming sovereign nations even but until then there should be one Federal standards for vehicles. The Federal government is suppose to set standards and regulations related to or effecting interstate and international commerce, not the individual states.
No state has set an national or international standard. In this case, CA has set a standard for their own state. You seem to be missing this completely.

As I've already pointed out, this only becomes a constitutional issue if there are barriers to interstate commerce. Automakers have not suggested that such barriers exist. And no government is stopping you or I from purchasing any car on the market.

Your call for the Federal government telling the states what to do is definitely not conservative. Maybe a conservative in name only....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 01:11 AM
 
82 posts, read 12,843 times
Reputation: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little_D View Post
CARB potentially violates interstate commerce provision by REQUIRING only certain trucks be able to deliver or pick up cargo in CA Ports and rail yards. You can't drive a truck from out of state to deliver to a port in CA without meeting the requirement. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdie.../multirule.pdf
Yes, the truck situation is complete chaos. Another topic for another thread for sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 01:21 AM
 
Location: AZ
2,379 posts, read 497,782 times
Reputation: 1043
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Gas direct injection is not a new concept. It's been around for many decades, just almost never used in a production road car for good reason until recently. Diesel are direct injection of course. But gas direct injection is not a good idea for affordable and reliable consumer automobiles. And I said electric power steering, not just power steering, which has poor feedback and road feel compared to hydraulic assist. These technologies are being used to get a small increase in fuel efficiency and lowered emissions but at a cost that is not worth it.

I realize most car owners are far from car guys, but we have government and non-car guys designing flawed cars.
....I literally said that direct injection had been around for decades; it’s reliable and affordable provided you don’t buy German or Chrysler (or specific GM/Ford models). And electric power steering can and does provide road feel and feedback; which is to say, again, the average buyer gives zero forks about that.

And it’s hardly a small increase in fuel efficiency or lowers emissions.....let me guess, you want to go back to the era of carbs because of the perceived “simplicity”?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 01:33 AM
 
13,685 posts, read 4,203,242 times
Reputation: 4093
Quote:
Originally Posted by subaru5555 View Post
....I literally said that direct injection had been around for decades; it’s reliable and affordable provided you don’t buy German or Chrysler (or specific GM/Ford models). And electric power steering can and does provide road feel and feedback; which is to say, again, the average buyer gives zero forks about that.

And it’s hardly a small increase in fuel efficiency or lowers emissions.....let me guess, you want to go back to the era of carbs because of the perceived “simplicity”?
Port injection's benefits over carburetion is worth the cost and complexity and is very reliable. Direct injection is not worth it. Electric steering is not worth the loss of good feedback and road feel.

These late model cars don't even always get better mileage in the real world than cars with none of the direct injection small turbo four motors, extra transmission speeds, electric steering, stop/start etc and the drivability and durability sucks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 01:34 AM
 
28 posts, read 3,885 times
Reputation: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBot View Post
No state has set an national or international standard. In this case, CA has set a standard for their own state. You seem to be missing this completely.

As I've already pointed out, this only becomes a constitutional issue if there are barriers to interstate commerce. Automakers have not suggested that such barriers exist. And no government is stopping you or I from purchasing any car on the market.

Your call for the Federal government telling the states what to do is definitely not conservative. Maybe a conservative in name only....
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBot View Post
Yes, the truck situation is complete chaos. Another topic for another thread for sure.
But the Truck regulations are directly on point about CARB creating barriers to interstate commerce. The interesting thing is that by only requiring year of manufacture, it does not bar newer Mexican Trucks that do not need to meet Federal emission standards. There are several CA ports and rail yards that are within the zone for Mexican trucks to be used.

There is CA government regulations that stops me from registering a new car that does not meet CA CARB regulations, so I can buy it but can't drive it - essentially preventing me from buying. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/noncaveh/noncaveh.pdf

Quote:
A California resident or business cannot operate a new out-of-state vehicle in California that is not "California certified." The Department of Motor Vehicles will not register it. It cannot be driven or sold here. If the vehicle is to be operated or resold, it must be removed from California. Converting a "federally certified" vehicle to be "California certified" is not allowed.

Last edited by Little_D; 09-08-2019 at 01:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 01:46 AM
 
1,560 posts, read 659,162 times
Reputation: 1428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little_D View Post
But the Truck regulations are directly on point about CARB creating barriers to interstate commerce. There is CA government regulations that stops me from registering a new car that does not meet CA CARB regulations, so I can buy it but can't drive it - essentially preventing me from buying. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/noncaveh/noncaveh.pdf



The interesting thing is that by only requiring year of manufacture, it does not bar newer Mexican Trucks that do not need to meet Federal emission standards. There are several CA ports and rail yards that are within the zone for Mexican trucks to be used.
While there may be some truth to that, this thread is about automakers (car manufacturers and mpg). In effort to keep the thread from going off topic, I suggest you start a new thread around trucking regulations. DOJ is not suing around truck regulations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 01:54 AM
 
Location: Ft. Myers
18,468 posts, read 11,679,983 times
Reputation: 38973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
This is pretty good evidence that Trump cares about nothing except himself. He's having everyone who doesn't kiss his ass investigated. We're headed into dangerous territory--and the taxpayers are paying for this Third Reich wannabe to investigate everyone who he is sulking about today.

The DOJ is spending all of its time trying avenge Trumps fragile ego. It is an abuse of power, and a waste of money and time. I'm starting to lean towards impeachment--this idiot is taking his lunacy way too far. Barr should be impeached too--he's not Trump's consigliere.

Barr has turned out to be another Heinrich Himmler or Joseph Goebbels, blindly doing whatever the Fuehrer wants, regardless of the consequences. This whole administration stinks to high Hell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 05:35 AM
 
39,961 posts, read 41,519,343 times
Reputation: 16605
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBot View Post
Manufacturers are already conforming to CARB standards and have agreed to continue doing so. It's really a non-issue at this point.

And it's not your rights that would have been violated. It's the car manufacturers. It's up to them how they want to deal with it.

When they are doing it as a group, yes it is an issue. Had they all agreed to only manufacture cars that met federal standards they would be in the same boat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 06:46 AM
 
Location: Long Island
34,432 posts, read 14,462,540 times
Reputation: 7394
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
A lot of 2010s are a better product than many 2013 up Obamobiles with poor drivability, gunked up engines and failing transmissions all to get a couple measly mpgs..
That's total BS, the car manufacturers made a better product after the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requiring 35MPG average by 2020. All the American manufacturers became more competitive particularly when gas prices shot up. It doesn't matter what you think all the European manufacturers are going forward towards 50 MPG, maybe Trump can ban imports that exceed our fuel efficiency standard next.


One of the assumptions in the EPA roll back was that 6 million fewer cars would be on the road, but we are used to junk science with this EPA with fossil fuel executives at the helm.


This is going nowhere fast with 12 states suing the EPA. So strange that you have manufacturers in agreement to do the right thing and the government injects itself using the DOJ as a weapon.




Great article on the history, the only time we cared in the past was when gas was expensive or when there was an embargo, when gas was cheap no one cared.


https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...selves/562400/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top