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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-06-2019, 06:32 PM
 
8,146 posts, read 4,613,486 times
Reputation: 10350

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
No I'm saying California is not the federal government though it tries to play as it is.
Again this was a voluntary agreement on the set of these automakers.

What you are saying is that you want the feds to come in and prevent private businesses from designing their own product to a higher standard. How the hell do you justify that? Donít like it, donít buy from those makers. Vote with your wallet like a good capitalist, donít whine to the government like a communist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-06-2019, 06:36 PM
 
13,703 posts, read 4,224,600 times
Reputation: 4102
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
Again this was a voluntary agreement on the set of these automakers.

What you are saying is that you want the feds to come in and prevent private businesses from designing their own product to a higher standard. How the hell do you justify that? Donít like it, donít buy from those makers. Vote with your wallet like a good capitalist, donít whine to the government like a communist.
No I'm saying get rid of CARB.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2019, 06:37 PM
 
8,146 posts, read 4,613,486 times
Reputation: 10350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
[/b]

That's not true. No self respecting car guy would want a CARB standards vehicle over a Federal vehicle.
Show me a 2020 vehicle with any major difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2019, 06:40 PM
 
39,995 posts, read 41,610,245 times
Reputation: 16651
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
Again this was a voluntary agreement on the set of these automakers.

That is exactly the issue because they did it as a group and decided to sell a much more expensive product. That runs afoul of anti-competitive laws. Had they decided to only make cars that meet federal standards as a group they would still be in the same boat. Get it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2019, 06:41 PM
 
13,703 posts, read 4,224,600 times
Reputation: 4102
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
Show me a 2020 vehicle with any major difference.
You first say we long had in the past those two standards with cars that met and didn't meet CARB then switched to 2020. Of course there is no difference when all cars are meeting the CARB standards, but if they weren't there could be differences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2019, 06:44 PM
 
Location: USA
20,114 posts, read 9,616,885 times
Reputation: 15185
Forcing car makers to make LESS SAFE cars because they have to be TOO LIGHT to meet artificial GOVERNMENT standards is MORONIC. If the market wants higher MPG they will demand it through their purchasing dollars. What are they actually BUYING? Large SUV's, and Trucks. So the market is telling them what they want.

Last edited by Pilot1; 09-06-2019 at 06:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2019, 06:46 PM
 
8,146 posts, read 4,613,486 times
Reputation: 10350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
You first say we long had in the past those two standards with cars that met and didn't meet CARB then switched to 2020. Of course there is no difference when all cars are meeting the CARB standards, but if they weren't there could be differences.
OK, specific but still relatively modern example. Our old 2009 RAV4 V6 came in CA and Federal versions. There was no appreciable difference in price or performance between the two. Why not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2019, 06:52 PM
 
11,849 posts, read 7,563,497 times
Reputation: 4900
This is a perfect storm to enrage the snowflakes. It involves the business community, greener regulations, and California outsmarting trump. I love it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2019, 06:54 PM
 
8,146 posts, read 4,613,486 times
Reputation: 10350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Forcing car makers to make LESS SAFE cars because they have to be TOO LIGHT to meet artificial GOVERNMENT standards is MORONIC. If the market wants higher MPG they will demand it through their purchasing dollars. What are they actually BUYING? Large SUV's, and Trucks. So the market is telling them what they want.

/thread
What part of voluntary is forcing exactly?

Are Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW the only makes out there?

Too light??? Cars are heavier than ever. Used to be that anything over 3,000lbs was considered a fat pig. Now even compacts are well over that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2019, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Long Island
34,673 posts, read 14,536,595 times
Reputation: 7470
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
I blame California for trying to dictate to a manufacturer what to build that could impact people in other states.
Its not just CA, 16 other states. The current EPA just indiscriminately threw out the analysis by the prior administration. Their selling point was that lighter vehicles would result in more fatalities is laughable.

Quote:
California, 16 states and the District of Columbia are suing the Trump administration over its decision to roll back vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
California Attorney General Xavier BecerraXavier BecerraTrump administration rolls back Obama-era lightbulb rules20 states sue Trump administration over Flores ruleCalifornia leads states in lawsuit over Trump public charge ruleMORE (D) said the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which bars against arbitrary and capricious decisions, and violated the Clean Air Act last month when it withdrew the greenhouse gas standard and the related Department of Transportation efficiency standards for model year 2022 through 2025 light-duty vehicles.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...llback-vehicle
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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