Pretty much
... when humans get so stupid and lazy that they can't handle the job of driving themselves, and/or Big Brother decides nobody can own a vehicle of any type.
Why the big push to eliminate ICEs?
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
- Status
Pretty much
... when humans get so stupid and lazy that they can't handle the job of driving themselves, and/or Big Brother decides nobody can own a vehicle of any type.
Do you have the passed law to show what you say about banning gas cars is true? California is the birthplace of customized cars, I think, and right now anything made 75 or earlier doesnāt even need a smog test to be registered. Stink bombs I call them, because we sure have cleaned things up. I donāt know anything that was curbed by any federal figure. Nothing happened except a lawsuit.This will end up in courts for years...its one thing for CA to regulate its own emissions - which was curbed by Trump - its another story to ban the sale of gas cars. IIRC, CA doesn't have the right to regulate interstate commerce
Differing studies determine that 90 to 99 percent of all motor vehicle crashes are caused fully or in part by human error.Pretty much
All I said is its going to end up in courts for sure.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-04-26/epa-california-emissions-waiver-reversing-trump
The Environmental Protection Agency announced that it is reviewing a major Trump-era action that blocked Californiaās legal authority to set tailpipe emission standards for cars and SUVs that are tougher than federal regulations. After seeking the publicās input, as required by law, the agency intends to rescind the Trump administrationās decision, a spokesman for the agency said.
From that inline linked article
Californiaās special authority to go further than the federal government in regulating auto pollution dates back to the 1960s, when Los Angeles was enveloped in a thick layer of smog that state officials came to see as a public health crisis. By the time the 1970 federal Clean Air Act took effect, the state had already enacted its own tailpipe emission controls.
Concerned that each state would pass different regulations, Congress decided that the EPA would set vehicle pollution standards for the nation. But it carved out an exception for California, saying that the EPA would be required to grant the state a waiver to set its own rules, provided they were at least as stringent as the federal ones. Other states could choose to follow either Californiaās regulations or those set by the EPA.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I don't believe CA has the right to regulate interstate commerce by banning gasoline vehicles. This equates to another virute signal like banning straws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
Last edited:
No surprise there. The whole auto insurance industry would collapse if all people stopped crashing cars because they were all autonomous, lol.
There's always confusion among the masses between the mostly separate issues of emissions causing air pollution and that of carbon emissions. The question posed by the OP was about "why the big push to eliminate ICEs" and that's almost entirely about the latter problem.
Clearly California's early adoption of air pollution controls was spectacularly successful and it was highly-fortunate that the problem was tangible to anyone who lived in their urban regions in the '60-'70s ... and that the situation was entirely reversible.
But carbon emissions are not reversible in any practical sense and the results are much less obvious and delayed by decades. EVs are not going to fix this by any means but if an acceptable standard of living is to be provided to ongoing generations then it's a problem that must be addressed and adopting non-fossil-fueled transport is a significant piece of the huge puzzle. 1980 would have been a good time to start all this but here we are, 40 years later, continuing to kick the ball down the road.
Clearly California's early adoption of air pollution controls was spectacularly successful and it was highly-fortunate that the problem was tangible to anyone who lived in their urban regions in the '60-'70s ... and that the situation was entirely reversible.
But carbon emissions are not reversible in any practical sense and the results are much less obvious and delayed by decades. EVs are not going to fix this by any means but if an acceptable standard of living is to be provided to ongoing generations then it's a problem that must be addressed and adopting non-fossil-fueled transport is a significant piece of the huge puzzle. 1980 would have been a good time to start all this but here we are, 40 years later, continuing to kick the ball down the road.
Not really, if you arenāt required to buy a new car there will be other ways of removing your money (think about the folks ricing diesel pickups)
If your bored with your 25 year old car you can have company X redecorate or buy another
Or infotainment and unnecessary software upgrades
The possibilities of monetary removal are endless,
remember back in the days when kids would waste hundreds of dollars on ringtones?
Something completely valueless and unnecessary monetized when you could make your own for free.
Welcome to the future
And all this ignoring the fact northern cars still mostly rust out every 5 years
Ok boomer.....
Vehicles advertise for 100 mph top speed all the time, that doesn't mean it is legal to drive them that fast on the street, but it is not illegal to sell them to general public.
There exist race track for those who want to drive that fast. It is nothing new. What makes you think 200 mph is bad but 100 mph is ok?
What about vehicle weight? Why are we not banning any vehicle so heavy they are killing the other vehicle in a head on collision? Should we ban SUVs and full size pickup because of that too?
Last edited:
So you're okay with idiots driving vehicles on public roadways that are capable of 200 MPH? I'm okay with them driving in your area, but not mine. And when did I say driving 100 MPH was okay?
Yes I am.
I am against the actual driving 200mph on public roads, or in other words, the DECISION to put others in danger. Having the means and actually doing something are two different things.
What's the diff between 100mph and 200mph? are people in your area keeping their 100mph capable cars at the limit--but the ones with 200mph cars simply incapable of doing so?
Didn't you buy a 'vette, or were thinking of doing so?
Again, when did I say I was okay with people doing 100 MPH? What I'm saying is today far too many people have access to enough money to buy these insanely fast vehicles, and many of them don't have the common sense to know when using all that power is appropriate. Public roads are not the place to wring these vehicles out. I was going to buy a Vette, but finding one equipped the way I wanted was too difficult, so I spent the money on a new motorcycle instead...
So in your perfect little world people would never exceed the speed limits on public roads, and they would only unleash the full power of one of these vehicles on a race track, right?
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Page 13 and thread is diminished to bickering
Similar threads will come along fresh anyway
Seems EVās did not need the āhelpā
Similar threads will come along fresh anyway
Seems EVās did not need the āhelpā
Ok, so what is the diff between being able to go 100mph and being able to go 200mph? How is one worse than the other--if neither is ever used at those speeds?
I think you are tilting at windmills. Almost sounds like sour grapes actually, a bit of jealousy even.
I think you are tilting at windmills. Almost sounds like sour grapes actually, a bit of jealousy even.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
On the way to the coast ā¦ I see a NG power plant, some wind turbines, and a nuclear plant. They all seem busy doing what they were built to do ā¦
- Status
