171–180 of 275 posts
California has about 30 millions cars. $1B total fuel savings are … $33 per year, for a whooping less than $3 of fuel savings per car, per month. Thing of all the places you can go with that extra half a gallon, all the work you can accomplish with that large SBUX coffee. It’s all totally worth it.
Your comment perfectly encapsulates the American thought process (I’m coming from the universal healthcare discussion on the front page) You post numbers that this will save $1B in fuel. Tons of co2 equal to taking 400,000 cars off the road. Unquestionably good for society, immensely good for future generations, but you ridicule it because it doesn’t benefit YOU enough right now. This is why the US doesn’t have nice…
Depends on how many more accidents worse-gripping tires cause that result in more totaled vehicles that require replacement and what people replace them with.
Depends on how much faster people have to replace these tires due to wear resulting in more baseline tire production.
Depends on how many more one-off flat tires people get that require getting a whole new set of 4 matched tires so their diffs aren’t destroyed.
Depends on whether slightly more efficient tires induce people to drive more on net because they feel like they’re using less gas.
Depends on this does or doesn’t affect how much tire material ends up in the environment and landfills.
There are so many levers one can pull on the “put less CO2 into the atmosphere” problem that it’s not at all clear that this one specific policy is worth it.
There’s also plenty of ways to make your point without stereotyping.
Why in the hell should the government be regulating this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they're looking to improve tire energy efficiency with regulation, shouldn't they also make it a citable offense to drive with tires inflated below 30psi? You could probably even train a ML algorithm to recognize images of vehicles with underinflated tires, and send the driver a reminder!
Then people will drive around with them at 60psi (i.e. doable but not great for a car tire) and wonder why they keep breaking belts.
California has about 30 millions cars. $1B total fuel savings are … $33 per year, for a whooping less than $3 of fuel savings per car, per month. Thing of all the places you can go with that extra half a gallon, all the work you can accomplish with that large SBUX coffee. It’s all totally worth it.
Your comment perfectly encapsulates the American thought process (I’m coming from the universal healthcare discussion on the front page) You post numbers that this will save $1B in fuel. Tons of co2 equal to taking 400,000 cars off the road. Unquestionably good for society, immensely good for future generations, but you ridicule it because it doesn’t benefit YOU enough right now. This is why the US doesn’t have nice…
Many of those as alternative tires will wear out faster, causing increased particulate pollution and wasting people's money.
Many of those tires will cost more money than they save in gas. The limited options on less common sizes will make tires really expensive for some unfortunate folks.
Some of those tires will have less grip than what people otherwise would have bought, causing some additional number of car accidents. That's money and resources wasted on wrecked cars, not to mention injuries, and potentially even deaths.
But it could save people $3/month on gas according to the optimistic numbers the lobbyists calculated, so consequences be damned, you think everyone who doesn't want this is a selfish jerk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment perfectly encapsulates the American thought process (I’m coming from the universal healthcare discussion on the front page) You post numbers that this will save $1B in fuel. Tons of co2 equal to taking 400,000 cars off the road. Unquestionably good for society, immensely good for future generations, but you ridicule it because it doesn’t benefit YOU enough right now. This is why the US doesn’t have nice…
It absolutely has good aspects, no doubt, but nothing about this is unquestionable. It’s significantly grayer due to all kinds of second order effects, even if you really believe in the problem and want to solve it. Depends on how many more accidents worse-gripping tires cause that result in more totaled vehicles that require replacement and what people replace them with. Depends on how much faster people have to rep…
Especially "how many more accidents worse-gripping tires cause that result in more totaled vehicles". Forget about the totaled vehicles.
Worse-gripping tires are guaranteed to cause more deaths, all else equal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which really is just a revenue game but one with a good eough pretext you can sell it to average dumbass voter. All the "serious" overloading is non-CDL box trucks anyway and has been forever. The road scales are easily gamed, or just avoided.
> The road scales are easily gamed, or just avoided. How are they easily gamed, without being able to shift the load as you roll over the scale? And, at least in California, the scales are placed so that, to avoid them, you have to add a bunch of time to most routes.
There are basically three major trade-off when it comes to tire compounds: rolling resistance, traction, and tire wear. You can pick 2 of the 3. When you shop for tires, manufacturers will try to make this eminently clear in the marketing - you pay a premium for tires that maximize on one or two of these features. The changes that California is proposing basically means you are going to have to choose between tractio…
Either super slippery tires, or tires that wear out quickly Is it really not possible to get moderately-slippery tires that wear out moderately quickly, or is this just the hyperbolic writing style that infests the internet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment perfectly encapsulates the American thought process (I’m coming from the universal healthcare discussion on the front page) You post numbers that this will save $1B in fuel. Tons of co2 equal to taking 400,000 cars off the road. Unquestionably good for society, immensely good for future generations, but you ridicule it because it doesn’t benefit YOU enough right now. This is why the US doesn’t have nice…
Unfortunately I agree with this. For example, CA has very strict environment protection laws and many people hate it. But it's also the reason we get beautiful sky and nature all year round. When I was first landing on US soil in LA in 2015, I saw a layer of light gray smog out of the window. These days it's non-existent.
But that doesn't make the tire efficiency rules, as stated, a good idea, as I pointed out above. Less grippy tires -> more car crashes and more human deaths.