Trump administration says people would be exposed to increased risk if gas prices were lowered

a reply to: WarPig1939

Becuase MAGA, obviously...

Riduculous. I started driving in the seventies when gas was 75¢ per gallons I've driven in the two thousands when gas was nearly $4.00 per gallon. At no time did the price of gas curb how frequently I drove my car. Had to go to work no matter what. Had to pick up or drop off kids, grocery shop. My life demands I drive no matter the price of gas. It didn't stop vacations either. We just rented newer cars that got better mileage lol.

originally posted by: The GUT
Don't want the prices to be down when we open up the reserve spicot and start exporting in earnest is most probably the main reason.

Agreed. I'm curious to see what rationalizations they put in the formal proposal.

Surely it won't be more jibber jabber like this.

Pretty soon my job will start having to pay me gas money to get to work on top of my salary.

Lets just force everyone to ride motorcycles, lots of gas savings, traffic jams gone...40% increase in deaths is very acceptable..

originally posted by: Nickn3
There is some truth to that statement, my new Ford F-250 diesel is 700 pounds lighter than the older model. But the new aluminium body is paper thin. It can’t be as safe as steel, can it?

They design the car bodies to crumple and absorb the shock rather than a solid steel vehicle which would just pass the energy of impact onto whatever object got in the way. A car travelling at 40 mph and hitting an object is the same as a object travelling at 40 mph and hitting the car.

originally posted by: WarPig1939
Pretty soon my job will start having to pay me gas money to get to work on top of my salary.

Mine does...1300 per year

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Lets just force everyone to ride motorcycles, lots of gas savings, traffic jams gone...40% increase in deaths is very acceptable..

It actually isn't a bad idea if reducing traffic and gas consumption is truly the end goal. We don't even have to get everyone on bikes, just a small percentage would make a huge dent in traffic jams. Most people could ride Vespas for a daily commute. No need for Ducati Organ Donor crotch rockets.

This study claims if 10% of cars switched to bikes, it would do wonders:

The study, which was presented at the Association des Constructeurs Européens de Motocycles (ACEM) 2012 Conference in Brussels, found that if 10 percent of all private cars were replaced by motorcycles in the traffic flow of the test area, total time losses for all vehicles decreased by 40 percent and total emissions reduced by 6 percent (1 percent from the different traffic composition of more emission-reduced motorcycles and 5 percent from avoided traffic congestion). A 25 percent modal shift from cars to motorcycles was found to eliminate congestion entirely.

Allowing lane splitting / filtering and cities offering free motorcycle parking would probably be all it takes to get more people to ride motorcycles/scooters in the States.

Far more efficient solution than public transportation and CAFE restrictions....

a reply to: Edumakated

can you show where it has been shown higher gas mileage causes people to drive more?
you still get gas, jut less time at the pump. doesnt mean you add more diving... you simply fill up less


makes no sense...

drinking lowfat milk causes people to drink more milk?
cheaper insurance causes people to get into more accidents?

mentalist logic is great logic for mentalists

a reply to: angeldoll

For almost 10 years I lived only 5 km away from work, I used to ride my bike all summer long. And the drive was about 5 minutes.
I now commute 25km one way, and am now exposed to how harsh it can be. Seen tons of accidents to be accidents, drunk drivers the works. Might be the stretch I drive on but, I was sheltered before. Oh and worrying about gas sucks.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Edumakated

can you show where it has been shown higher gas mileage causes people to drive more?
you still get gas, jut less time at the pump. doesnt mean you add more diving... you simply fill up less


makes no sense...

drinking lowfat milk causes people to drink more milk?
cheaper insurance causes people to get into more accidents?

mentalist logic is great logic for mentalists

Do Fuel Efficient Cars Make Us Drive More?

It is known as the rebound effect.

...often called the ‘rebound effect’, suggests that drivers will undo some or all of these increases by responding to the increased efficiency with more driving. After all, the effective cost of each mile driven is now lower. Indeed, an expectation that 10% of the gains from increased fuel economy will be clawed back is built into government estimates of the effects of the new Corporate Fuel standards (NHTSA 2012). Yet, the magnitude of this effect is a contentious empirical question, with estimates ranging from 5% to 30% depending on the empirical approach and the length of time studied (Gillingham et al. 2013).

Just even think about it. If it cost less to drive your car, you will drive more....

Ironically, the study I linked to does challenge the rebound theory, but they do so under the premise that fuel efficient cars suck donkey balls so people won't want to drive them more...

One might expect that this increase in fuel economy would induce more driving because the price of driving each mile has fallen. However, improvements in fuel economy are often accompanied by other changes in vehicle characteristics. We show that the more fuel-efficient vehicles purchased by the eligible households were cheaper, smaller, and less powerful. Figure 2 shows that vehicles purchased by barely eligible households were less expensive than those purchased by barely ineligible households; similar patterns hold for vehicle characteristics that proxy for comfort, size, and performance. Text

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: angeldoll

Perhaps I missed it, but is there a link to the specific proposal at the link?

Surely the admin is not using such a laughable argument against the fuel standards. I would not be surprised, but I can't imagine having to have to use such a poor position.

I also see he is going after the rights of individual states.

Not good.

It was a draft. The real proposal is expected later this week.

a reply to: angeldoll

The logic, while not necessarily flawed, is pretty silly.

There is no need to justify rolling back some of the eco-driven policies from Obama, so why they even feel a need to is kind of funny--almost like they're performing an inside joke just to troll certain segments of society who will lose their collective mind over something like this.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

almost like they're performing an inside joke just to troll certain segments of society who will lose their collective mind over something like this.

Is that a reasonable thing for the United States government to do? Is that the respect we should expect from our government officials?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well, to be fair, I didn't say that IS what is happening, and neither you nor I have proof that it is.

Reasonable for it to do...maybe, given the hyperbole and blatant jackassery committed by the people in said segment of society.

Appropriate? Probably not.

But then again, I don't think that's what they're doing, I just find the though to be a very slight possibility.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But then again, I don't think that's what they're doing, I just find the though to be a very slight possibility.

Okay. I thought maybe you were implying that this was part of stable genius, Trump's, 4D chess game.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: angeldoll

Thats amazing.

Glad trump is looking out for me

Finally a president who cares about Americans!

originally posted by: gamer2343
a reply to: Edumakated

Also the more money you make at your job the more likely you are to get out more and do things that make you happy, The more you get out, The more likely you are to die.

Time to ban work, if he truly cares for us.

When gas prices were 5 under obama, wasn’t part of the spin was

People would drive less and there will be less accidents

a reply to: angeldoll

2 things...
1. What does this have to do with lowering gas prices? The new standards will reduce gas consumption which will ultimately increase gas prices in the form of additional taxes to fund transportation funds. This will ultimately result in higher gas prices, as taxes NEVER go down, even when gas prices go up.
2. You're taking one portion of the administration's overall argument. I'll admit they seem to be spitballing rather than stating the true, underlying issue... the federal government should stay the hell out of placing set-in-stone fuel mileage standards on vehicles. Let the market decide. Oh, and as a roadway engineer, I'll take one of those heavier rigs over a lightweight model every damn day. Yes, airbags and driver safety is fairly solid in the lighter vehicles alongside the heavier ones, but you're looking at a guaranteed total loss of the vehicle in the lighter weight models... a heavier steel frame truck can withstand a hell of an impact and require repairs, but not be a total loss in many cases... Alos, when dealing with SUVs and driving in ice-prone climates, heavier is always better. Miss me with that slip n' slide BS featherweight SUV owners have to deal with.