Thank God...EPA to scrap stoopid sae auto mileage requirements

[oldsoul]

Can we get rid of the computers and dang crank sensors while they are at it......................

Need a computer to say........YOUR CAR IS CRANKED............LOL

No, computers make cars perform a lot better. They start a 1000 times more reliably, get better fuel mileage and the transmissions last longer because of electronics. Just imagine if they were applied to true muscle cars. -1.9 seconds quarter mile!

True, but MUCH harder and expensive to maintain all that modern stuff. I used to do my own repairs on older no computer based models, because it was so much cheaper and simpler to do.

That's the common myth folks swallow. The fact is there is nothing to maintain on electronics, they either work or they don't. Used to be that 100,000 miles on a car was just about it's limit. Today it's two or three times that, usually. What you may mean is that modern cars are harder to diagnose than older cars but with a little common sense and some basic understanding of electricity and a few tech tools, you can fix some things on your car. It's actually easier because many of the mechanical devices no longer exist. Electronics have simplified the control valve body on automatic transmission quite a bit. Now instead of a complex series of valves used to control shifts, you have solenoids that if failed, provide a code for your scan tool to read, telling you where to look for the problem. Giving just one example....

Excellent point. I have been doing my own repairs for over 20 years now. Everything from an 84 Subaru, to a 13 Caravan. Only problem I ever came across that I couldn't get fixed myself was a blown engine. Well, truth be told, I rebuild the engine (partially), but couldn't get it to crank, didn't need the car (or the headache) anymore, so I scrapped it. Every other car I've owned, I either sold in working condition, or scrapped because I decided it wasn't worth the trouble.

As a side note, I have found Google and Youtube to be most helpful in diagnostics, as well as parts counter folks.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, studies instead of religious beliefs, folktales, stereotyping, anecdotal evidence and rightwing propaganda.

Good that you ADMIT that you progressively prefer liberal biased studies, over conservative, simple common sense, and clear observation. While conservatives sometimes go to self-evident truths as evidence (ex. watching fish swimming to prove they can swim), Democrats have a special technique. They hold STUDIES from universities, liberal think tanks, and media outlets to the throats of conservatives (and anyone else) like knives. We are supposed to be forced to accept their conclusions, coming from esteemed professors with lots of letters after their names. We can’t contradict them, liberals contend, because they're too highly respected.

Problem for liberals is, quite often (too often) the studies have major holes in them. Here's a prime example >>>

The Stephens-Davidowitz "racism" study : in this farce, published as undeniable in the New York Times, it was contended that some places in the US were more racist than other places. The study contended that because 57% of Denver, CO, voted for Obama in 2008, and only 48% of Wheeling WV did, that Wheeling was the 7th most "racist" city in America, while Denver was the 4th most “enlightened” city.

Problems here are twofold. First, in places like the Times, the only 1 dimension at play was Obama's race. The Stephens-Davidowitz study failed to consider that Obama was the most fabulous, celebrity-backed candidate for president in a long time - something more important to people in Denver than in West Virginia.

Secondly, on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before the election, Obama vowed to bankrupt the coal industry. He threatened to impose huge fines on coal companies for emissions of greenhouse gases. West Virginia's economy is 99% (energy) and 60% (business taxes) dependent on coal. The real way to test Stephens-Davidowitz theory about West Virginians, would be to run a non-flashy black candidate who had not pledged to destroy the coal industry, and THEN compare votes.

Here's an alternative to the faulty Stephens-Davidowitz study that the New York Times admired so much >>

Ann Coulter did a study on states' inclinations to racism, also. In Ann's study, different states were compared by participation in the military - an institution with a high level of close-quarter racial mixing, jaw to jaw, in military barracks (hell for racists).

The least racist states were Montana, Texas, Wyoming, Alabama, Alaska, and Idaho. The most racist ones were Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

Quoting Albert Einstein, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen". Conservatives are always falling back on claims of common sense and self evident truths to support their arguments. In reality, they are asking that their beliefs be accepted with no real proof, anecdotal evidence instead of empirical evidence.

Common sense works very well in resolving simple problems were everyone shares the same set of assumptions. In fact, it's so effective in these circumstances that we are tempted to use it to make decisions, plans, and projections about very complex situation where the basic assumptions are not commonly held and problems are far from simple.

When anyone proposes solutions for the complex problems this nation faces based on common sense, such proposals should be rejected.

Like "common sense" gun laws, right? LOL

Seems like a very long winded way of saying, "Trust the experts, they know what is good for you." Problem is, time after time, the "experts" are proven incorrect. Take "global warming" for example. Oh, sorry, now it's "global climate change". Um, guess I just made the case there. Funny how that happens...

When a person uses the term common sense to support their belief, they want any critical analysis of what they are saying to stop immediately. It usually means they can't support their believe with any real evidence.

 

[protectionist]

When a person uses the term common sense to support their belief, they want any critical analysis of what they are saying to stop immediately. It usually means they can't support their believe with any real evidence.

For the millionth time, "evidence" to a liberal, is a study done by a liberal university, think tank or media. Everyone is expected to accept and conform.

EARTH TO LIBERALS: Not everything requires a study. Many things are self-evident just by OBSERVATION (ex. fish can swim, cows eat grass, cats are agile. illegal aliens vote)

But liberals are programmed to confine themselves to the "study" regimen (liberal of course) and call that "critical analysis" and "evidence".

Like the New York Times, tell us what a critical analysis went into the laughingstock Stephens-Davidowitz study.

 

[Flopper]

When a person uses the term common sense to support their belief, they want any critical analysis of what they are saying to stop immediately. It usually means they can't support their believe with any real evidence.

For the millionth time, "evidence" to a liberal, is a study done by a liberal university, think tank or media. Everyone is expected to accept and conform.

EARTH TO LIBERALS: Not everything requires a study. Many things are self-evident just by OBSERVATION (ex. fish can swim, cows eat grass, cats are agile. illegal aliens vote)

But liberals are programmed to confine themselves to the "study" regimen (liberal of course) and call that "critical analysis" and "evidence".

Like the New York Times, tell us what a critical analysis went into the laughingstock Stephens-Davidowitz study.

Yes, fish swim and cows eat grass. That is self evident because the truth of the statement requires only simple observation.

The issue of vehicle milage and emission standards are not self evident. Hundreds of millions of people are effected such as people that suffer from lung disease and allergies, trucking companies where the difference of only a couple of mpg can be the difference between success and failure. Only a few less mpg can send oil industry profits up and the cost of owning motor vehicles down. The effect of increased demand of gasoline can result in serious damage to the environment. It also can make the nation more dependent on foreign oil. And then there's the issue of global warming. There is nothing self evident about the net effect of changing gas mileage standards on the country.

Claiming the direction to take on this issue is just common sense indicates a striking absence of it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When a person uses the term common sense to support their belief, they want any critical analysis of what they are saying to stop immediately. It usually means they can't support their believe with any real evidence.

For the millionth time, "evidence" to a liberal, is a study done by a liberal university, think tank or media. Everyone is expected to accept and conform.

EARTH TO LIBERALS: Not everything requires a study. Many things are self-evident just by OBSERVATION (ex. fish can swim, cows eat grass, cats are agile. illegal aliens vote)

But liberals are programmed to confine themselves to the "study" regimen (liberal of course) and call that "critical analysis" and "evidence".

Like the New York Times, tell us what a critical analysis went into the laughingstock Stephens-Davidowitz study.

Yes, fish swim and cows eat grass. That is self evident because the truth of the statement requires only simple observation.

The issue of vehicle millage and emission standards are not self evident. Hundreds of millions of people are effected such as people that suffer from lung disease and allergies, trucking companies where the difference of only a couple of mpg can be the difference between success and failure. Only few less mpg can send oil industry profits up and the cost of owning motor vehicles down. The effect of increased demand of gasoline can result in serious damage to the environment. It also can make the nation more dependent on foreign oil. And then there's the issue of global warming. There is nothing self evident about the net effect of changing gas mileage standards on the country.

Claiming the direction to take on this issue is just common sense indicates a striking absence of it.

The effect of increased demand of gasoline can result in serious damage to the environment. It also can make the nation more dependent on foreign oil.

And you just need to balance those benefits with the increased number of auto deaths.

 

[SSDD]

Brookings did the research and American Thinker twisted them and the title to draw anger and fools to worry about nothing.

Do describe how you think they twisted the data...this should be interesting. Here is a reference to the original paper: Robert W. Crandall and John D. Graham, "The Effect of Fuel Economy Standards on Automobile Safety," Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. XXXII (April 1989)

I do believe I have already addressed that in a prior post. What they have done is to equate increased mileage to accidents.

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? How do you suppose they increase the gas mileage? If you have any brain cells at all, you should be able to figure the answer to that question is that they reduce the mass of the vehicle...now if you reduce the mass, in order to gain gas mileage, what do you suppose that does to the overall safety of the vehicle in the event of a crash? Think real hard...you can do it...