U.S. Supreme Court rules that cities cannot mandate taxi drivers to use hybrids only

What does this mean ?
quote: under city rules it would have been "impossible" to make sure a hybrid fleet met safety standards.

 

Well, watching your unbiased posts so far, maybe you could find a reason for that. LOL

 

Probably fair. In any case little laws like this are pissing on a bonfire, they do nothing at all beyond make legislators feel good. There are so many cars in NY that whether the cabs get 20 mpg or 50 it's all but meaningless. I can't stand these environmental efforts that do nothing but give people a reason to pat themselves on the back.

 

There are over 13,000 cabs in NYC. They each drive about 180 miles a day. Improving MPG from 20 to 30 would save ~40,000 gallons of gas each day.

We're not going to solve our energy problems with a silver bullet. It's going to take incremental steps to reduce usage. This would have been a great step.

 

from the nyt piece cited above

About 1/3 of the taxis in the NYC are hybrids, and 9 of the 12 allowed taxi choices are hybrids. There are a lot of aging crown victoria taxi's though. I think they want something cheap durable and big, and don't have a hybrid to fit that slot. The rule would have kept many of these aging cars, that are less safe on the road. The costs of fuel are definitely making the fleet more efficient.

 

Let them be free to choose.

I had a similar conversation with my taxi enforcement office and whilst they appreciate the pollution and mpg benefits of hybrids, they were not going to legislate or even encourage (reduced licence costs etc) hybrids. Their argument was that if the hybrid is as good as I say it is, it will sell itself. Fair enough.

 

^^ I agree, so long as the costs of purchase are not divorced from the costs of fueling, and the fueling costs are not subsidized.

The biggest problem in NA is that *all* of these level playing field requirements are typically skewed or absent.

 

Gas is now up to $3.50 a gallon regular. The public will shortly get very angry again, and the politicians will have to listen.

 

Back in 2007 here in the Land of Ire,they said that from 1st Jan 2011,any Taxi 9yrs or older would have to be replaced when it's licence came up for it's yearly renewal,a lot of drivers had to replace their cars and then on the 21st Feb,4 days before our General election the National Transport Authority [NTA] was directed by our transport minisiter to scrap the nine year rule as it was known,a lot of happy and extremely unhappy drivers,there was a court case to be heard on the 22nd of Feb and it was believed that the Government had no right to force drivers to change their cars and that they would have lost the case.

 

I find it quite disturbing that the Supreme Court allows cities to regulate outdoor smoking of cigarettes, but not allow the city to regulate local businesses that pollute city air. Something not right about this.

 

Its definitely wrong, but not about the SC who are only interpreting the law. It is all about congress, and some 70s era legislation that needs to be updated. Of course if this congress clarifies the clean air act for modern times, people may complain about how they do it.

 

They do regulate the vehicles that pollute the air. I guess so long as the cab meets legislation on emissions then it's ok.

Perhaps it's like cities regulating which brand of cigarette you could actually smoke.

 

they interpret our constitutional rights. these things are so far removed from life today, the court has carte blanche to decide whichever way the political winds are blowing.

 

AG's naivete should be moderated by reading the SC decision and commentary backing slavery in the US. Perfectly reasonable analysis, unless you are a slave.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/nyregion/01taxi.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

The area of law is the clean air act, and it was sited in my comment and the article. I'm not sure how understanding the laws of this country are naive, but please explain them to the group. It is congresses responsibility to change the clean air act to allow cities to have this power to regulate instead of the nhtsa, epa, and carb. CARB states used the same language in the CAA to bring lawsuits for the regulation of CO2 to the EPA and CARB. I can not believe the writers of the act intended either of these consequences and it is up to congress to fix the legislation.

I am proud of the form of the government of the untited states and believe in the separation of the judicial and legislative branches. If you do not understand civics or first semester law, I can understand how you might have a problem with the supreme court.

Tobacco legislation is not covered under and thus not restricted under the clean air act. In my city smoking is restricted by work place and public health. The EPA has not regulated these things nor has the congress removed the power from cities and states to regulate.

 

The US SC is politicized, and this idiot ruling reflects the right-winger ideology majority, not high fallutin' civics philosophy.

If the situation was reversed, you and your ilk would be screaming 'judicial activism.'

 

Recently our state legislators were working feverishly to determine what our state dirt will be.

 

What are you talking about? This is a quote from the article

This is clearly up to congress. The ruling before on the clean air act was about carbon dioxide being a polutant. The act is outdated for everyone.

If you think my ilk is those that think congress should legislate, well I'm not sure of the insult.

 

wait a minute, who are you calling 'your ilk'?