Minnesota HF65 defeated thanks to dealerships

As some of you may know, I have been engaging a certain forum member who proudly displays a link to a bullcrap pseudo-science "fact" site sponsored by Minnesota car dealerships. It's called "Don't Take My Truck"

DontTakeMyTruck.com

in response to the proposed HF65 to adopt California emissions standards. I really think it's cute that the FUD-masters actually got folks to believe that somehow people in California could dictate what giant pickup or SUV a person in California could drive. Of course, car dealerships *never* lie to folks, right?

Revved-up emissions rules hit resistance

Where exactly does any measure by CARB or any other emission agency specifically tell you WHAT sort of vehicle to drive? Where are the facts supporting this bold assertion?

It seems the environmental group Fresh Energy is the target of criticism

Fresh Energy - Leading the Transition to Clean Energy

I spent some time snopping around the FUD-master Minnesota dealership site, and would like to comment on a few "facts" that are stated

Facts

1: Car company whining about not reaching goals. Well, they also whined in the early 70's about things like EGR and catalytic converters. Seems we worked that out

2. Very effective bait-and-switch (California has the worst air quality in the nation, inferring that California emissions are to blame). Matter of fact, the air quality in California has dramatically IMPROVED despite a huge increase in transport miles

Background Material: California's Air Quality History Key Events

3. The Climate Change link at the bottom of the "facts" page. Good for a chuckle

I'm not sure what disappoints me more: car dealerships and other special interest groups can ram their agenda through, with no regard to health and safety; or, that apparently there was no effective counterpoint to the car dealership FUD-spin

I say we immediately dismantle the EPA. Require every person to cut the catalytic converter off their vehicle. Oh, and no more reformulated gas, we should return to leaded, it's "better" for us

That felt better.

 

Actually, first I heard of it the battle was already lost. I don't live in Minnesota, but there doesn't appear to have been much resistance to the FUD site set up by the Minnesota dealerships

 

Very true, and god help us if OPEC should dump the dollar for the Euro

At the rate things are going, market forces - steeply rising fuel prices - will do far more to "take away" pickups and suv's, than any proposed emissions standard

I still find it hard to believe that when I bought my Prius, oil was 1/3 what it is currently trading at. We had a hard time justifying our purchases in the era of $2/gal gas

 

I agree with most of that, but what effect would stricter T2B5 standards have on whether a vehicle can be sold in Minnesota? I see plenty of trucks and suv's in California, so the stricter CARB standards have not impacted those sales

The problem I have is with FUD that has little to no basis in reality. Say what you want about California emissions, but the air quality in every major urban area is one hell of a lot better than it was in the early 1970's

Locally, the ones who are really starting to piss me off are the redneck turbodiesel truck nuts. They use a tuner to flash a different fuel map, so everytime the traffic light turns green, there is a *huge* cloud of black smoke from the pipe

These nuts also claim the cloud of black smoke is harmless

Getting back to Minnesota, it's probably a moot point with the defeated bill. Higher fuel prices will probably do more to keep pickups and suv's off the roads than any proposed emission standard

 

Welcome, Junior Member

Please name one vehicle that is available in Minnesota, that is not available in California

I've never understood the reluctance of adopting stricter emissions standards to protect human health. The FUD - and downright ignorance - cranked out by the Minnesota car dealership association is downright scary. I guess with a cripling global recession, most of them will soon be bankrupt anyway

There are an amazing number of s***boxes on the roads of Minnesota, thanks to no mandatory I/M program. Almost as many dangerous, high emission s***boxes as we have here in Manitoba. Of course, thanks to No Fault, and communist car insurance run by the province, if some retard in a s***box loses his brakes and runs over a family member at a clearly marked pedestrian crosswalk in Winnipeg, that retard will never spend a day in jail, or pay one red f****** cent in punitive damages

Perhaps if people in Minnesota want to drive used up, rusted out s***boxes, they should just move to Manitoba.

There is now hot debate up here for the new Conservative government to adopt California emissions nationwide. I'm all for it, it would help get a lot of dangerous cars off the road.

Manitoba recently introduced random spot inspections for heavy trucks. At first, a scary 60% of trucks were immediately taken out of service after the spot inspection. I guess things like working brakes, safe steering, tires that didn't have the cord showing through, were considered a luxury by most heavy duty fleets here

Even with this program, almost 1/4 of heavy trucks still fail the random roadside spotchecks. So Manitoba needs to step up random checks of heavy trucks, and introduce mandatory I/M for personal cars/trucks, to get the dangerous and polluting vehicles off the road