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

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.

The Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.

www.nytimes.com...


I really don't quite know what to say about this.

LOL! is about all I can muster.

Guys! Save yourselves! Walk to work.

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.

a reply to: introvert

I'll go look for it Boo.

a reply to: angeldoll

Thats amazing.

Glad trump is looking out for me

originally posted by: angeldoll

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.

The Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.

www.nytimes.com...


I really don't quite know what to say about this.

LOL! is about all I can muster.

Follow the thought process...

It has been shown that increased gas mileage actually causes people to drive more. The more you drive, the more likely you are to be in an accident.

One of the ways to get increased gas mileage is making lighter and smaller vehicles. Lighter and smaller vehicles tend not to do as well in crashes. Think Suburban vs a Civic. I know which car I rather be driving.

The argument is removing the incentive for gas mileage means automakers and consumers will make and buy what they want which is generally heavier vehicles which by the laws of physics are typically safer.

There are arguments against this line of thinking... the safety tech in a 2018 civic is probably far better than a 1995 suburban...

Reasonable arguments on both sides.

The NYTimes article is intentionally spun to make it sound crazy... that subtle bias you expect from the toilet paper of record.

Did Trump say this or is this just from some lackey being quoted out of context by the fake news New York Times? Sounds like some bullcrap to me.

Same report from Fox, if it makes anybody feel better. Just for you Metallica.

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: Metallicus
Did Trump say this or is this just from some lackey being quoted out of context by the fake news New York Times? Sounds like some bullcrap to me.

Does it matter if he said it?

If I'm fact he did would you accept that?

Oh boy. Lower gas prices equal bad things... How in the hell does that make any sense.

a reply to: introvert

Apparently there is no formal proposal at this time, but it will be announced next week.

The above is one of the rationalizations for freezing Obama's standards. (The World According to Trump)

Wheeler, who took over from embattled former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt earlier this month, said the announcement is “probably coming out next week.”

“We're proposing a list of options. We have a preferred option but I don't want to get ahead of the actual proposal before it goes out,” he said.

www.usatoday.com...

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?

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.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: angeldoll

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.

The Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.

www.nytimes.com...


I really don't quite know what to say about this.

LOL! is about all I can muster.

Follow the thought process...

It has been shown that increased gas mileage actually causes people to drive more. The more you drive, the more likely you are to be in an accident.

One of the ways to get increased gas mileage is making lighter and smaller vehicles. Lighter and smaller vehicles tend not to do as well in crashes. Think Suburban vs a Civic. I know which car I rather be driving.

The argument is removing the incentive for gas mileage means automakers and consumers will make and buy what they want which is generally heavier vehicles which by the laws of physics are typically safer.

There are arguments against this line of thinking... the safety tech in a 2018 civic is probably far better than a 1995 suburban...

Reasonable arguments on both sides.

The NYTimes article is intentionally spun to make it sound crazy... that subtle bias you expect from the toilet paper of record.

a reply to: Edumakated

Um, not according to the experts.

Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn't hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.

"Allow me to be skeptical," said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that's a stretch."

Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.

Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It's engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. "You want to be in the newer vehicle," he said.

Source: The New York Times link in the OP

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Edumakated

Um, not according to the experts.

Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn't hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.

"Allow me to be skeptical," said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that's a stretch."

Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.

Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It's engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. "You want to be in the newer vehicle," he said.

Reread your quote...

Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.

The key word is PREDECESSORS meaning older vehicles which I acknowledged in my response when I said a 2018 civic is probably safer than a 1995 suburban despite the weight and size difference...

But here is the thing...would you rather be in a 2018 suburban or a 2018 civic when you crash? All things equal, the heavier car if we hold tech and material advancement consistent will fair better in a crash.

You can't assume all heavier cars will be older models.

He was talking about the size and weight of cars.

They stated that heavier cars are much safer.

Remember the ole classic heavy gas guzzlers?

Unless they are suppressing technology there is not much mpg to gain without decreasing weight.

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.

a reply to: Edumakated

Stay inside....
Lock your doors....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Edumakated

Stay inside....
Lock your doors....

I ride motorcycles... hardly afraid of car crashes.

If you disagree with the logic, by all means I await your response. I don't even necessarily agree with their position, but the article is intentionally written in a bias manner.