Category: legislation

Death of a Clunker

Yesterday I was at a Toyota dealership doing some work and I heard a noise that sounded something like somebody trying to set the advance timing on a Club Spec Miata. Well, it wasn’t a Miata but a Nissan pickup truck that had been traded as a “clunker”. 20 seconds later it sounded like one of the pistons had become detached from a connecting rod. Then, mercifully, it stopped.

This is what happens when the Feds finally get around to paying a dealer for a “cash for clunkers” transaction. I think the substance that went into the crank case shortly before the Nissan’s demise is called sodium silicate – its use was prescribed in the 100 plus page description of how the program would work (or not, in some cases). I believe we are about 20 days removed from the end of the program and there are more vehicles waiting for destruction after this one… 10 days, my ass.

Anyway, when the automotive equivalent of Jack Kevorkian showed up with a second Nissan (a Pathfinder) I took out my phone to make a little video.

I think that this has some potential as a 24 Hours of Lemons “penalty”…

There is a God!!! or The End is Near

I don’t know anyone in the business that isn’t ready for this “Cash for Clunkers” thing to be over, so this is great news.

The biggest problem turned out to be that the dealers aren’t being paid – still.  The program was so misjudged by the folks that conceived it that the very important promise to have dealers compensated within 10 days became impossible.

Do the math – if a dealer has sold 50 vehicles under the CARS program, at an average of about $4,200 per unit they are owed $210,00.  The most I’ve had a dealer tell me they’ve had approved and paid for is 10 percent.  How would your small business be doing if $190,000 of it’s working capital were suddenly missing..?  This is called stimulus?

Government Healthcare is going to be awesome!!!  – I’m sorry Mr. Smith, but we need these 20 forms filled out before the doctor can see you, then get in that line over there…

One example of what’s happening is that dealers are submitting the paperwork and if everything isn’t exactly in order the whole deal must be re-submitted with the issue fixed.  Once that happens, the entire file goes back to the bottom of the pile where the whole thing must be reviewed again – I’m sorry Mr. Smith…

And the government meddling has caused supply issues – if this could happen with cars, what is going to happen with doctors?  Go look at your local car lot…

The good news is that I’ve heard some anecdotal evidence that some buyers are people that actually had money to buy a car.  They figured if the government is going to just give money away that they might as well take advantage of it.  Why not own a new car that’s still worth what you paid for it when it leaves the lot?

Now we’re going to need another bailout to save the dealers that don’t survive the cash flow hit…  I’m getting dizzy.

Cash for Clunkers

On the one hand, I like this idea because it will make finding a decent car eligible to compete in the 24 Hours of Lemons less challenging.  On the other, I think I’d be correct in opposing (for similar reasons) government sponsorship of Burning Man, for example.

Personally, my business would likely see a short term bump from something like this – any business can be temporarily propped up by dumping a bunch of other people’s cash in.  Long term, however, this would probably hurt business – maybe a lot.  And, there are reasons it wouldn’t help the environment much, if at all (and why is that always an excuse for crap like this?).  I hope this isn’t a tell-tale of how the government plans to run it’s new car company…

So, on the same day that the President starts pushing for PAYGO (I didn’t see that one coming), and with the support of Democrat leadership in The House and too many Republicans, the “Cash for Clunkers” (no prejudice in a title like that…) program is passed. STORY

That’s some pretty schizophrenic shit.

He’s Back…..

I don’t know how Ralph Nader ended up being considered an expert about anything – oh yeah, he wrote a book that made it more expensive to buy economical cars… Well, here he is again. If anybody could figure out what he’s trying to say, it just could be possible he’s right this time.

Anybody who thought (for even a second) that the Chrysler Dealers which the Obama Administration announced were “going overboard” wouldn’t hang onto the side of the boat is diluted. The Presidential Task Force on Automobiles is trying to dictate new law that arbitrarily confiscates the livelihood, and in some cases, life work of American business people.  Great idea… Nobody will mind… There won’t be lawsuits… Smooth as silk… Hope… Change…

Every child learns that you don’t get to change the rules once the game has started – everyone will suffer for this.  To extend the boat metaphor – the boat will sink with everybody left on it.

Story

Bicycle Law – Getting Along with Cars

A couple of weeks ago I was nearly run off the road by a motorist.  It is a common occurrence to be crowded by fast moving vehicles, and while it sometimes really pisses me off, I understand the frustration of some drivers when they approach riders that haven’t a clue that anybody else might be using the road.  In this case, however, I was a single bike traveling very close (6-12 inches) from the curb on a narrow road.  There was no oncoming traffic and I could have easily been passed safely with lots of room to spare.  But, it turned out, as I learned when we had the opportunity to discuss it 5 miles up the road, this guy simply hates cyclists – I mean, really hates cyclists, in a bulging vein, eyes popping out the head kind of way.

I must confess that I kind of enjoyed that part…

So anyway, I’ve been reading through Oregon and Washington bicycle law this week – I am searching for ways to communicate to both cyclists and motorists simple ways to improve how we get along.  I’ve started (unsuccessfully) this project before, but then during this week I’ve heard two radio talk hosts (one in Portland and one in Seattle) do segments that were pretty aggressively negative regarding bicycles on the road.  I think these incitements are potentially dangerous to, well, me, for example.  So, maybe rather than just whine about it, I could do something sort of positive – hopeless, I know…

The bicycle laws are complicated (hard to read), and this is part of the problem.  Washington State does have a pretty good “cheat sheet” on bicycle law.

Washington Bicycle Law

Oregon is a little bit tougher (but I’m still looking).  There is a document that includes all of the laws that apply to pedestrians and bicycles .  Part of the reason so few people understand these things becomes apparent – it’s long.

There is a good outline at the top that has links to different parts of the document.  Some of it is good to know.

Oregon Bicycle Law

There is a bit about “Unsafe Passing of Person Operating Bicycle” 811.065, and the term “Due Care” pops up occasionally.

Too make it simple, as cyclists, we are required to do what we would in a car.  Signalling continuously for 100 feet before stopping probably isn’t going to happen, for example, but it’s pretty clear these laws weren’t written by anybody with much time on a bike.

The same goes for rolling stop signs – in Oregon and Washington we’re supposed to stop.  Personally, I want to spend as little time as possible in intersections (I believe in most cases it is safest and many experienced cyclists quickly process the information to do it safely and without disrupting the flow of traffic), so I always slow, and then come to a complete stop (foot down) only when traffic flow and safety require it.  But, blowing through stop signs creates animosity and is not safest for anybody – so maybe we could use our heads a bit.

“Share the Road” means all of us.

Bicycles – Stop Signs

I came across this while searching through Oregon Bicycle Law looking for the possible justification for the aggressive action taken by a motorist I encountered yesterday (I didn’t find it, by the way).

What I did find was this article at Oregon Cycling Magazine that suggests an idea that may (or may not) help relieve some of the tension that exists, particularly it seems in Portland, between cyclists and motorists.

I disagree with the logic of the “since most cyclists already do it, it should be made legal” argument.  But, I have always believed that spending as little time exposed to traffic is a good idea for cyclists, and this type of law would help bicycle riders reduce the amount of time spent in multi-use roadways – I call this place the “Danger Zone”. And, as I also can’t find any law specifically prohibiting running over bicycles, I will personally continue to ride as I see prudent…

So, here’s the article and I say write your congressman – this is a sensible idea.

Are we ready for an Idaho-style bicycle yield law?

by Ray Thomas

Would Oregon benefit from a law, similar to the one in Idaho, allowing bicyclists to slow down, yield to traffic and then travel through stop signs without coming to a complete stop or to stop, yield and then travel (when safe) through red lights?   Many if not most cyclists tend to behave this way at stop signs already and some, though fewer do the same at red lights.  Does it make sense to punish cyclists for slowly and safely riding through a stop sign when no cross traffic or pedestrians are approaching?  Would cooperation and good will between cyclists, motorists and law-enforcement improve if these common sense bicycling practices were made legal?  To answer these questions, it might help to consider the reasons bicyclists often choose not to stop fully at stop signs or to wait all the way through certain red lights.

link to full story

Oregon HB 2690

If you drive, don’t…

As you may know, I’m not a huge fan of Federal Regulation.  A recent story in the Washington Times just makes me look upward and wonder again what everybody was thinking last November.

First, understand that I drive a lot for a guy that isn’t a long-haul trucker – about 30,000 miles / year.  I work, play and visit family and friends all over the west coast and I enjoy the freedom that a car provides.  And, I see all of the stupid stuff people do while they are driving .   Some of them should be relegated to mass transit, for sure, but the vast majority of American motorists kind of get it.

I was also involved with the Mothers Against Drunk Driving program early in my automobile racing career.  A team mate / car owner had a relationship with them and we would speak about their cause (the point being that I have long been familiar with traffic safety issues).  Some thought that the combination of our affiliation with MADD and being car racers made us more interesting talk show guests and speakers than aggrieved mothers – ya think?

On my last two trips to Seattle, traffic suddenly slowed from a speed 2-5 mph above the speed limit to 20 mph below it.  The reason? – signs on the side of Interstate 5 that announce that the speed limit is being “photo enforced”.  Are you kidding me?  I was told the same story by two friends who on different trips encountered the same phenomenon early in a crossing of Arizona.  In those cases traffic was travelling at 80 mph (which can be plenty safe and sane) and quickly slowed to sub 50 mph levels (not so safe).

So, I wonder – are they trying to improve public safety and prevent accidents, mayhem and death, or are they trying to trick people into breaking laws?  How about some simplified law that everybody can understand..?  I mean, until everybody figures out the easy stuff like you shouldn’t just tool along in the left lane at 55 nibbling on your dim sum, and that the law actually allows bicycles to use the road, we probably have enough rules – don’t you think..?

So finally, we get to the story and the inspiration for this post.  The fellow tagged by the Obama Administration to head the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), despite possibly good intentions, appears to be a nut, better suited to writing traffic law in Pyongyang.

Story

And just for fun – If you want to know what the Transportation Czar’s .04 Blood Alcohol Content means to you, here is a way to find out.

Calculator

California to Ban Black Cars?

CARB (the California Air Resources Board) has proposed a mandate that would, as of now, make black cars impossible in California. This is to be done in the name of “global warming”.  

Some states, and even municipalities (in Oregon for example), would very much like to impose their own regulations on automobile manufacturers – this was previously declared a Federal issue by the Bush administration. The purpose of the regulations is to “do good” by mitigating the “damage” done by your car. Now, it seems, that being black is bad. 

Here’s the story: 

CARB So Crazy: California To Ban Black Cars
Autobloggreen recently got its paws on a presentation (PDF, read the whole thing) from the California Air Resource Board’s public “cool cars workshop.” And let’s just say the thing exudes the kind of bureaucratic overreach heretofore only imagined by folks sporting the latest in tinfoil chapeau. Here’s the logic: cars that get hot when they sit require greater air conditioning, which increases fuel consumption and (tada!) air pollution. And since architectural surface coatings are 25-35 percent reflective, there’s no reason not to require similar levels from auto paint, right? Skyscrapers, cars; potato, potahto. CARB will require vehicle surfaces to reflect at least 20 percent of solar energy by 2012, a figure that no black auto paint can currently achieve. One third of OEM palettes must meet the 20 percent mark by then, and all OEM paints must meet the goal by 2016. Oh, yes, and by 2016 even collision repair shops have to use the special paint. The only mitigation for these rules are if you sufficiently increase the Rd factor of your cars windshield glazing. And just to keep a song in your heart, “other compliance options are under investigation.”

The benefits? About .8 million metric tons less CO2 released per year. At an estimated OEM cost of between $39 and $128 per vehicle. But the real price is paid by the consumer, who will not only shoulder the OEM cost increase but will also see repair costs increase while losing the freedom to buy a car in their preferred color. Reducing cooling emissions is one thing in a skyscraper, where a one-time glazing investment can greatly reduce both the cost and environmental impact of cooling. But for government to transfer architectural regulations wholesale to the automotive sector betrays both a lack of perspective and an attitude of regulation-at-all-costs. Given the myriad improvements to efficiency and emissions that continue to occur in the automotive sector, regulating car color comes across as nothing more than an exercise in bureaucratic power for its own sake. And it hastens a world where cars no longer reflect the diversity of our culture and aspirations. Or are we supposed to be happy that CARB didn’t mandate one single acceptable color?

Oregon House Bill 2186

Greetings Comrades – this is the latest from Salem. They will now tell you which tires you are allowed to buy for your Kamaz truck.

After all ” This 2009 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist…”

What could possibly be next?

You drive too much?
You can afford and therefore must drive a hybrid?
You must ride your bike to work 2 days a week?
Red cars upset the four toed Mississippi striped tree squirrel?

And, since the automobile business is currently thriving, it should be great stimulus for the economy… Brilliant.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2100.dir/hb2186.intro.pdf

75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY–2009 Regular Session House Bill 2186

Ordered printed by the Speaker pursuant to House Rule 12.00A (5). Precession filed (at the request of Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski for Department of Environmental Quality)

SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. Authorizes Environmental Quality Commission to adopt rules to help state to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. Specifies rules that commission may adopt. Declares emergency, effective on passage.

A BILL FOR AN ACT Relating to greenhouse gas emissions; and declaring an emergency.Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

SECTION 1. Sections 2 and 3 of this 2009 Act are added to and made a part of ORS chapter 468A.
SECTION 2. As used in section 3 of this 2009 Act:
(1) “Greenhouse gas” has the meaning given that term in ORS 468A.210.
(2) “Heavy-duty truck” has the meaning given that term in ORS 468A.795.
(3) “Medium-duty truck” has the meaning given that term in ORS 468A.795.
(4) “Motor vehicle” has the meaning given that term in ORS 825.005.
SECTION 3.
(1) The Environmental Quality Commission may adopt by rule the following to help this state achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals specified in ORS468A.205:(a) Low carbon fuel standards for fuel that is used for transportation;
(b) Restrictions and prohibitions on the use of substances that contain, release or cause to be released greenhouse gases, if alternatives are available;
(c) Requirements to maintain or retrofit medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks in order to reduce aerodynamic drag and otherwise reduce greenhouse gas emissions from those trucks;
(d) Restrictions and prohibitions on the sale and distribution of after-market motor vehicle parts, including but not limited to tires, if alternatives are available that decrease greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles;
(e) Requirements for motor vehicle service providers to check and inflate tire pressure according to manufacturer recommended specifications; and
(f) Restrictions on engine use by parked commercial vehicles, including but not limited to medium-duty trucks and heavy-duty trucks, and by commercial ships while at port, and requirements that truck stops and ports provide alternatives to engine use such as electric power.
(2) In adopting rules under this section, the commission:
(a) Shall consider safety, feasibility and cost-effectiveness; and
(b) May differentiate between different areas of the state, different greenhouse gases and NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted. New sections are in boldfaced type. LC 605
——————————————————————————–
Page 2
HB 2186123456different categories of substances, fuels, motor vehicles or other equipment or activities that contribute directly or indirectly to greenhouse gas emissions. SECTION 4. This 2009 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2009 Act takes effect on its passage.[2]