Posts
Once again, casting my eye to California, I ask, "What, exactly, is wrong with letting people decide for themselves?"
Jalopnik has a story about how California is going to start forcing people to buy a particular kind of tire over all other kinds.
Specifically shallow-tread, low rolling resistance tires. (In the article they use 8.5/32"... I think someone failed fractions and that made them decide to go into journalism because math is too hard. 17/64" is what you were looking for, Mr Hughes.)
Those tires last 27k miles instead of 40-50k.
On the plus side, that could save the average driver a whole $176 over four years!
At California prices, that's just under 40 gallons of gas.
Considering that the average driver puts 10k miles a year on their car, you need tires every 2.7 years instead of every 4-5. Tires are, at least, an $800 cost and they want you to do it, about, twice as often. Gee, thanks Mr Mx Government Man Person!
Improved gas mileage is only one consideration for what you want a tire to do, as they mention in the article.
The problem, in their minds, is people come to the wrong conclusion about what suits their needs; so they must be forced to make the CORRECT decision. They're doing it for our own good! Even worse, they're once again using Europe's already favoring such shitty tires as a justification for doing it.
If I wanted to live in a place like Europe, there's a place called "Europe" that I could move my happy ass to and get all the Europing my heart desires without sullying myself with provincial 'Mericanism.
The thing is, the invisible hand is better at making this decision. Always has been, always will be.
The really depressing thing is that in a relatively free market, the cost of something is a pretty good indication of how much it impacts the environment. That means that it most likely damages the environment more to replace the tires than to burn the gas. This law accomplishes the exact opposite of what it purports to.
ReplyDeleteDaosus