California, at 760 miles north to south, has such a variety of climates that the 30% or so of available tires is insufficient to handle all of the driving conditions. What will work in Los Angeles is not going to be useful in the Sierra Nevada mountains. People are going to die if they are being forced to use a product that isn't designed for the environment in which it is being used. It would seem to me that this directly falls under the purview of the NTSB and the Supremacy Clause should apply. Hopefully someone at that agency will tell Newsome and his ilk that energy efficiency isn't the only criteria that matters.
I seem to recall someone saying that these tires don't last as long either? Which would mean you're getting tires more often, if true. But of course the big thing is going to be all of the dead people as we see an increase in motor vehicle accidents. A -REALLY- big increase. So more wrecks, more insurance claims, more people losing money, more deaths.
Eventually they'll be forced to lower speed limits, especially when it's raining, and less companies will offer collision insurance, that or the premiums will go sky high.
Hmmm..... OK, if rolling resistance is the criteria you use, this is a very simple solution we can all try (and benefit from).
Look carefully at the small print cast in to the sidewall of your vehicle tires. The manufacturer will list the maximum inflation pressure for that tire. Go ahead, get out the tire pressure gauge, air compressor, hose and air chuck. Fill your tires to 70-80% of that max pressure.
The pressure listed on the decal on your door frame by the vehicle manufacturer is more for ride quality vs. fuel mileage and tread wear. I've done this with my F-150 and experience better fuel mileage and tire wear.
A follow up question for the government "experts".
Did you include the effects on the environment from the additional crashes, burning vehicles, and spills caused by your great idea for low-traction tires?
California, at 760 miles north to south, has such a variety of climates that the 30% or so of available tires is insufficient to handle all of the driving conditions. What will work in Los Angeles is not going to be useful in the Sierra Nevada mountains. People are going to die if they are being forced to use a product that isn't designed for the environment in which it is being used. It would seem to me that this directly falls under the purview of the NTSB and the Supremacy Clause should apply. Hopefully someone at that agency will tell Newsome and his ilk that energy efficiency isn't the only criteria that matters.
One would hope… sigh
I seem to recall someone saying that these tires don't last as long either? Which would mean you're getting tires more often, if true. But of course the big thing is going to be all of the dead people as we see an increase in motor vehicle accidents. A -REALLY- big increase. So more wrecks, more insurance claims, more people losing money, more deaths.
Eventually they'll be forced to lower speed limits, especially when it's raining, and less companies will offer collision insurance, that or the premiums will go sky high.
Hmmm..... OK, if rolling resistance is the criteria you use, this is a very simple solution we can all try (and benefit from).
Look carefully at the small print cast in to the sidewall of your vehicle tires. The manufacturer will list the maximum inflation pressure for that tire. Go ahead, get out the tire pressure gauge, air compressor, hose and air chuck. Fill your tires to 70-80% of that max pressure.
The pressure listed on the decal on your door frame by the vehicle manufacturer is more for ride quality vs. fuel mileage and tread wear. I've done this with my F-150 and experience better fuel mileage and tire wear.
No real need to ban 70% of the tires.
Yep. Same here.
It appears that some government "experts" got a wild hair up their rearends.
Issues:
Traction in corners.
Traction with cold tires on cold surfaces.
Damage to roads.
Traction in poor conditions including: Rain, ice, snow, mud, etc.
Of course, the government does not allow itself to be sued.
Maybe the federal government can step in. Trump is not fond of California's wacky ideas and the fed controls lots of freeway/highway funding.
A follow up question for the government "experts".
Did you include the effects on the environment from the additional crashes, burning vehicles, and spills caused by your great idea for low-traction tires?
Of course not. Not in their 'swim lane'... sigh