Jump to content
Create New...

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'disagreement'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Brand Discussion
    • Acura
    • Alfa Romeo
    • Aston Martin
    • Audi
    • Bentley
    • BMW
    • Bugatti
    • Buick
    • BYD
    • Cadillac
    • Chevrolet
    • Chrysler
    • Citroen and DS
    • Dodge
    • Ferrari
    • Fiat
    • Fisker
    • Ford
    • General Motors
    • Genesis
    • GMC Trucks
    • Heritage Marques
    • Honda
    • Hyundai
    • Infiniti
    • Jaguar
    • Jeep
    • Karma
    • Kia
    • Lamborghini
    • Land Rover
    • Lexus
    • Lincoln
    • Lotus
    • Lucid
    • Maserati
    • Mazda
    • McLaren
    • Mercedes-Benz
    • MINI
    • Mitsubishi
    • Nissan
    • Opel/Vauxhall
    • Other Makes
    • Peugeot
    • Polestar
    • Porsche
    • Ram
    • Renault
    • Rivian
    • Rolls-Royce
    • SAAB / NEVS
    • Scout
    • SEAT
    • Skoda
    • SMART
    • Stellantis
    • Subaru
    • Suzuki
    • Tata
    • Tesla
    • Toyota
    • VinFast
    • Volkswagen
    • Volvo
  • Auto Shows
    • North American International Auto Show in Detroit (NAIAS)
    • CES
    • Japan Mobility Show / Tokyo Auto Salon
    • Beijing Motor Show
    • Chicago Auto Show (CAS)
    • New York International Auto Show (NYIAS)
    • Geneva International Motor Show
    • Auto Shanghai
    • Paris Motor Show
    • International Motor Show - Germany
    • LA Auto Show
    • S.E.M.A
    • Other Auto Shows
  • News and Views
    • Reviews
    • Opinion
    • Industry News
    • Motorcycles
    • Reader Reviews
    • Sales Figure Ticker
  • Social Central
    • The Lounge
    • Member's Rides Showcase
    • Advertising Archive
    • New Member Check-In
    • Auctions and Classifieds
    • Site News and Feedback
    • Merchandise Lookout
    • Newsletters
  • Forum Information
  • Tech Corner
    • Tech Section
    • Electronics & Technology
    • Product Questions and Reviews
    • Alternative Fuels & Propulsion
    • Powertrain
  • Design Studio
  • Cadillac Appreciation Club's Cadillac Discussion
  • European Car Lovers's Topics
  • EV Fans's Discussion

Categories

  • News
    • Acura
    • Alfa Romeo
    • Alternative Fuels
    • Aston Martin
    • Audi
    • Automotive Industry
    • Bentley
    • BMW
    • BYD
    • Bugatti
    • Buick
    • Cadillac
    • Chevrolet
    • Chrysler
    • Citroen and DS
    • Dodge
    • Ferrari
    • Fiat
    • Fisker
    • Ford
    • Genesis
    • General Motors
    • GMC
    • Holden
    • Honda
    • Hyundai
    • Infiniti
    • Jaguar
    • Jeep
    • Karma
    • Kia
    • Lamborghini
    • Land Rover
    • Lexus
    • Lincoln
    • Lotus
    • Lucid Motors
    • Maserati
    • Mazda
    • McLaren
    • Mercedes Benz
    • MINI
    • Mitsubishi
    • Motorcycle News
    • Nissan
    • Opel/Vauxhall
    • Peugeot
    • Polestar
    • Porsche
    • Ram Trucks
    • Renault
    • Rivian
    • Rolls-Royce
    • Saab / NEVS
    • Sales Figures
    • Scion
    • Scout
    • SEAT
    • Skoda
    • SMART
    • Stellantis
    • Subaru
    • Tesla
    • Toyota
    • Volkswagen
    • Volvo
    • VinFast
    • Zotye
  • Auto Shows
    • North American International Autoshow (NAIAS-Detroit)
    • C.E.S.
    • Chicago Auto Show (CAS)
    • New York International Auto Show (NYIAS)
    • Geneva International Motor Show
    • Beijing Motor Show
    • Auto Shanghai
    • Paris Motor Show
    • International Auto Show - Germany
    • Los Angeles Auto Show
    • SEMA
    • Japan Mobility Show / Tokyo Auto Salon
  • Reviews
  • Opinion
  • How Do I?

Calendars

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 2 results

  1. When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this. Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes. The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th. Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate." The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim. “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th. Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect. How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators. “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus. Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently. "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.” Source: Bloomberg
  2. When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this. Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes. The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th. Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate." The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim. “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th. Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect. How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators. “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus. Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently. "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.” Source: Bloomberg View full article
×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search