New California law regarding replacement tires [ADMIN WARNING: NO POLITICS]

[Zoidz]

"The proposed regulations are designed to ensure that replacement tires are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold on new vehicles. The proposed regulations would also promote driver safety by setting a minimum wet grip standard."

These are opposing criteria. Improving wet traction requires a softer compound and/or additional sipes, which reduces efficiency.

Any talk of financial payback to the consumer is dellusional or intentionally deceptive. Government administrative costs for this program ultimately will result in tax increases. Feel good bureaucracy at its finest.

Sponsored

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

"The proposed regulations are designed to ensure that replacement tires are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold on new vehicles. The proposed regulations would also promote driver safety by setting a minimum wet grip standard."

These are opposing criteria. Improving wet traction requires a softer compound and/or additional sipes, which reduces efficiency.

Any talk of financial payback to the consumer is dellusional or intentionally deceptive. Government administrative costs for this program ultimately will result in tax increases. Feel good bureaucracy at its finest.

Exactly. It’s a politically expedient action with disregard to unintended consequences.

 

[Dave Cundiff]

"The proposed regulations are designed to ensure that replacement tires are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold on new vehicles. The proposed regulations would also promote driver safety by setting a minimum wet grip standard."

These are opposing criteria. Improving wet traction requires a softer compound and/or additional sipes, which reduces efficiency.

Any talk of financial payback to the consumer is dellusional or intentionally deceptive. Government administrative costs for this program ultimately will result in tax increases.

My understanding is that the measurements of energy efficiency and wet traction are being done anyway -- the administrative costs of the testing shouldn't be substantially extra. While there will be direct government costs here, they'll be spread among California's 40 million people. I would bet few will notice them.

All cost estimations should take into account the fact that California has very high energy costs. Energy efficiencies produce dollar savings in California faster than almost anywhere else.

Do tires with that combination of energy efficiency and wet traction currently cost a lot more than other tires? If so, I expect that competitive capitalism (whose big strengths are adaptation and resource allocation) will seek efficiencies and probably find them. If not, this may be a low-cost program from the beginning.

It’s a politically expedient action with disregard to unintended consequences.

Very possibly so, @UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan, although I wouldn't expect an unintended-consequences analysis to be reported in the press even if California had done it.

It seems to me that it is almost universal for humans (government, corporate, or individual) to undervalue the importance of unintended consequences. This is so universal that Eric Sevareid said, "The real cause of problems is solutions." (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/06/18/solutions/#google_vignette)

Best to all!

 

[Count Orlok]

time to install tracks

 

[Hereforthesnacks]

time to install tracks

Tank mode

 

[SANZC02]

My understanding is that the measurements of energy efficiency and wet traction are being done anyway -- the administrative costs of the testing shouldn't be substantially extra. While there will be direct government costs here, they'll be spread among California's 40 million people. I would bet few will notice them.

All cost estimations should take into account the fact that California has very high energy costs. Energy efficiencies produce dollar savings in California faster than almost anywhere else.

Do tires with that combination of energy efficiency and wet traction currently cost a lot more than other tires? If so, I expect that competitive capitalism (whose big strengths are adaptation and resource allocation) will seek efficiencies and probably find them. If not, this may be a low-cost program from the beginning.



Very possibly so, @UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan, although I wouldn't expect an unintended-consequences analysis to be reported in the press even if California had done it.

It seems to me that it is almost universal for humans (government, corporate, or individual) to undervalue the importance of unintended consequences. This is so universal that Eric Sevareid said, "The real cause of problems is solutions." (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/06/18/solutions/#google_vignette)

Best to all!

The price increase will not be related to the testing requirements. It will be related to the material and design cost in order to make the tires be able to pass the requirements.

As I indicated in an earlier post the Michelin Defenders I purchased already meet the standards but it is not considered a discount tire selling in the $335 dollar range. The issue will be can manufacturers meet those standards in the $150-$250 or below ranges. That is where people on tighter budgets will be shopping.

I hope that it does not force people to drive around on unsafe tires with no lower price options to get them replaced. I could be wrong and maybe the discount tires will be able to meet the requirements. I guess we will see starting in 2029.

 

[VandalSibs]

time to install tracks

Some movie beat us to it:

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

The price increase will not be related to the testing requirements. It will be related to the material and design cost in order to make the tires be able to pass the requirements.

As I indicated in an earlier post the Michelin Defenders I purchased already meet the standards but it is not considered a discount tire selling in the $335 dollar range. The issue will be can manufacturers meet those standards in the $150-$250 or below ranges. That is where people on tighter budgets will be shopping.

I hope that it does not force people to drive around on unsafe tires with no lower price options to get them replaced. I could be wrong and maybe the discount tires will be able to meet the requirements. I guess we will see starting in 2029.

Two things we know already…

Manufacturers will always pass cost of jumping through CA’s regulatory hoops to consumers. The CA “safe” handgun roster is prime example. Sig P365 sold in neighboring NV for $359 is suddenly $499 in CA (was originally over 500 at launch and for more than a year). The only difference between the two SKUs is loaded chamber indicator (a simple mechanical device, a short lever + spring) and a magazine disconnect (yet another simple mechanical device). Neither of which add up to price difference.

People are already driving on unsafe tires. If they have to choose between tires and eviction… they’re not choosing to spend on tires. Orange County, third most populous in state, recently revised low income threshold to around $104k annual gross. Affordability is already a big problem.

 

[mkhuffman]

... Eric Sevareid said, "The real cause of problems is solutions."

Best to all!

"The real cause of problems is government solutions".

Fixed it!

Reminds me of "I'm from the government and I am here to help". Run away! Run away!

 

[Dave Cundiff]

"The real cause of problems is government solutions".

Fixed it!

Reminds me of "I'm from the government and I am here to help". Run away! Run away!

I wish I could agree with sweeping generalizations in either direction. Trying to stay away from partisan politics, here's what I think I know:

To do what citizens need, government needs authority and resources. Anytime any entity (public or private) is entrusted with authority over others, or entrusted with resources derived from the public, it needs oversight. Oversight always takes time and often requires funding.

That's not a simple position.

It's not always comfortable figuring out the nuances of each situation. But it's a lot more accurate representation of reality than "government always does good" (which leads to dictatorship) or "government always does harm" (which leads to cynicism and thus to bad government).

It turns out, to paraphrase Thomas Paine, "eternal vigilance" is not just the price of liberty -- it's the price of EVERYTHING. If we want to benefit from roads, police, education, courts, etc. (none of which is easy to provide universally without tax support), we have to be discerning and diligent citizens.

***

BACKGROUND: I've worked maybe 40% of my career in government, maybe 60% in the private sector. I've seen the "inside politics" of both types of organizations. When public or private organizations have a shared and community-minded vision of the organization's purpose, mission, resources, and rulebook, you tend to get a high-functioning and helpful organization. That's fairly unusual in both the private and public sector, but I've seen it in both. Mostly, we bring all our human faults into everything we do....

***
Best wishes!

 

[iamnid]

Energy is expensive in CA, forcing people to spend a little more on efficiency focused tires will probably end up saving people money.

There is ZERO chance this will end up saving consumers money.

 

[Dark-Fx]

There is ZERO chance this will end up saving consumers money.

Oh ye of little faith.

https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2024/12/walmart-prices-poverty-economy/681122/

 

[mkhuffman]

I wish I could agree with sweeping generalizations in either direction. Trying to stay away from partisan politics, here's what I think I know:

To do what citizens need, government needs authority and resources. Anytime any entity (public or private) is entrusted with authority over others, or entrusted with resources derived from the public, it needs oversight. Oversight always takes time and often requires funding.

That's not a simple position.

It's not always comfortable figuring out the nuances of each situation. But it's a lot more accurate representation of reality than "government always does good" (which leads to dictatorship) or "government always does harm" (which leads to cynicism and thus to bad government).

It turns out, to paraphrase Thomas Paine, "eternal vigilance" is not just the price of liberty -- it's the price of EVERYTHING. If we want to benefit from roads, police, education, courts, etc. (none of which is easy to provide universally without tax support), we have to be discerning and diligent citizens.

***

BACKGROUND: I've worked maybe 40% of my career in government, maybe 60% in the private sector. I've seen the "inside politics" of both types of organizations. When public or private organizations have a shared and community-minded vision of the organization's purpose, mission, resources, and rulebook, you tend to get a high-functioning and helpful organization. That's fairly unusual in both the private and public sector, but I've seen it in both. Mostly, we bring all our human faults into everything we do....

***
Best wishes!

Personally I supported the US Federal Government for 26 years and made friends with a lot of good people who were serving for the right reasons. But they are the few. There are so many employees of the government who are a waste, delivering very little and doing just enough to not get fired. You know I am right.

The point is waste in the private sector only impacts that business, but waste in the public sector impacts every single taxpayer. They are not equivalent, as you attempted to say they are.

Failure in the private sector means that company goes out of business. Failure in the public sector means the taxpayers just pay more. Every public sector failure results in spending more of the taxpayer's money. Fixing a public sector problem always requires more taxpayer money. Nobody ever gets fired. Or goes bankrupt. Right?

There is a huge difference.

 

[Dave Cundiff]

An interesting argument, @mkhuffman. I don't know how many forum participants are still interested, but here's a response I think is reasonable:

Personally I supported the US Federal Government for 26 years and made friends with a lot of good people who were serving for the right reasons. But they are the few. There are so many employees of the government who are a waste, delivering very little and doing just enough to not get fired.

So the ones you know are OK, but the ones you don't know aren't OK? That seems possible, but statistically unlikely.

Government employees are PEOPLE. When well led, they generally perform with excellence. When government organizations become dysfunctional, they perform poorly even with talented employees (although the most talented tend to leave ANY workplace where they can't excel and feel secure).

In my experience, the private sector operates in about the same way. Mission-based performance appears to be rare in both governmental or non-governmental organizations, in the absence of an obvious external threat.

The point is waste in the private sector only impacts that business, but waste in the public sector impacts every single taxpayer. They are not equivalent, as you attempted to say they are.

Partly true, I believe -- but waste in the private sector also slows the country's progress down, unless the waste is actively fixed. That isn't automatic, in either public or private organizations.

Failure in the private sector means that company goes out of business.

Or reduces its dividend, or reduces its investments in the future, or uses political connections to get one type of subsidy or another to compensate for its failure.....

Failure in the public sector means the taxpayers just pay more. Every public sector failure results in spending more of the taxpayer's money. Fixing a public sector problem always requires more taxpayer money.

In my experience, it depends whose services are suffering. If those being served have less political power, sometimes there's no extra spending -- just poor services.

If those being served have powerful enough advocates, sometimes more money is spent -- and sometimes efficiency is fixed. It all depends.

Nobody ever gets fired. Or goes bankrupt. Right?

Public employees DO get fired -- sometimes for good reasons, and sometimes for foolish reasons. Same as private-sector employees.

***

Returning to the original premise of this thread: One of the many ways markets can fail consumers is when they are flooded with poor-quality goods and services, such that either people can't tell the difference or people can't find the good-quality stuff or the high-quality stuff can't achieve economies of scale because so many people are buying cheaper stuff that's worse for them and/or worse for the environment in the long run.

***

I don't know enough about California's replacement tire market to judge the specific case. I hope California's regulators have good information and a public-service commitment, but I don't know enough to judge whether that's the case or not. I'm glad California has journalists and elections.

It is not true to state that "Government always does good." It is also not true to state that "Government always does harm." It's our job as citizens to discern the difference, and to vote accordingly, the best we can.

The genius of democracy is like the genius of science: In both fields, people make significant errors. But in both democracy and science, there are mechanisms by which errors can be fixed.

***

Very best wishes!

Sponsored