Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'disagreement'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • News and Views
    • Staff Reviews
    • Reader Reviews
    • Auto Show Coverage
    • Sales Figure Ticker
    • Editorials
    • Competitions
    • Industry News
    • Motorsports
  • Brand Discussion
    • Aston Martin
    • BMW Group
    • Daimler AG
    • Fiat-Chrysler Automobiles
    • Karma
    • Ferrari
    • Fisker
    • Ford Motor Company
    • General Motors
    • Honda Motor Company
    • Hyundai Motor Group
    • Jaguar-Land Rover
    • Lotus
    • Mazda
    • McLaren Automotive
    • Nissan-Renault Alliance
    • Peugeot
    • Rivian
    • SAAB / NEVS
    • Subaru
    • Suzuki
    • Tesla
    • Toyota Motor Corporation
    • Chinese Automakers
    • Volkswagen Automotive Group
    • Volvo
    • The British
    • The Italians
    • The French
  • Heritage Marques
  • Forum Information
  • Social Central
  • Tech Corner
  • Design Studio
  • Cadillac Appreciation Club's Cadillac Discussion
  • European Car Lovers's Topics

Categories

  • Auto Shows
    • Detroit Auto Show
    • Consumer Electronics Show (CES)
    • Chicago Auto Show
    • New York Auto Show
    • Geneva Auto Show
    • Beijing Auto Show
    • Shanghai Auto Show
    • Paris Motor Show
    • Frankfurt International Motor Show
    • Los Angeles Auto Show
    • SEMA
    • Tokyo Motor Show
  • Opinion
  • News
    • Acura
    • Alfa Romeo
    • Alternative Fuels
    • Aston Martin
    • Audi
    • Automotive Industry
    • Bentley
    • BMW
    • Buick
    • Cadillac
    • Chevrolet
    • Chrysler
    • Dodge
    • Ducati
    • Ferrari
    • Fiat
    • Fisker
    • Ford
    • Genesis
    • GM News
    • GMC
    • Holden
    • Honda
    • Hyundai
    • Infiniti
    • Jaguar
    • Jeep
    • Karma
    • Kia
    • Lamborghini
    • Land Rover
    • Lexus
    • Lincoln
    • Lotus
    • Maserati
    • Mazda
    • McLaren
    • Mercedes Benz
    • MINI
    • Mitsubishi
    • Nissan
    • Opel/Vauxhall
    • Peugeot
    • Polestar
    • Porsche
    • Ram Trucks
    • Rivian
    • Rolls-Royce
    • Saab / NEVS
    • Sales Figures
    • Scion
    • SMART
    • Subaru
    • Tesla
    • Toyota
    • Volkswagen
    • Volvo
    • Zotye
  • Reviews
  • Deal Alert

Categories

  • Tires and Wheel Specials
  • Automotive Maintenance Specials

Product Groups

  • Converted Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Hosting

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


GooglePlus


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

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...