Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on September 20, 2006, 05:39:03 pm
-
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyid=2006-09-20T175818Z_01_N20199499_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-AUTOS.xml&src=rss&rpc=23
:lol:
-
"so what are you suing us for?"
"Were suing you because people buy and use your products, and since they provide a quick and easy scource of transportation. And because we have to many people here who use them."
-
So it is the companies fault? Hardly, people buy these things, its their fault.
-
California has also issued rules to force automakers to cut tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks. Enforcement of those rules is being delayed by litigation from automakers.
The automakers chose to flip California the bird, so they should be hardly surprised when California flips 'em off right back.
-
So it is the companies fault? Hardly, people buy these things, its their fault.
No, but it is the companies faults for not following the rules
-
A way to reduce greenhouses gases and maybe promote alternative fuels? Youre right, that's just silly.
-
Thing is, what California wants, California is ultimately going to get, since it represents the single largest market for cars anywhere. Fighting your main consumers is ultimately futile.
-
Thing is, what California wants, California is ultimately going to get, since it represents the single largest market for cars anywhere. Fighting your main consumers is ultimately futile.
Tell that to Microsoft. :p
-
Thing is, what California wants, California is ultimately going to get, since it represents the single largest market for cars anywhere. Fighting your main consumers is ultimately futile.
Tell that to Microsoft. :p
ZING!
-
Tell that to Microsoft. :p
I did. Bill Gates said he's already rich so he don't care if MS goes down the tubes. :p
-
This is the funniest, I got e-mailed this...............
This is 100% true,
A Charlotte, North Carolina lawyer purchased a box of very rare and
expensive cigars and then insured them against fire, among other
things.
Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great
cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on
the policy, the lawyer filed claim against the insurance company.
In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of
small fires."
The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that
the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.
The lawyer sued and WON!
In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance
company that the claim was frivolous.
The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer "held a policy from
the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable
and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without
defining what is considered to be unacceptable fire" and was
obligated to pay the claim.
Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance
company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his
loss of the cigars lost in the "fires".
NOW FOR THE BEST PART!
After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him
arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!
With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case
being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally
burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail
and a $24,000 fine.
This is a true story and was the First Place winner in the recent
Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.
ONLY IN AMERICA!
-
This is 100% true,
Not according to Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp) it isn't.
-
OK, everything after
"This is the funniest, I got e-mailed this..............."
got e-mailed to me...... :nervous:
Still a chuckle though....... :nod:
-
No, but it is the companies faults for not following the rules
They have a right to litigate. It may be an abuse of the law, however. But the lawsuit doesn't entail that they have broken any standing emmission regulations, but they have created a public nuisance relying on english common law of all things to make their case.
California has also issued rules to force automakers to cut tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks. Enforcement of those rules is being delayed by litigation from automakers.
The automakers chose to flip California the bird, so they should be hardly surprised when California flips 'em off right back.
California might have fired the first shot depending how outrageous or ambitious their new emmissions standards are. Then again, I don't know the exact specifics.
But frankly, California's Enviromental Authority should try and work with the Auto Makers instead of being adversarial
-
Perhaps they did and this was the last resort.
-
Maybe, but considering how adversarial car makers and eviromentalists have been, it wouldn't suprise me if they didn't or won't be willing to sit down with one another and hash out a solution.
-
So like if California asked real real nice?
-
Well, if nothing else, it will at least bring the growing divide in opinion over global warming to the fore in the US.
California is going to have to prove that Global Warming is occuring and being worsened by cars, The Car manufacturers will have to prove that it isn't and/or doesn't. But I'm not sure who the heaviest burden of proof would lay on in this case.
-
When will you yanks learn. Just make your cars run on booze, like I have to do soon. Sigh, its a wacky world.
(Prophet is referring to our new factory that makes ethanol that is to be used on cars)
-
So like if California asked real real nice?
You get more flies with honey instead of vinegar.
-
You're right, California should pay them incentives to not screw up their air.
Automakers have had enough honey over the past x number of years and now that they're spiraling downward it's time to kick them in the butt and get what they should be giving us, not what we're getting.
I look at the news and I think these companies shouldn't really be getting honey from us.
-
The thing is, until someone puts pressure on them, you can be almost certain that car manufacturers are going to be more concerned with adding gizmos to justify the price-tag than what is under the hood. After all, Petrol is the consumers' problem.
-
You get more flies with honey instead of vinegar.
Unless of course they laughed in your face first. They don't want to change. They won't unless forced.
-
Except they are not screwing up the air. The MORONS that buy these bahemoths are the real culprits.
-
I believe that's called weak induction. Since, after all, they are making these things available for no real reason save that they can.
-
Except people are willing and wanting buy them. There is demand for them, and they are filling that demand. That is a reason to make them availiable. No one says that people have to buy an SUV. Individuals make that choice. And proceed to consume far too much fuel.
-
So deny them the choice. That's why we have laws. There's a demand for crystal meth-- that doesn't mean we have to make it a legitimate market.
-
Hey... I like my crystal meth. :p
In todays society, it's very hard to get by without a car, there's no reason not to make cars that run on somthing cleaner than gasoline and phase out the cars that do.
-
It's not our fault! We didn't want to sell them these types of cars, they made us! We kept asking them if they wanted alternative fuel cars for decades!
You can't blame us.
-
Except people are willing and wanting buy them. There is demand for them, and they are filling that demand. That is a reason to make them availiable. No one says that people have to buy an SUV. Individuals make that choice. And proceed to consume far too much fuel.
Oh please. Every time I hear this argument, I wonder about the common sense behind it.
Do you honestly think of the global consequences of every single one of your actions? Do you buy biodegradable or recyclable versions of everything? Do you consider the effects that your purchase will have on the global automotive economy? The effects that that will have on the jobs of workers? How that will affect the numbers of illegal immigrants? (insert other major topical point here)?
Do you think that everyone who has and will buy a car has the time, ability, willingness, and good information to consider all of those every single time they make a purchase?
Probably not.
More likely, they're thinking that "this purchase is going to last me years. If I'm able to sell it, it'll be at a loss. Therefore, I should favor buying something that I really want, even if it means spending a few extra, because changing my mind later on will be far far more expensive (and may not be financially possible)"
Furthermore, not everyone can plonk down $15k+ for an 'environmentally friendly' car. The best way to make them cheaper is to increase the amount of demand. Demand is unlikely to increase while the prices are high (In fact, production may come at a loss). Therefore, the only way for things to get sped along to prevent serious issues if and when there is a gas shortage, is to artificially inflate the demand by either penalizing manufacturers for not producing more fuel efficient cars, or by rewarding them for producing more fuel efficient cars. Both has its merits and downsides.
From what I understand, the reason that other countries have cheap, fuel efficient cars, but the US doesn't, is because of the momentum of the infrastructure. There are few alternative fuel stations, so alternative fuel cars have extremely limited use. Alternative fuel stations can only function as long as they get used. etc etc. It's a nasty little self-sustaining cycle that somebody has to step in and take a risk to make the first move to get anything going.
-
So deny them the choice. That's why we have laws. There's a demand for crystal meth-- that doesn't mean we have to make it a legitimate market.
Actually we should. People should be allowed to **** up their own lives and bodies if they want.
-
Actually we should. People should be allowed to **** up their own lives and bodies if they want.
Quite right, booze and smokes FTW !!!!!!
-
Except people are willing and wanting buy them. There is demand for them, and they are filling that demand. That is a reason to make them availiable. No one says that people have to buy an SUV. Individuals make that choice. And proceed to consume far too much fuel.
Oh please. Every time I hear this argument, I wonder about the common sense behind it.
Do you honestly think of the global consequences of every single one of your actions? Do you buy biodegradable or recyclable versions of everything? Do you consider the effects that your purchase will have on the global automotive economy? The effects that that will have on the jobs of workers? How that will affect the numbers of illegal immigrants? (insert other major topical point here)?
Do you think that everyone who has and will buy a car has the time, ability, willingness, and good information to consider all of those every single time they make a purchase?
Probably not.
More likely, they're thinking that "this purchase is going to last me years. If I'm able to sell it, it'll be at a loss. Therefore, I should favor buying something that I really want, even if it means spending a few extra, because changing my mind later on will be far far more expensive (and may not be financially possible)"
Furthermore, not everyone can plonk down $15k+ for an 'environmentally friendly' car. The best way to make them cheaper is to increase the amount of demand. Demand is unlikely to increase while the prices are high (In fact, production may come at a loss). Therefore, the only way for things to get sped along to prevent serious issues if and when there is a gas shortage, is to artificially inflate the demand by either penalizing manufacturers for not producing more fuel efficient cars, or by rewarding them for producing more fuel efficient cars. Both has its merits and downsides.
From what I understand, the reason that other countries have cheap, fuel efficient cars, but the US doesn't, is because of the momentum of the infrastructure. There are few alternative fuel stations, so alternative fuel cars have extremely limited use. Alternative fuel stations can only function as long as they get used. etc etc. It's a nasty little self-sustaining cycle that somebody has to step in and take a risk to make the first move to get anything going.
So not thinking about the enviromental consequences of your actions is ok? You want to give people who buy HUGE automobiles and waste gas a pardon for their stupidity by suing the car manufacturers? People buying an SUV are not concerned about an enviromentally sound automobile, anyway. They seem to have plenty of money to waste on an huge SUVs that are in excess of 25,000 or more.
-
Should see the RAV4 a woman near me drives. It is F*****g huge. Gotta be 6/6&half foot tall. Probably crush my manta and she wouldn't even feel it.
-
@Red,
That's kind of the point. You live in Texas too, so you know full well that these rednecks are not going to willingly give up their gargantuan superduty pickup trucks. Same for the SUV-driving yuppies in the cities. They see it as a matter of buying safety for themselves and have no moral qualms about the safety and environmental cleanliness it takes away from everyone else. Yes, they ARE in the wrong, but they are not going to change willingly, and you cannot sue them all.
Forcing the car companies to stop feeding these idiots addiction seems a much more effective way of fixing the problem.
That said, this lawsuit is probably going to work out to be more of a publicity stunt than anything else. I just cannot see them winning in our current court system. But, it WILL get more national and international attention focused on the issue. That will put even more pressure on the car companies to come clean. I mean, seriously, the technology is there. Has been for years, it just isn't cheap unless it is seriously mass-produced. Any type of car is horrendously expensive if you only make a few of them. Ford proved that almost a hundred years ago.
I hope California wins in court, but even if they don't good can still come of this.
-
But at the same time is it really just to go after the car companies instead? They are not the ones truly perpetrating the act. And there are times when a massive truck is a reasonable need. On the same tokan, who are we to say to the inbread redneck what is best for them. Although, in this case, there acts cross the line and harm others.
I have no problem with SOUND and REASONABLE regulations. The problem is that you cannot just spring a set of ambitious regulations on the private industry while technology might be there, the means to mass produce it will be an issue. I do look forward to fuel cell cars in about 15-20 years.
-
Yeah, I think it is fair to go after them. If the effort (and stupid amounts of money) they'd spent lobbying against environmental reform and publishing psuedo-scientific "research" claiming things like global warming were fictious... if that effort had been spent instead on actually addressing the problem rather than trying to dodge responsibility, they wouldn't be looking down the barrel of an angry California now. They had plenty of time to act responsibly, but they elected to exploit and even encourage the prejudices and ignorance of the public.
Again, I doubt California will win, though.
-
They do have free speech rights, don't they?
And not all of California is angry, just the AG and whoever supports him.
-
I fail to see what free speach has to do with it. Please elaborate.
-
You are saying they should be punished for resisting emmission changes and I am saying they can create what ever BS reports they want.
-
They can. But the state also has the right to sue them for causing damage to the enviroment.
And it's got nothing to do with free speech at all.
-
Simple: the government takes half the price of any environmentally-unfriendly car sold new. This forces the car campanies to either severly reduce there profit margins and gimmicks while keeping prices the same, or they increase the price of gas-guzzler cars by a large amount.
Or they can bite the bullet and start producing cars that the fine won't be levied upon.
-
I am saying they can create what ever BS reports they want.
And they will later get nailed in a lawsuit for purposely misleading the public.
-
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/business/15605010.htm
i found another funny lawsuit
-
They can mislead the public whatever way they want. They can't, iirc, be sued. UNLESS, they commit slander or libel.
Is this legal, I think so. Is it ethical, obviously no.
-
Yup, alas America does have a rather large share of Ambulance chasers....
http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=17326
-
They can mislead the public whatever way they want. They can't, iirc, be sued.
If misleading the public causes harm to the public, I am pretty sure they can be sued. The right to free speech ends when it causes harm to others. That's why it is illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded cinema when there is no fire.
-
"When it brings harm to others" is vague in that Ford isn't causing a panic in a theatre. Nor does anyone believe them for the most part. Sueing under such would be difficult, regaurdless.
-
That was an example. Maybe the damage is not short term, but the same concept applies.
-
I am just saying, winning something like that would take;
A. A very good set of lawyers
B. A very sympathetic judge.
-
Even funnier...
http://www.wwaytv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5467750&nav=menu70_2
In other news, Israel is suing Egypt for reparations for enslaving them 6000 years ago.
-
Wheres the witnesses....... :nervous:
-
Likly, they dug up ancient charters and shipping logs from 300 YEARS ago and are using those.
-
Does the Us still have tax breaks (http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction-2005.htm) for buying polluting cars?
-
CAUTION: Congress is currently considering reducing the $25,000
limitation on large SUVs down to approximately $3,000 in the first year. This would put the deduction for the large SUVs on an even footing with regular car depreciation. Any changes to
this $25,000 figure would probably be effective on the day the bill is signed by the President, or possibly an effective start date of January 1, 2006. If you're going to buy one of these heavy vehicles, my advice is sooner rather than later.
It is still there, just reduced.
-
Likly, they dug up ancient charters and shipping logs from 300 YEARS ago and are using those.
As long as they dont start touting the Bibble as evidence..... ::)
-
So
Except people are willing and wanting buy them. There is demand for them, and they are filling that demand. That is a reason to make them availiable. No one says that people have to buy an SUV. Individuals make that choice. And proceed to consume far too much fuel.
is unfair, because not buying big pollutant cars actually comes with a loss of (tax refund) money, then. It's one thing to choose between x and y where x and y are equal; another between x+$ and y.
-
Likly, they dug up ancient charters and shipping logs from 300 YEARS ago and are using those.
As long as they dont start touting the Bibble as evidence..... ::)
Eh, that probably all they have to go on. However, I can say with certinty[spelling] that they did not build the pyramids.
-
We all know that was Predators and Ra.....