What a silly law. If a tire is "inefficient" and therefore "bad", why can't California just ban the sale of them? Instead there will be a new government funded office and rating system with "leaf" icons that 95% of consumers will ignore completely.

Like all types of laws like this, the "$1B" claim will never be reviewed or judged to see how accurate it is. (It's not, at all)

▲

exabrial 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It'll never get reviewed. They'll distract them with something other piece of news.

And don't be shocked if a bunch of California government officials bought a bunch of Goodyear stock right before this.

▲

holgerschurig 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because things aren't as simple as you make up.

"why can't California just ban the sale of them" -- because that infringes freedom too much? There are probably lots of special machines with tires (e.g. in construction, farming, mining) that absolutely need "bad tyres". Because only they work, e.g. due to construction form or physical properties like maximum pressure.

If some armchair person now goes here and outright bans all tyres that don't match some efficiency numbers ... then all of the users of such equipment will be punished. THAT would be an overreaching government action.

However, having some labels that indicate to those customers that care (and can care, because they don't have to consider other constraints) is actually something that enlarges freedom. You get the info, you can act on it, but you're still free to NOT act on it should the circumstances for that be okay. And ultimately it's you that decides this, not some government authority.

▲

matchbok3 8 hours ago | parent [-]

So about 1% of a 1% of a market. Got it. All of the information about the tires is already available. There is no new information, just duplicated.

If a large number of consumers actually cared about their tires drag coefficient we wouldn't be having this conversation, because a large number of consumers already cared about their tires drag coefficient. But nobody does and this law will not change anything.

▲

MBCook 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The fact that information is available somewhere is very different from making it available easily to the consumer right when they need it.

What possible argument is there against that?

Do you really think most consumers didn’t care? Or do you think most consumers don’t even know? Cause I’m willing to bet it’s number two.

	▲	matchbok3 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The argument is it's a waste of time, energy, and money that could be used elsewhere. If the creators of this law really thought this would change behavior, they would put a "review" into the law in 5 years with clear success metrics. But they don't, because this law, like many others, is all about signaling, and not results. And no, most consumers do not care. Do you know how many people buy used tires because they can't afford new ones? Sure, the information is more readily available. But what do you think the overlap is of people who care about very, very, very small improvements to tire efficiency and those who can't spend 10 seconds to look up the information themselves?

▲

kube-system 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If a tire is "inefficient" and therefore "bad", why can't California just ban the sale of them? Instead there will be a new government funded office and rating system

Isn’t it doing both?

▲

SpicyLemonZest 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I understand how the article could make it sound like they're doing some kind of complicated matching process, but what California is doing here is pretty close to just banning the sale of them. They're establishing the rolling resistance coefficient as the state's official measure of tire efficiency, attaching a leaf ranking to different ranges, and through 2031 phasing in maximum values which tires must meet to be sold.