Comment by AnthonyMouse
10 hours ago
> No. The article is about someone who is whining about having to comply with regulation. But not all regulation, only the one they feel they are having trouble complying with.
Which brings us to the question of whether the regulation they're complaining about is actually objectionable. And it appears that they rather have a point. Why should they have to spend millions of dollars testing for something that makes no sense in this context? Why is the government even testing for this at all, when fuel is a semi truck's primary operating cost and buyers are going to be highly sensitive to fuel efficiency independent of any government regulations?
> You can imagine all hypotheticals you wish.
This is not a hypothetical unless your contention is that all existing regulations are entirely without flaws or inefficiencies.
> We need to discuss objectively verifiable facts if you want to attack specific regulations, though.
Do you want to try to defend the rule requiring them to spend millions of dollars on certifications for no apparent benefit to anyone?
> Why should they have to spend millions of dollars testing for something that makes no sense in this context?
To have data to back the claims being made.
The requirement doesn't depend on the company having made any particular claims.
False. The claim, even if implicit, is "does not increase emissions beyond particular threshold within particular operational domain".
Further, the article makes a claim that there are more emissions testing groups to test on than there are individual members, which cannot be true.
4 replies →