Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
phicurious86

EPA and Motorcycles

Recommended Posts

AlbatrossCafe
It will never happen. Just like there was that "alarmist" article on something like "Government to outlaw working on your own car?". This is way too much overreach, even by the government's standards.
 
 
There would be WAY too much backlash. People would still race, but it would no longer be on the "up and up", just as the alcohol prohibition and the current marijuana prohibition (for most states, anyway) didn't/don't stop those things.
 
 
Edit: Found article, thought it is automakers, not government who propose the ban: https://www.mrconservative.com/2015/04/57886-new-rules-could-ban-you-from-fixing-your-own-car/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pineappleunderthesea
The car crowd is sounding alarm too. But we already know that changing out an exhaust can be problematic in the first place (i.e. no cat), yet I don't see government agencies ripping them off our bikes.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlbatrossCafe
The car crowd is sounding alarm too. But we already know that changing out an exhaust can be problematic in the first place (i.e. no cat), yet I don't see government agencies ripping them off our bikes.
True... about 50% of motorcycles in America are already "outlawed" by that standard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
captainmay
I don't mean any disrespect to anyone on here, but to say it will never happen is naïve in my opinion. The government is constantly growing, constantly overreaching, and generally constantly seeking more and more control. Just look at what is coming from the "Waters of the United States" ruling from the EPA. That is even more scary than this.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yamahappy74
I don't mean any disrespect to anyone on here, but to say it will never happen is naïve in my opinion. The government is constantly growing, constantly overreaching, and generally constantly seeking more and more control. Just look at what is coming from the "Waters of the United States" ruling from the EPA. That is even more scary than this.
Because I'm at work and don't have time to pore over google search results, give me the skinny on the Waters of the United States "problem". I scanned it very briefly, but it seems to me that protecting what is soon to become a very rare commodity seems like a good idea. Is there a clause or something that seems like a great injustice? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
captainmay
I don't mean any disrespect to anyone on here, but to say it will never happen is naïve in my opinion. The government is constantly growing, constantly overreaching, and generally constantly seeking more and more control. Just look at what is coming from the "Waters of the United States" ruling from the EPA. That is even more scary than this.
Because I'm at work and don't have time to pore over google search results, give me the skinny on the Waters of the United States "problem". I scanned it very briefly, but it seems to me that protecting what is soon to become a very rare commodity seems like a good idea. Is there a clause or something that seems like a great injustice?
It is such a vast, and I mean vast, power grab by the government and EPA, I could not possibly explain it all here.  However, the law will basically allow the EPA to dictate usage of any "water" in the US. This would include, and I'm not exaggerating here, your yard at all times if you happen to get standing water in it during a heavy rain at any time. I farm, so I have heard a lot about WOTUS and try to keep up with it.  Various groups have analyzed what the EPA is trying to do and broken it down so us non-lawyer types have a better understanding of it.  The EPA has been asked for clarification, and they have openly admitted the example I just gave you about your yard is in fact  true.  I sense your quotation around the word problem means you are skeptical of someone doubting the government, and your further very broad comment that "protecting .......seems like a good idea" tells me you are likely pro government.  If that is your view, that is fine, but I do not think we will agree on this issue.I believe we have plenty of laws on the books to protect us from everything we need protecting from, and then some.  I believe in personal responsibility and accountability, and I do not believe we need the government looking out for us, and we certainly do not need them controlling anything more than they already do control.  If you are truly interested in government issues like this, I would suggest you do your own research, as I wish all Americans would, so everyone would be more involved and make their own, more educated decisions when it comes time to vote.  I believe our country is continually weakened by an apathetic citizenry.   
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beemer
We know how to deal with people like that, one lantern in my window means they're coming.  ;)

Beemer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yamahappy74
Because I'm at work and don't have time to pore over google search results, give me the skinny on the Waters of the United States "problem". I scanned it very briefly, but it seems to me that protecting what is soon to become a very rare commodity seems like a good idea. Is there a clause or something that seems like a great injustice?
It is such a vast, and I mean vast, power grab by the government and EPA, I could not possibly explain it all here.  However, the law will basically allow the EPA to dictate usage of any "water" in the US. This would include, and I'm not exaggerating here, your yard at all times if you happen to get standing water in it during a heavy rain at any time. I farm, so I have heard a lot about WOTUS and try to keep up with it.  Various groups have analyzed what the EPA is trying to do and broken it down so us non-lawyer types have a better understanding of it.  The EPA has been asked for clarification, and they have openly admitted the example I just gave you about your yard is in fact  true.  I sense your quotation around the word problem means you are skeptical of someone doubting the government, and your further very broad comment that "protecting .......seems like a good idea" tells me you are likely pro government.  If that is your view, that is fine, but I do not think we will agree on this issue.I believe we have plenty of laws on the books to protect us from everything we need protecting from, and then some.  I believe in personal responsibility and accountability, and I do not believe we need the government looking out for us, and we certainly do not need them controlling anything more than they already do control.  If you are truly interested in government issues like this, I would suggest you do your own research, as I wish all Americans would, so everyone would be more involved and make their own, more educated decisions when it comes time to vote.  I believe our country is continually weakened by an apathetic citizenry. 
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not necessarily pro-government or not. I do believe that corporations need to be regulated heavily because they do not hold personal accountability above profit. Which means that they will pollute water whenever they see fit if it saves them money for their shareholders. I wish, WISH, people could be trusted to take responsibility for their actions on the whole, but they just can't. Most will take the easy way out and only react when it's too late to prevent problems. Government is a good thing on paper, but again, it's made up of people who place a greater importance on personal gain and wealth than on doing the job for which they were elected. This has been true since recorded history began. I was asking what specifically was the problem with regulating the water supply and you've sufficiently answered it. I do not like government overreach. No one does. But instead of getting upset at a government full of people we elected, why not redirect your anger toward the piss-poor way in which we allow vast sums of money into our political process, as well as the people who are committing the acts that warrant government regulation?
And I wasn't kidding when I said that water is about to become a very rare and valuable commodity. By 2030, they're predicting a 40% shortage in fresh water supply for the human population of Earth. Yet here we are, fracking the hell out of everything, and destroying hundreds of millions of gallons of water in the process. It's not recoverable. The chemicals can't be separated from the water once it's polluted. So I guess I can see why our government might be trying to protect what's left, though honestly, they'd be doing more if not for the lobbyist money keeping them from doing so.
/rant
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phicurious86
I guess the upshot is that if this actually starts getting enforced (which it wont) then the electric motorcycle R&D will really start taking off.
 
I'd love to have something like this once supply drops the price down to something reasonable - http://www.gizmag.com/mission-motorcycles-r-returns/27762/
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
captainmay
It is such a vast, and I mean vast, power grab by the government and EPA, I could not possibly explain it all here.  However, the law will basically allow the EPA to dictate usage of any "water" in the US. This would include, and I'm not exaggerating here, your yard at all times if you happen to get standing water in it during a heavy rain at any time. I farm, so I have heard a lot about WOTUS and try to keep up with it.  Various groups have analyzed what the EPA is trying to do and broken it down so us non-lawyer types have a better understanding of it.  The EPA has been asked for clarification, and they have openly admitted the example I just gave you about your yard is in fact  true.  I sense your quotation around the word problem means you are skeptical of someone doubting the government, and your further very broad comment that "protecting .......seems like a good idea" tells me you are likely pro government.  If that is your view, that is fine, but I do not think we will agree on this issue.I believe we have plenty of laws on the books to protect us from everything we need protecting from, and then some.  I believe in personal responsibility and accountability, and I do not believe we need the government looking out for us, and we certainly do not need them controlling anything more than they already do control.  If you are truly interested in government issues like this, I would suggest you do your own research, as I wish all Americans would, so everyone would be more involved and make their own, more educated decisions when it comes time to vote.  I believe our country is continually weakened by an apathetic citizenry. 
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not necessarily pro-government or not. I do believe that corporations need to be regulated heavily because they do not hold personal accountability above profit. Which means that they will pollute water whenever they see fit if it saves them money for their shareholders. I wish, WISH, people could be trusted to take responsibility for their actions on the whole, but they just can't. Most will take the easy way out and only react when it's too late to prevent problems. Government is a good thing on paper, but again, it's made up of people who place a greater importance on personal gain and wealth than on doing the job for which they were elected. This has been true since recorded history began. I was asking what specifically was the problem with regulating the water supply and you've sufficiently answered it. I do not like government overreach. No one does. But instead of getting upset at a government full of people we elected, why not redirect your anger toward the piss-poor way in which we allow vast sums of money into our political process, as well as the people who are committing the acts that warrant government regulation?
And I wasn't kidding when I said that water is about to become a very rare and valuable commodity. By 2030, they're predicting a 40% shortage in fresh water supply for the human population of Earth. Yet here we are, fracking the hell out of everything, and destroying hundreds of millions of gallons of water in the process. It's not recoverable. The chemicals can't be separated from the water once it's polluted. So I guess I can see why our government might be trying to protect what's left, though honestly, they'd be doing more if not for the lobbyist money keeping them from doing so.
/rant

Money in the political process is just as corrupt as the government itself, but is a completely different topic.  I think you and I are generally on the same page here, or at least the same chapter on this topic.  I have much anger towards the government and I direct at outlets of the government I wish to, including elected officials and the election process in general lol. I have read several studies and other information about all of our commodities, including water, and I agree we are slowly using more water than the earth is able to reproduce.  Fracking uses water along with making litium ion batteries for so called "green" anything, including vehicles.  Much to your previous point, I believe the government regulates whatever is in the best interest of the government and whatever is the most lucrative for the politicians.  As far as the idea of the government regulating water with the intent of actual preservation of water, Flint Michigan's water supply is regulated by all sorts of government agencies, from the city itself up to and including the EPA.  Yet, despite all these government agencies overseeing the water supply and all the government regulation of the water supply in the world,  the people of Flint Michigan cannot drink their own water. 
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hobbs
It is such a vast, and I mean vast, power grab by the government and EPA, I could not possibly explain it all here.  However, the law will basically allow the EPA to dictate usage of any "water" in the US. This would include, and I'm not exaggerating here, your yard at all times if you happen to get standing water in it during a heavy rain at any time. I farm, so I have heard a lot about WOTUS and try to keep up with it.  Various groups have analyzed what the EPA is trying to do and broken it down so us non-lawyer types have a better understanding of it.  The EPA has been asked for clarification, and they have openly admitted the example I just gave you about your yard is in fact  true.  I sense your quotation around the word problem means you are skeptical of someone doubting the government, and your further very broad comment that "protecting .......seems like a good idea" tells me you are likely pro government.  If that is your view, that is fine, but I do not think we will agree on this issue.I believe we have plenty of laws on the books to protect us from everything we need protecting from, and then some.  I believe in personal responsibility and accountability, and I do not believe we need the government looking out for us, and we certainly do not need them controlling anything more than they already do control.  If you are truly interested in government issues like this, I would suggest you do your own research, as I wish all Americans would, so everyone would be more involved and make their own, more educated decisions when it comes time to vote.  I believe our country is continually weakened by an apathetic citizenry. 
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not necessarily pro-government or not. I do believe that corporations need to be regulated heavily because they do not hold personal accountability above profit. Which means that they will pollute water whenever they see fit if it saves them money for their shareholders. I wish, WISH, people could be trusted to take responsibility for their actions on the whole, but they just can't. Most will take the easy way out and only react when it's too late to prevent problems. Government is a good thing on paper, but again, it's made up of people who place a greater importance on personal gain and wealth than on doing the job for which they were elected. This has been true since recorded history began. I was asking what specifically was the problem with regulating the water supply and you've sufficiently answered it. I do not like government overreach. No one does. But instead of getting upset at a government full of people we elected, why not redirect your anger toward the piss-poor way in which we allow vast sums of money into our political process, as well as the people who are committing the acts that warrant government regulation?
And I wasn't kidding when I said that water is about to become a very rare and valuable commodity. By 2030, they're predicting a 40% shortage in fresh water supply for the human population of Earth. Yet here we are, fracking the hell out of everything, and destroying hundreds of millions of gallons of water in the process. It's not recoverable. The chemicals can't be separated from the water once it's polluted. So I guess I can see why our government might be trying to protect what's left, though honestly, they'd be doing more if not for the lobbyist money keeping them from doing so.
/rant

 
 
There is a decent group actively engaging this issue.
 
https://represent.us/
 
I participate, marched through D.C., so on and so forth. But at the end of the day, weeks, months - it hasn't accomplished anything. At least not yet. Many people are trying, just a bummer that the majority are not. It doesn't help that the media and human nature in general creates a very divisive atmosphere so that in the field, instead of coming together and doing what's right we scatter like mice and bicker amongst each other. Oh well, I suppose. :/
  • Like 1

Everything went braap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yamahappy74
Looking at that link, I'm confused as to why everyone who supports that issue isn't voting for Bernie. I mean, the entire site is exactly the same as what Bernie is trying to do, yet no mention of him at all. Strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.