The EPA sues Ez- link diesel tuning company, get ready for the coming tide.

[Bikeman315]

I REALLY hope that not a reference to the McDonalds thing because if it is you REALLY need to do some reading about that.

I prefer Dunkin'

Sponsored

 

[keiths2kgt]

Reminds me of this.

That also looks like someone doing a deadlift with bad form lol

 

[sk47]

No one mentioned this but as soon as they stomp out Diesel they are coming after the gas community. They have to have a reason for their jobs.

I expect this is just the beginning of this crackdown. This will ruin the aftermarket community.

Hello; A question has been on my mind for some time. There were rules on the books long ago which in effect stated a car had to have the emissions equipment which came from the factory. I think the first emission equipment was put on cars in 1969. It has been my thinking for many years the cars or trucks to modify ought to be pre 1969 as they had no factory emission as stsndard equipment.
There was a time in the 70's when such equipment was tossed by some. When they had to get an inspection sticker some had to find and put the equipment back on. I see TV programs where engine swaps are done with, as far as I can tell, no regard to keeping year or model specific equipment. I have wondered if this can ever come back to haunt those with such modified vehicles.
I also do not doubt those in working in agencies such as the EPA will use any device or rule to "punish" when they get off whatever leash has been holding them back. An irony might be that a modern crate engine with an EFI system could be cleaner than a stock vehicle from decades in the past.

 

[racingandfishing]

Hello; A question has been on my mind for some time. There were rules on the books long ago which in effect stated a car had to have the emissions equipment which came from the factory. I think the first emission equipment was put on cars in 1969. It has been my thinking for many years the cars or trucks to modify ought to be pre 1969 as they had no factory emission as stsndard equipment.
There was a time in the 70's when such equipment was tossed by some. When they had to get an inspection sticker some had to find and put the equipment back on. I see TV programs where engine swaps are done with, as far as I can tell, no regard to keeping year or model specific equipment. I have wondered if this can ever come back to haunt those with such modified vehicles.
I also do not doubt those in working in agencies such as the EPA will use any device or rule to "punish" when they get off whatever leash has been holding them back. An irony might be that a modern crate engine with an EFI system could be cleaner than a stock vehicle from decades in the past.

This should help. Keep in mind that just because a state doesn't require it, there are still federal regulations.

https://www.semasan.com/resources/vehicle-emissions-inspection-requirements-and-exemptions-state

And if you really want to get into the details

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_vehicle_emission_standards#Phase_1:_1994–1999

All I can say is, that I believe cars produced before 1967 are exempt with or without engine transplants with the EPA and in all states. For all other years, if you want to play within the rules and still have fun, just get a CARB compliant tune.

 

[Interceptor]

I REALLY hope that not a reference to the McDonalds thing because if it is you REALLY need to do some reading about that.

Reading about what really happen LOL. Why waste their time when it takes away the thunder.

There are no ratings in that.

READ about the teacher who got their head cut off over a lie, and all the riots overseas.
Where's the outrage on the news about that.

People don't give a flip about the truth. They just want to be told something that can run tell someone eles about.
This thread proves that

 

[ctandc72]

I REALLY hope that not a reference to the McDonalds thing because if it is you REALLY need to do some reading about that.

LieBeck v McDonalds - yup. That's the case. I've done more than my fair share of reading on the subject. She spilled coffee - after she took the lid off to add cream / sugar to it. She was holding it between her legs while wearing sweatpants. Those are from the trial transcript, so hard to argue those facts.

The reason I mentioned this particular case was the fact a jury awarded her seven figures, the judge reduced to around $700k (if memory serves), and eventually they settled.........but the headlines the case made became a turning point (coincidentally or not) with the rolling tide of large awards from lawsuits and the sounding point for tort reform as it were.

The point of my statement -was that in the past 30+ years, the civil legal system has become its own economy in a sense. Now it's commonplace for corporations / businesses to settle cases out of court, even cases they may consider frivolous - because it's simply CHEAPER to settle than pay legal costs (Time and money) to fight it, not to mention how the press is used and how that effects corporate bottom lines.

I'm not saying that corporations / businesses don't do things that they should be legally responsible for, I'm simply saying their are almost always unintended consequences. Intended or not, they are still there.

 

[FreePenguin]

I’d rather fight and lose money than reward criminals and stupid peoples

 

[sk47]

Reading about what really happen LOL. Why waste their time when it takes away the thunder.

There are no ratings in that.

READ about the teacher who got their head cut off over a lie, and all the riots overseas.
Where's the outrage on the news about that.

People don't give a flip about the truth. They just want to be told something that can run tell someone eles about.
This thread proves that

Hello; I get we are dancing around the edges with our comments so a cryptic message or two may leave some scratching our heads as to what the message may be.
So here is a story I read in a magazine I subscribed to years ago. Seems a fellow was riding a bicycle at night on a road with busy traffic and got hit by a car.
He sued the bicycle mfg with a claim that they were responsible. Thing was the bike had only the small reflectors in the spokes and maybe the one right behind the seat. You know the stuff they come with likely required by some government agency. He got a settlement from the bike company.
I ride a bicycle a lot for fitness since I cannot run any longer. Even in daytime I wear a reflective vest or very brite colors. I have extra flashing lights I can turn on.
Even with all the extras I know there is a good chance some drivers will not register my presence. Had that happen not too long ago and I wound up on the ground. I avoided being hit by a car but lost it and fell over. The woman stopped to check on me and said she did not see me even with all the reflective gear.

 

[ctandc72]

Reading about what really happen LOL. Why waste their time when it takes away the thunder.

Might have jumped the gun on that one. I've read the actual court transcripts...you?

There are no ratings in that.

Ratings? Am I missing out? Do I get paid for these ratings? Who knew....

READ about the teacher who got their head cut off over a lie, and all the riots overseas.
Where's the outrage on the news about that.

Now we're on a different subject. People believe what they want to believe, and most media outlets always have an agenda - even if it's just personal opinions, the drive to be first (not necessarily right - who reads corrections or retractions?).

People don't give a flip about the truth. They just want to be told something that can run tell someone eles about.
This thread proves that

Look at my comments on this thread - the EPA and its latest actions - tell me where I made false statements. I'd love to have an actual discussion on the facts. In fact I think it would be great if more people realized, in the U.S. in this case, if they stopped getting worked up every four years and concentrated on what happens every two years and researched how their own "representatives" actually voted, regardless of the "party", we might actually see some change.

If more people realized that large government organizations don't magically change personnel every four years, except for the top of the food chain, and many government agencies have quietly gained more and more power over our everyday lives with items put into seemingly unrelated pieces of legislation and sometimes with the stroke of a pen - maybe people as a whole - not just our cliques and tribes - would be more outraged.

Big money unduly influences the vast majority of politics at the highest levels of government. Just because what one of these organizations is doing now seems to align with your perceptions / beliefs doesn't mean they are doing it for the reasons you might think. Billions of dollars don't flow from corporations and lobbyists without a thought of return on investment.

 

[Interceptor]

My comments were directly to general public's consumption. I apologize for the indirect misconceptions to any one member or causal observers

 

[Schwerin]

LieBeck v McDonalds - yup. That's the case. I've done more than my fair share of reading on the subject. She spilled coffee - after she took the lid off to add cream / sugar to it. She was holding it between her legs while wearing sweatpants. Those are from the trial transcript, so hard to argue those facts.

The reason I mentioned this particular case was the fact a jury awarded her seven figures, the judge reduced to around $700k (if memory serves), and eventually they settled.........but the headlines the case made became a turning point (coincidentally or not) with the rolling tide of large awards from lawsuits and the sounding point for tort reform as it were.

The point of my statement -was that in the past 30+ years, the civil legal system has become its own economy in a sense. Now it's commonplace for corporations / businesses to settle cases out of court, even cases they may consider frivolous - because it's simply CHEAPER to settle than pay legal costs (Time and money) to fight it, not to mention how the press is used and how that effects corporate bottom lines.

the coffee was massively hotter that it should have been to be served,(190*vs recommend 140), her suit was never over that it spilled but it’s temperature. Hot enough that doctors testified the 3rd degree burns (to 16%of her body)were so bad she could have potentially died. She was only asking for 20k + medical but it was the court that awarded her massively more. $2.9 million. SHE was the one willing to settle for $500k. She could have walked away rich if that was her goal. McDonald’s also had over 700 prior complaints against it due to the coffee temp prior to the case. So it doesn’t sound like you read much about it at all. There was nothing frivolous about it at all.

After the case McDonald’s ran a smear campaign to push the idea that some lady just spilled coffee and blamed them.

So MD was serving an item way to hot, someone gravely was injured due to it, MD made them seem dumb in the media.

 

[ctandc72]

the coffee was massively hotter that it should have been to be served,(190*vs recommend 140), her suit was never over that it spilled but it’s temperature. Hot enough that doctors testified the 3rd degree burns (to 16%of her body)were so bad she could have potentially died. She was only asking for 20k + medical but it was the court that awarded her massively more. $2.9 million. SHE was the one willing to settle for $500k. She could have walked away rich if that was her goal. McDonald’s also had over 700 prior complaints against it due to the coffee temp prior to the case. So it doesn’t sound like you read much about it at all. There was nothing frivolous about it at all.

After the case McDonald’s ran a smear campaign to push the idea that some lady just spilled coffee and blamed them.

So MD was serving an item way to hot, someone gravely was injured due to it, MD made them seem dumb in the media.

You are correct. And nothing you stated goes against what I stated.

She spilled the coffee, while opening it and holding it between her legs. Experts argued it was too hot that's true as well. So are you saying that McDonalds served its coffee at a much higher temperature than other restaurants?

And AGAIN you missed my entire point because you want to be "right". Read the transcripts. My point wasn't that McDonald's wasn't negligible - they were. It was the media attention (sure McDonalds has their lawyers and media people) and how it affected these type of lawsuits across the country.

Are you saying this case did NOT have an effect on that?

The entire lawsuit (in the trial itself) was pushed to the jury as "large corporations don't care about you" - it was the classic 'David vs Goliath' defense. Again, read the transcripts. Hell, read the interviews with jurors AFTER the case. Could McDonald's have settled and avoided all this, odds are yes. Ironically, they ended up settling anyway. But the damage was done.

That was my point.

 

[FreePenguin]

She was stupid why should she be rewarded. McDonald’s didn’t pour it on her
She did. She should sue herself

 

[luc]

Hello; Without getting further into your political rant let us look at how some agencies may work. I contend these agencies can and do make up some of their rules in house. That the rules they try to impose are not necessarily directly from legislation and can be from in house type group think leaning heavily on personal preference interpretations. That the agencies can reach back to laws from decades ago which had a very different purpose then and revise rules with an interpretation favorably suited to their liking for current situations.
Some of these agencies have career people working in them who do not go away every two, four or six years. This is essentially guess work on my part as I have not been invited into these agencies, but only watching from the wings a few decades.

Thank you but you have not answered my simple question...
Sued under new or old rules/laws ?

 

[sk47]

Thank you but you have not answered my simple question...
Sued under new or old rules/laws ?

Hello; Thought I had answered. The agencies can and seem to use both new and old laws as it suits their purpose. It is the interpretation which can be changed to suit a desired goal. You seem to hinge a point on that a law has been on the books a while and maybe under several administrations. I did get your point about that.

I guess a suitable example of my view is the notion of the USA's constitution as a "living document". That the clear and traditional meanings can be changed by simply having a new interpretation. Why go to all the bother of an amendment process when meanings can be changed to suit on short notice?

Perhaps a good enough example might be the interpretation of older civil forfititure (sp) laws. The original intent was to sting drug dealers who did cash deals. A real consequence is how anyone can have money taken by the police without any evidence of drug dealing. A number of examples exist where some one had been stopped and cash just taken away. One that comes to mind is a fellow who was on his way to buy a tractor and had his cash taken by the police.
Sure there are legal ways to contest such confiscations if you can afford to hire a lawyer and pay the court costs. As it happens the cost of trying to get your money back can be as much or more than the money taken. A well of person can get justice while a poor person often just loses the money.

Let me be clear I also pick and choose what I favor. I do not like that diesel pickups can "blow coal" in my face. I am not so much bothered by CAT delete gasoline engine setups as I do not think the extra emissions amount to much. I also am very happy that no one can smoke in eating places any more. Tobacco smoke use to be a trigger for a migraine and made me ill. Am I being fair? perhaps not.

Sponsored