backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by Samus.. on Aug 2 at 4:15 PM


Toyota Camry Hybrid Taxi   (Source: flickr / Wai_Wah)

Nissan Altima Hybrid Taxi   (Source: Wikimedia Commons / Adam E. Moreira)
Congress is not going along with forced hybrid fleets

Hybrid technology has gone mainstream in the automotive market in a big way since the tech first came on the market in the late twentieth century. The biggest improvements in hybrid vehicle performance and range have come as batteries have become lighter, more powerful, and more efficient.

In major cities across the country, mayors and local governments see hybrid taxies as a way to cut pollution and fuel use. Mayors from the cities of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Las Vegas and Washington D.C. are asking Congress to give them the power to force taxi companies operating in their cities to switch to hybrid taxies.

New York Senate and House lawmakers introduced a bill known as the Green Taxi Act last year, but the bill is not getting the support the mayors of the major cities hoped.

The Detroit News quotes Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (Democrat, NY) saying, "Congress must take action so that communities across the country can move toward hybrid taxi fleets. American car manufacturers would have no better showcase for new, efficient vehicle technologies than the streets of New York City and other major cities."

The reason the bill is not gaining support in Washington is that Congress has already granted the power to regulate fuel efficiency to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The same power cannot be granted to individual cities. Supporters of the bill in major cities claim that requiring taxi fleets to be all hybrids would save 50 million gallons of fuel each year. Similar laws that have been passed were later struck down leaving little hope that the Green Taxi Act will ever become law.

Even if the Green Taxi Act appears to have stalled, hybrid technology is also making its way into markets where it was unheard of only a few years ago. BAE is looking to offer the military a hybrid armored personnel carrier and Porsche has also given the green light to a hybrid 918 Spyder supercar.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I have an idea...
By hondaman on 7/29/2010 11:37:55 AM , Rating: 3
How about let Taxi service owners decide for themselves what is right for their company.

Government, STAY THE HELL OUT OF PEOPLES BUSINESS!




RE: I have an idea...
By Yawgm0th on 7/29/2010 12:01:00 PM , Rating: 1
I disagree, partly. I don't think the federal government should have overbearing control over taxi companies, but it makes sense for cities or counties or even states to mandate this. If the will of the majority is that taxi companies use hybrid vehicles, then that's how it works.

Demonizing all government policies as bad intervention doesn't make sense when the policies are the will of the people. If hybrids cost the cab companies more, then that will affect the cost curve and people will pay more. If they want to pay more, then that's their prerogative, regardless if it's a good or bad policy. A city council or state legislature is generally a good representation of the local populace, and doesn't it make more sense for them to decide what's best for them than it does for Congress to decide for everyone?


RE: I have an idea...
By hondaman on 7/29/2010 12:10:37 PM , Rating: 3
The will of the majority can not tell a company how to run his business. This is agenda driven politics, pure and simple.

If you don't like the taxis that run on gas, use the taxis that are hybrids. See how simple that is? Let the free market determine who wins.

Problem is, if they do it that way, the hybrid taxis wouldn't be able to compete. Nobody wants to pay more for the same service if given a choice.


RE: I have an idea...
By Taft12 on 7/29/2010 12:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
Your libertarian agenda-driven opinions are really giving a terrific example of where that idealism falls flat on its face.

The will of the majority CAN tell a company how to run its business. That's why we have laws to prevent raw sewage from being dumped in rivers among many, many others.

You are surely aware, but feigning ignorance that there are no free markets. Completely failed concept we will thankfully never see again (at least not until after the apocalypse). What we have is regulated frameworks put into place because unfettered free markets lead to monopolies and tyranny.

Smog in large cities is a real problem and consequence of what you advocate. This is good regulation to help this problem.


RE: I have an idea...
By nct on 7/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: I have an idea...
By Taft12 on 7/29/2010 2:32:35 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks for providing more substance than the dude I replied to originally. Apathy is a problem, but our world has evolved to the point that being an informed consumer in all the markets we participate in would require more than 24 hours in a day (it would take more than that just to filter the signal from the noise). Regulation is the only tool I'm aware of that can mitigate this, but I'd be interested to hear any other solutions to this problem.

I wish I could share your fantasy world vision of a good internet connection for $30/mo but the reality of an intervention-free ISP market would be $300/mo for a shitty internet connection from the only game in town that squeezes out or buys up any whiff of competition. For a citation, you might note the violent opposition de-facto local monopoly ISPs put up when community broadband initiatives gain some momentum in small markets.


RE: I have an idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2010 4:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it's BECAUSE of intervention in the cable/ISP market that our services grow so slowly. I guess you've forgotten about the government mandated monopolies which allow a single internet provider to stay the only internet provider in an area. Thus killing competition and innovation. With LESS government interference we'd have far more competition in the market and likely much faster speeds, better programming options, and lower prices.

The fight that monopoly ISPs put up against community owned ISPs is made possible because of government interference. They were given a monopoly.


RE: I have an idea...
By YashBudini on 7/29/2010 4:22:18 PM , Rating: 1
So why can I chose between Time Warner overpriced crap or Verizon FIOS overpriced crap?

Oh wait, that's not really a choice, is it?


RE: I have an idea...
By gamerk2 on 7/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: I have an idea...
By Solandri on 7/29/2010 5:59:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wrong analysis. While these monopolies are ALLOWED to exist, nothing government is doing is preventing competition.

It's hard to compete with a company providing Internet to a person's home when the government prohibits you from laying down wires/fiber to the person's home or running your cables through utility poles or underground conduits. The only valid competition I've seen are wireless services, and they tend to have a lot of latency and low bandwidth. So yeah, the government is preventing competition.

Network data services (Internet, cell phones, pagers, etc) really need to move to a utility model. The company chosen to build the infrastructure has its rates tightly controlled by the government. Best case, the company isn't even allowed to sell data services. All they can do is lease use of the lines to other companies which provide such services.


RE: I have an idea...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/2010 6:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong analysis. While these monopolies are ALLOWED to exist, nothing government is doing is preventing competition.


That, like most of what you have said here, is false. They are municipal monopolies with long contracts, granted by local governments. They absolutely prevent competition by their very nature.


RE: I have an idea...
By HrilL on 7/30/2010 11:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
You're a moron. Ever try looking at Europe. Their cost for broadband is way lower than ours and they get faster speeds. Know why? because they have free market competition.

Let see so we can have a de-facto local monopoly that is for profit (like we have now btw) or we can have a de-facto local monopoly that is not for profit. Yeah I think I'd rather have the latter as their interest is in serving customers and not their share holders.

You seem to lack a basic understanding of free market economics.


RE: I have an idea...
By Yawgm0th on 7/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: I have an idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2010 4:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ah so now your argument is competition doesn't drive down prices.

The cost of the lines is not the issue of the consumer. Only the price and quality of service. If company A can run its own lines and still be cheaper than company B for the same service, why shouldn't they be allowed to run lines. Let companies worry about the cost of running lines parallel to the other companies. Don't stifle competition just because you think it doesn't make sense. Now water yes because there's only so much space in the ground and water pipes are large. But fiber optic cable doesn't have that problem.

My neighborhood has Comcast and a local fiber company for internet, TV, and phone. Its great to have competition. I use the fiber provider and they just upped my speeds to 15 Mbit up and down with no increase in cost. Yes I said up and down. For the same price Comcast offers 30Mbit down (only for the first 20 MB) and 3Mbit up (only for the first 10 MB).


RE: I have an idea...
By gamerk2 on 7/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: I have an idea...
By Samus on 7/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: I have an idea...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/2010 5:04:34 PM , Rating: 5
Why don't you "believe" that anyone should have the freedom to buy anything they want, and use it as they see fit? Within reason, of course.

Every time I get on Daily Tech there's 20 freaking little Hitlers and Stalin's telling me what I should or shouldn't be able to do and how I can do it. Make it stop! You know what, this is America. Shut the fuck up and live how you want to, and let others do the same.


RE: I have an idea...
By Samus on 8/2/2010 4:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer, if voters thought like you, the world would surely be ending in 2012. Teaparty-monics aside, if we had it your way, we would have the 'freedom' to purchase enriched U234 at the grocery store and pocket link in 50lb bags from the laundromat.

Everybody owning a hybrid to not use it for hybrid use isn't like telling people they have a core i7 to surf the internet and check their emails (its overkill, but they should be allowed to do so if thats what they want.) That doesn't damage the environment or negatively affect peoples lives. Purchasing a prius that has 580lbs of mined lead for its battery pack that needs replacing every 7 years, and not using the technology affectively, does affect people like YOU.

Taxi drivers idling at taxi stands for hours on end unneccessarily using fuel when a better technology is available...seems like a no brainer to me.


RE: I have an idea...
By Yawgm0th on 7/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: I have an idea...
By rcc on 7/29/2010 2:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there's no way to get them to switch economically without regulations


You are kidding, right? Regulation does not make it economical. At best it can force a company to take a severe hit on their profits, or become non-profitable, during the conversion. But regulation never makes something more economical.


RE: I have an idea...
By Yawgm0th on 7/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: I have an idea...
By rcc on 7/29/2010 7:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
It does not make Hybrids more economical, or economically feasible. It makes the other options less feasible.

How could this ever be good for the consumer.


RE: I have an idea...
By nuarbnellaffej on 7/29/2010 9:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
@Yawgm0th

You really have NO idea what your talking about, sweeping regulation like this does nothing but distort the market. By forcing taxi companies to use hybrid taxis your squelching all other possible solutions.

What if the perfect balance between fuel econ/smog emissions/cost/versatility is actually very small light traditional internal combustion cars? Guess we'll never know if the mayors get their way...

Regulation and Government control is should be minimized, I'm not suggesting anarchist-capitalism or anything, but def less government then exists today.


RE: I have an idea...
By topkill on 7/29/2010 4:26:40 PM , Rating: 1
"Regulation never makes something more economical"???

Never? NEVER??? LOL It's a bad idea to make a general statement like that because it is not going to be universally true.

In the case of Internet access to your home. Do you really think more than one company can afford to lay a fiber optic cable to your house? No way! So obviously, that one company has a monopoly and you are stuck paying whatever they want to charge you.
So do you really think that one company with a monopoly on the ability to supply internet access to your home, with no regulation and nothing to force them to allow competitors to use those wires...is going to provide you with cheap access? Seriously???

Everyone has to grow up and realize that at least SOME regulation is required. The real question is what is TOO MUCH? That is the real question and a hard one to answer... and that answer will be different for every industry and region.
Life is not black and white, it's shades of gray.


RE: I have an idea...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/2010 5:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone has to grow up and realize that at least SOME regulation is required. The real question is what is TOO MUCH?


The answer is, right now. We have too much regulation.

The President just signed a bill giving Congress the ability, with no checks and balances, to take over any company it sees fit for any reason. To limit how much it can incentive it's employees. And who knows what else.

Sorry, but those powers are NOT in the Constitution. And this is just one example, frankly there isn't enough time in the day for me to type out similarly illegal and unconstitutional regulations that are on the books.

Anyone who doesn't think this Government has expanded it's powers WAY too far is simply wrong. We are "grown up", and we have accepted that "SOME" regulation is required. We have had "some" regulations for a long time now. When are YOU going to realize adding regulation after regulation is not the answer? Oh that's right, we need "better ones". I've heard that before. It's just code for MORE regulation on top of the ones we already have.


RE: I have an idea...
By YashBudini on 7/29/2010 6:08:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The answer is, right now. We have too much regulation.


Yeah we over-regulated the piss out of BP in the gulf, didn't we?

Wall St too, smothered m/f's aren't they?


RE: I have an idea...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/2010 6:23:23 PM , Rating: 3
Yash you really have your moron-meter cranked up today. The piss WAS regulated out of BP in the gulf. Guess what? That didn't stop regulations from being broken, ignored, or bypassed. Regulations are not some magical "Do not pass go" force that prevents anything bad from happening.

Wall Street? There are tens of thousands of pages of regulations for Wall Street. How can you not know that our financial sector is one of the most heavily regulated things in the entire country. You need to stop drinking the "blame de-regulation" Koolaid of the Administration and get a clue! How can someone be this stupid!? I don't understand.

Seriously you need to just get a clue, educate yourself, and stop posting here. You're petty, spiteful, and vindictive. But without enough substance to make yourself look anything other than the moron you are.


RE: I have an idea...
By YashBudini on 7/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: I have an idea...
By Kurz on 7/29/2010 8:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
They make business more expensive if you follow all of the regulations.

Hence why many companies bend the rules or outright don't follow them.

Its not hypocrisy its just common sense.


RE: I have an idea...
By YashBudini on 7/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: I have an idea...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/2010 8:33:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Gotta love your logic. First regulations put employers out of business


Where did I say that? Are you talking to the right guy?

quote:
next regulations don't do a thing


Again, where did I say that?

quote:
Got hypocracy?


Got confusion is more like it. You're on Mars.


RE: I have an idea...
By YashBudini on 7/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: I have an idea...
By rcc on 7/29/2010 7:50:52 PM , Rating: 1
You don't get it. And the reason is that you think you have to have that service. If you don't like the price and service that are provided by "the one company that could afford to lay fiber" don't flippin' buy it. If enough people tell them to go pound sand, they will either adapt, or, someone else will lay that fiber to get the business.

For a semi-open market to work, the consumer has to be willing to do without if they don't like the cost or product. As long as the majority of the consumers are content to pay up and bitch, the market will not adjust itself.


RE: I have an idea...
By nuarbnellaffej on 7/29/2010 9:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any regulation equates to "telling a company how to run [its] business". Do you really think no regulations are better?


Wow that's a blatant straw man... Nobody said every regulation is telling a company how to run their business, but THIS MANDATE certainly is.

Do you know what a straw man argument is??? Liberals like you use them all the time, to make conservatives and libertarians sound like anarchists, it would be like me referring to ALL socialists as communists.

I know you think your pretty slick putting words in peoples mouths, and demonizing those with different opinions than you but most of us can see through non-arguments and name calling. I do a lot of conservative organizing in the US, and let me tell you what, the forked tongued libs like you are going down in this country, its time to give liberty back to the people!


RE: I have an idea...
By Iaiken on 7/29/2010 12:13:08 PM , Rating: 5
This just in! Mob rules that gatherings of more than 10 people must throw newspaper boxes through store fronts and loot them.

Mob rule is not always right... :P


RE: I have an idea...
By Yawgm0th on 7/29/2010 2:17:10 PM , Rating: 3
Okay, so you're against direct democracy and representative democracy because they are both clearly exactly the same as "mob rule", outside of the lack of an angry, armed mob and electing and voting and all that stuff. Minor details. Do you prefer anarchy or something else? What kind of "rule" is right?


RE: I have an idea...
By gamerk2 on 7/29/2010 4:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
He is right though; Germans DID vote in Hitler, and applauded as he basically dissolved the Democratic government.

People are too emotional to make rational decisions. They fail to think things through to their logical conclusion. They make the same mistakes over and over again.

Just look at California and how the people totally destroyed their own state budget. Sure, 20% funding to schools sounds good, until costs run out of control and other programs need cutting. Sure, a mandatory balenced budget sounds like a good idea, until a recession comes and tax revenue drops. Sure, lowering the deficit NOW sounds like a good idea, until the recession drags on and more is added to the deficit due to no economic growth.

Theres a reason why the founders decided to elect a President with an Electoral College, and why Senators were elected by the House of Representatives: Because they knew the people were too stupid to be allowed to have a significant say in government. And over the last 100 years, people have driven that point home over and over again.


RE: I have an idea...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/2010 5:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He is right though; Germans DID vote in Hitler, and applauded as he basically dissolved the Democratic government.


That's because Germans are such selfish disgusting people, history has proven it. Who are more than happy to blame one ethnic group, kill them all, and everyone unites behind it.


RE: I have an idea...
By YashBudini on 7/29/2010 6:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure you're just talking about Germans, given your description. Greedy? Kill them all? Sound familiar?


RE: I have an idea...
By rdawise on 7/29/2010 8:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure you're just talking about Germans, given your description. Greedy? Kill them all? Sound familiar?


Well played....


RE: I have an idea...
By mkrech on 7/29/2010 12:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
OK
But, is it the will of the people that taxi companies use hybrids simply to support Toyota. I think the will of the people should be interpreted more specifically. The people really want taxi companies to use vehicles that produce less pollution thereby contributing less to metropolitan air pollution?

So, how should legislation be written to accomplish this goal? I agree that the state/local level is the most appropriate place for this legislation. I would propose legislation that addresses the concern equally and without limiting freedom beyond what is necessary. In this case, specific emission standards for taxi vehicles or an even more general class of vehicles that includes taxi's would be appropriate. The taxi company can choose whatever vehicle it wants as long as it meets the standards set subsequent to the will of the people.

I didn't use a green agenda, CAFE standard type argument because I believe that most people agree with me that limiting our energy consumption is not in our best interest. But, if a local group of people somewhere were to collectively express their will to reduce energy consumption of taxis, the same approach would still apply. It would be foolish to keep the green movement from forcing rickshaw's into use simply because they are not hybrid powered.


RE: I have an idea...
By Yawgm0th on 7/29/2010 12:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The people really want taxi companies to use vehicles that produce less pollution thereby contributing less to metropolitan air pollution?
Yes, I agree with this and as such I don't think this is the best solution to the problem. I don't think mandating hybrids specifically makes sense.

quote:


So, how should legislation be written to accomplish this goal? I agree that the state/local level is the most appropriate place for this legislation. I would propose legislation that addresses the concern equally and without limiting freedom beyond what is necessary. In this case, specific emission standards for taxi vehicles or an even more general class of vehicles that includes taxi's would be appropriate. The taxi company can choose whatever vehicle it wants as long as it meets the standards set subsequent to the will of the people
I agree completely with this.

quote:

I didn't use a green agenda, CAFE standard type argument because I believe that most people agree with me that limiting our energy consumption is not in our best interest.
I agree, and I don't think it's in a municipality's interest specifically to do anything green unless it has a positive impact on that municipality. More efficient vehicles improve city air quality, which is a serious problem in most large cities. I don't see why it needs to be a "liberal" or "green" issue. It's public health, and it's well within local government's mandate to look out for this.


RE: I have an idea...
By mkrech on 7/29/2010 6:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think it's in a municipality's interest specifically to do anything green unless it has a positive impact on that municipality.

Smog is not a significant issue here in the Twin Cities, but you may have noticed that hasn't stopped local municipalities from adding hybrid cars to their fleets even though those municipalities expect them to have greater lifetime costs then their conventional equivalents.

quote:
it's well within local government's mandate to look out for this.

Be careful, nothing in the constitution mandates that government is responsible for public health. How far should the federal governments control be allowed to extend when considering public health? This is why I agree completely that it is local government that is responsible here and add the emphasis.


RE: I have an idea...
By Ammohunt on 7/29/2010 2:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
You are right! but they shouldn't stop at Hybrids they should mandate Rickshaws! /sarcasm

Wow just wow! People actually yearning for the boot of government to be placed on their neck. Is the true meaning of freedom dead?


RE: I have an idea...
By rcc on 7/29/2010 2:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
And, tomorrow, if the majority decides that no merchant should make more than 5% profit on an item...... what then?

I grant you that it would be a self correcting error, but the upheaval in the meantime would not be pretty.


RE: I have an idea...
By Yawgm0th on 7/29/2010 2:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
That could happen. Any republican governments that are too democratic or filled with voting constituents who are uneducated will always lead to bad decisions. But your slippery slope is, realistically, logically fallacious. By the same logic, we could willingly vote in legislators who legislate away our right to vote by the same logic. Therefore, we shouldn't vote or have democratic governments in any form. Just because the majority, (whether in representative form or even in a direct democracy) can make bad decisions, doesn't mean that it isn't there decision to make.

The opposite has happened, with the majority deciding it didn't want to pay taxes regardless of what services were provided. I'm not saying Democracy, including our own, in any form, doesn't have its flaws. That doesn't mean you can realistically say "well no, we can't do that" just because what the people want is probably not good for them. Are you better fit to decide what's best than the majority? If so, why? And why aren't you in office or running for it then (I assume none of us our since we're arguing on the Internet)?


RE: I have an idea...
By gamerk2 on 7/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: I have an idea...
By Nutzo on 7/29/2010 3:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it's the other 45% that's ignoring the constitution. Arizona is NOT trying to set imigration policy, they are just enforcing the EXISTING federal law.

It's no different than the local police arresting someone for bank robbery (a federal crime). Guess the next time the police see a bank robbery in progress they should just ignore it since it's a federal crime.


RE: I have an idea...
By gamerk2 on 7/29/2010 4:32:35 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong and wrong.

First and formost, the States have no mandate for the enforcement of Federal Law, making your counter-argument in fact moot. The "robbing a Federal Bank" argument is also invalid, as states have laws against armed robbery and the like. Also, said robbery would be happening on state land (I think? On second thought, I might have to look that one up...)

For instance, if said robber fled the state, those state police officers would be unable to persue across state lines, as they can only enforce state law.

Secondly, have you actually read the Arizona bill? I have, and it does NOT follow Federal Immigration guidelines, and as such, makes immigration policy. (Example: The forced carrying of papers for ALL immigrants is new immigration policy, so the bill instantly fails teh Constitutional test. No wonder the Federal Judge put a stay on that requirement...)

The saddest part, is Arizona is already enrolled in a Federal program that allows state troopers that are involved to patrol the border in place of Federal border patrol agents.

And the saddest part, is more immigrants have been deported over the last 18 months then were deported over the previous 8 years. Kinda odd timing for the whole immigration debate to come up now considering those circumstances, don't you think?


RE: I have an idea...
By cmdrdredd on 7/31/2010 1:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(Example: The forced carrying of papers for ALL immigrants is new immigration policy, so the bill instantly fails teh Constitutional test. No wonder the Federal Judge put a stay on that requirement...)


Back in the 50s A FEDERAL LAW was passed that requires all "resident aliens" to carry their paperwork and proper documentation at all times. Now, if you're driving and run a red light a cop may pull you over. You're supposed to have a current and valid driver license are you not? If you do not you are a criminal. The police will ask your name and attempt to find out if you have any warrants out etc. You'll likely be booked into the local jail overnight or for a couple hours whatever. I have to cary my ID, I have multiple IDs. I have a Driver License, CCW License, Voter ID card, Military ID etc etc.

Why is it too much to ask that everyone in the country that BELONGS HERE, carry some identification paperwork?


RE: I have an idea...
By JediJeb on 7/31/2010 4:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to Michael Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, this case is significant because the courts emphasized the role of the alien registration laws in establishing reasonable suspicion to continue questioning and probable cause to detain. (Under U.S. law aliens, unlike U.S. citizens, are required to carry evidence of their lawful status at all times and to present it when asked by an official.) Says Hethmon: "Alien registration laws are a rule-of-law antidote to racial profiling. Law enforcement officers can rely on documents (or the absence of documents) and not 'articulable facts' such as language, appearance or experience when deciding how to proceed in questioning an alien."


This is from a Federal Court ruling in 2005 where a state police officer in Rhode Island stopped a van full of illegals and then contacted ICE who had him take them to their office for processing.

http://www.cis.org/vaughan/Appeals-Court-Rules-Fav...

The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that Law Enforcement officers can ask anyone suspected of being an illegal alien for their papers at any time for any reason. It is also a federal law that all legal aliens in the US carry their documents of legal status with them at all times. Which makes it funny that people are condemning the AZ law for stating that its officers actually enforce a federal law but with more restrictions than are required by federal law. What the real problem is that the Federal Government has with the law, is it throws it in their face that they are negligent in doing their duty.

One of the first tenants of the Constitution is that the Federal Government provide for the Common Defense of the Nation. Which means that instead of putting signs on US soil for US citizens not to enter because of danger of being shot by drug smugglers, the government should be there keeping the drug smugglers out so that US citizens are safe to use what belongs to them. So what happens when the Federal Government is found to be derelict in its duties to its citizens? Would this mean that if our border is not secured then the Executive Branch of our government is in contempt of the US Constitution? If so then what should be done?


RE: I have an idea...
By rcc on 7/29/2010 8:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the same logic, we could willingly vote in legislators who legislate away our right to vote by the same logic.


What do you think has been happening the last few years?

Yes, every system has problems. Our problem is that we as a nation are too apathetic. We elect people that we are led to believe will do what we want. When they don't we complain, and wait til the next election. If that majority took it's responsibilities seriously, they'd have the yahoos out of office long before their terms were up. And the next group would make sure they toed the line better.

2 things will totally trash the functioning of a democratic society. Apathy and and an active voting welfare class. We have one, and some of us (??) are doing their damndest to enlarge the other.

My 2 cents,


RE: I have an idea...
By NA1NSXR on 7/29/2010 3:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
Get an education.


RE: I have an idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2010 4:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
Ah so you've gone out and done a study showing the majority of people support forcing taxis to be hybrids? Or that the majority of people who ride in taxis care that its a hybrid?

Even if that was the case, it still doesn't give you the rift to tell a business how to do business. You're another idiot who thinks the commerce clause gives Congress unlimited power.

Taxi companies will adopt hybrids when it becomes best for their business. As many are doing on their own in certain places. I will say hybrid taxis aren't cheap. I took about a 7 mile ride in a hybrid taxi in San Jose and it was over $50 with tip. Freaking ridiculous. I could've rented a car.


RE: I have an idea...
By Yawgm0th on 7/29/2010 4:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say anything about Congress. I said local municipalities and states. City councils and state legislatures should have the right to control this sort of thing on their own. I base the "will of the people" comment on the fact that these are elected officials in relatively small locations (individual cities with a few million people or even less) pushing for something. If they people of these cities disagree with this position they can remove their local leaders from office and reverse it.

Are you really saying that mayors and local governments are subverting the power of their people with this measure, or did you completely misunderstand my comment as a call for Federal legislation mandating hybrid taxis? Nothing in the Constitution takes away a state's right to enforce laws on its own city streets (or to delegate that right to the city governments).


RE: I have an idea...
By rdawise on 7/29/2010 8:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't say anything about Congress. I said local municipalities and states. City councils and state legislatures should have the right to control this sort of thing on their own. I base the "will of the people" comment on the fact that these are elected officials in relatively small locations (individual cities with a few million people or even less) pushing for something. If they people of these cities disagree with this position they can remove their local leaders from office and reverse it. Are you really saying that mayors and local governments are subverting the power of their people with this measure, or did you completely misunderstand my comment as a call for Federal legislation mandating hybrid taxis? Nothing in the Constitution takes away a state's right to enforce laws on its own city streets (or to delegate that right to the city governments).


You are 100% correct. It's surprising that someone like Fit and Reclaimer who claim themselves as supporters of the Constitution, would have a problem with a STATE forcing laws. The STATE is trying to involve the federal gov't not the other way around.


RE: I have an idea...
By dreddly on 7/29/2010 12:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
Taxi medallions and regulation are an area where the local government has always had an overwhelming incentive to get involved. If you have been in markets with grey and black cabs you know the inherent problems.

Creating a fair marketplace with transparent costs for the consumer limits the chance for fraud and manipulation. As a public service provider, regulations should be a part of this industry, and as a large fleet of combustible engines, I think this is a reasonable way to deal with emissions.

If you think think a free-for-all pollution environment is beneficial, spend some time in China.


RE: I have an idea...
By Wiggy Mcshades on 7/29/2010 12:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
good or bad, No government body has been given the right to mandate what people do. In time when the taxis are replaced the efficiency standards that require a certain mpg will ensure that taxis only can be more efficient than the ones driving around today. We don't have to give up our rights just to cut back on our carbon footprint. Not only that but there are diesel engines that are more efficient then today's hybrids, yet no one is mandating taxis all use those?


RE: I have an idea...
By gamerk2 on 7/29/2010 3:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, that goes against the very concept of a Republic...


RE: I have an idea...
By walk2k on 7/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: I have an idea...
By Suntan on 7/29/2010 1:17:01 PM , Rating: 4
I do believe you can move if it is important enough for you.

And if your local principality does not have requirements for vehicle emissions checks, then you should ask them to look at implementing that to *directly* address the fact that you all appear to live in a stinking crap-hole full of smog.

In any case, mandating that taxi companies should drive hybrids is not the answer to your personal dislike for the area you live in. The only thing it is an answer to is people's misplaced infatuation with hybrids coupled with busy-bodies ignorant view of thinking they should have the right to tell other people how to live.

-Suntan


RE: I have an idea...
By Yawgm0th on 7/29/2010 2:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do believe you can move if it is important enough for you.
Moving away from something you don't like doesn't really work in practice nor should it be necessary. A local populace who votes for representative should reasonably have some level of control over what's allowed in their city. Why is my freedom to breath clean air in my own yard in the house that I own and city I live in less important than a cab company's freedom to operate in my city? Shouldn't that company be at the behest of the voting populace of the city, rather than the other way around?

quote:
And if your local principality does not have requirements for vehicle emissions checks, then you should ask them to look at implementing that to *directly* address the fact that you all appear to live in a stinking crap-hole full of smog.
While I would agree strongly that having emission requirements at a local level makes more sense than mandating hybrids, I don't see that they're conceptually different. A state or municipality should be empowered to do either or both.

quote:

In any case, mandating that taxi companies should drive hybrids is not the answer to your personal dislike for the area you live in. The only thing it is an answer to is people's misplaced infatuation with hybrids coupled with busy-bodies ignorant view of thinking they should have the right to tell other people how to live.
I don't think anyone here realistically disagrees with this. The truth is that you can make fuel-efficient non-hybrid vehicles that would meet even very strict emission standards. Mandating hybrid taxis isn't the right approach; mandating an emission and/or fuel economy standard is. The problem here is that many (maybe not you, although you somewhat imply it in your first sentence) are taking the philosophical standpoint that it's wrong for any government, local or federal, to even address the problem. I think it makes a lot more sense for local governments to have freedom to address the problem than it does for the Federal government alone.


RE: I have an idea...
By gamerk2 on 7/29/2010 3:09:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The only thing it is an answer to is people's misplaced infatuation with hybrids coupled with busy-bodies ignorant view of thinking they should have the right to tell other people how to live.


Isn't that exactly what you are doing yourself?


RE: I have an idea...
By walk2k on 7/30/2010 4:08:32 PM , Rating: 1
Oh yeah it's so simple! Don't like ProfitCo, Inc. dumping toxic sludge in your backyard? Just move! Just abandon my home and my land, losing everything I paid for it, because it's now a toxic waste dump!

Yeah... OR I can elect officials that will pass regulations preventing ProfitMongers Co. from polluting.

It's called democracy, and it ain't perfect, but it's the best system we got at the moment.

What you're suggesting sounds a lot more like anarchy. Which has never... and I mean NEVER been shown to work, anywhere, ever.

Unregulated mega-corporations will care about one thing and one thing only, profits. They do NOT care about public health or safety. This has been proven time and time again.


RE: I have an idea...
By room200 on 7/29/2010 1:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
That's interesting. The will of the people stated that they didn't believe that gays should get married in multiple states. So is it ok for the "will of the people" to be other people's personal business (abortion, gay rights, etc.), but stay the hell out of business?

Further, in the past without intervention of the government, some states were much more polutted than before. Should the governement have "stayed the hell out of people's business" when they were ruining the that YOU breathe?


RE: I have an idea...
By nct on 7/29/2010 2:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yes.


RE: I have an idea...
By cmdrdredd on 7/31/2010 1:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's interesting. The will of the people stated that they didn't believe that gays should get married in multiple states. So is it ok for the "will of the people" to be other people's personal business (abortion, gay rights, etc.), but stay the hell out of business?


The "will of the people" have also voted for many things that the government turns around and says "oh you can't have that". That's even worse.


RE: I have an idea...
By roadhog1974 on 7/30/2010 12:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
Governments have the right to dictate the rules of the game.

Where they have to take care is the rules they issue,

A government saying taxis need to operate below a certain
emission level is reasoanble as most citizens like
to not breathe sulphur with their coffee.

On the other hand to say to taxi operators they
must use such and such a vehicle is not a good
idea as there may be other vehicles that meet
the required standard and provide other benefits
on top of that.

Usually it's not a good idea for governments
to stay completely out of PEOPLES BUSINESS
unless you are of the opinion protection
rackets and private armies are good things.


RE: I have an idea...
By Lerianis on 7/31/2010 9:40:47 PM , Rating: 1
It's past time that the federal government mandated that ALL news cars have to be hybrids. The technology is there, the mass amounts of cars are there, and if you mandated that AS CARS AGE OUT or are totaled that they have to be replaced by hybrids?

I don't see any problem with it. However, if they do this, there should be a very good tax break for these companies, to compensate them for the SLIGHT increase in the cost of the hybrid cars.

Though, considering that hybrids have less maintenance needed than regular cars? The tax breaks isn't a necessity.


So much for Land of the Free
By stm1185 on 7/29/2010 3:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
Can we go a week without dickhead politicians trying to take away our freedom to choose things for ourselves and our business's.

How long before the Gov starts making it so you can only buy X Brand that they have a stake in? Maybe force every Taxi Company to buy a fleet of Chevy Volts!




RE: So much for Land of the Free
By gamerk2 on 7/29/2010 4:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, considering its the people who elect said politicians in the first place.

Every time someone argues against government, they basically admit democracy (at least the kind the US has) doesn't work.


RE: So much for Land of the Free
By nafhan on 7/29/2010 5:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
Of course Democracy doesn't work! That doesn't prevent it from being better than other forms of government, though. More seriously, criticizing the government and being able to criticize the government are very important indicators of the level of freedom under a given government. So, maybe the next time "someone argues against government" you should pat them on the back and say "good for you! Keep exercising those constitutional rights!"


RE: So much for Land of the Free
By YashBudini on 7/29/2010 6:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can we go a week without dickhead politicians trying to take away our freedom to choose things for ourselves and our business's.


Don't people who stay uninvolved with politics and important issues believe one of the reasons that they pay taxes is just so that they can have dickhead politicians do the thinking for them?


RE: So much for Land of the Free
By Lerianis on 8/1/2010 12:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, can't we go a week without a post from an IDIOT who doesn't realize that while global warming is not coming from us, we are now at the point where hybrid technology should be mandated to clean up our environment and cut down on our gasoline usage!

I swear, wake up! I'm an extreme 'personal rights over all' person, but even I have to say that government SHOULD be mandating better fuel-efficiency technologies like this at this point.


Really?
By Iaiken on 7/29/2010 12:10:55 PM , Rating: 3
I love how politicians get a name stuck in their head and run with it like a pair of hypothetical scissors.

There are many alternative "green" power sources out there already (propane, diesel) and more coming (electric, fuel cell). So why the fixation on the word "hybrid"? Hell, many of the marketing hybrids are barely more fuel efficient than their run-of-the mill base models.

Poor government, can't mandate intelligent thinking...




RE: Really?
By HotFoot on 7/30/2010 11:29:03 AM , Rating: 2
I've generally not liked the hybrid concept, at least for my own driving style. However, taxis are one place hybrids can really pay off. With that said, taxi companies should be free to make the decision regarding hybrids themselves. If the economics are there, they'll do it.


RE: Really?
By cmdrdredd on 7/31/2010 1:30:26 PM , Rating: 1
The thing I utterly hate is when someone thinks they're above me because they drive a hybrid and are somehow saving the world single handily. Now, I don't tell you that being gay or smoking is wrong. I don't agree with either, but I won't tell you. Your choice in a free country that I fight for. If I can afford to drive a gas guzzler or prefer to drive my classic 1972 Challenger that gets about 15mpg that's my choice. I'll never tell someone who can afford a Ferrari, Bentley, or a custom Corvette that they're pissing away their money and should drive a Prius. I'll also never tell someone that they can't eat a Cheeseburger and have to eat a fruit salad because of the poor cows. Do what you want, drive what you want, eat what you want. We are a nation of laws...if you're not breaking the laws we have layed out which are pretty commonsense for the most part, go for it! I proudly defend this. What I don't defend deep down is the ability of a government to take away something you choose for the sake of some whimsical candy land style utopian society. No sir.


Got memory problems?
By YashBudini on 7/29/2010 4:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
Well the mayors of big cities may cite air pollution as the reason for hybrids, to have cleaner air, but in at least one really large city a major problem continues to be schools in poor neighborhoods with outdated coal heating systems. Frankly Mr Mayor you're not really in any position to be throwing stones, are you? Address your own backyard before telling others what to do. God forbid this thought but try setting a positive example. For a change.




RE: Got memory problems?
By gamerk2 on 7/29/2010 4:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, where do you get that from? No school I know of has used coal heating in decades.


RE: Got memory problems?
By YashBudini on 7/29/2010 6:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Any ghettos in your area?


Another Idea
By Kurz on 7/29/2010 11:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
Why not allow whoever wants to own a cab let them work there.
Since currently New York for example limits the amount of licenses it gives out to cab companies.

This will allow for those Green Cab Companies to come in and set up competitive prices and more efficient cabs.




RE: Another Idea
By Taft12 on 7/29/2010 12:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
The artificial limitation of the number of taxis on the road in NYC is a problem, but lifting the limit completely would introduce its own problem of a slew of new cabs flooding the streets of a city already suffering from gridlock. The right solution is not an obvious one (wish politicians understood this)


RE: Another Idea
By gamerk2 on 7/29/2010 3:17:31 PM , Rating: 1
Its NY; the only state where 100% of the populace could decide to vote out all their representatives, then 100% of the representatives would return for the next term.

I swear, these days, NY is giving California a run for its money; if it wasn't for that insane public-voting policy they have [Californians have no one but themselves to blame for their budget problems; they voted on half the regulations and now see the consequences they were long warned about], NY would be the worst run state of them all.

Yet if you close your eyes and turn your head...things somehow get done. How that happens is byond me though...


Alternate wording
By nafhan on 7/29/2010 12:04:52 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Mayors of Major U.S. Cities Want to Force Hybrid Taxi Use
This can be translated: Mayors of Major U.S. Cities Want to Make Themselves Look Good While Shoveling the Costs Off on Someone Else




Tiered Licenses
By DougF on 7/29/2010 3:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
One solution could be to tier licensing for taxis. Those that aren't hybrid have to pay x amount more than someone licensing a hybrid taxi. Set the licensing fee high enough to make hybrids the economic choice, and taxi fleets will convert.




"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki