backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Mar 14 at 7:14 AM

Tesla will have to stop selling its cars directly in the state starting April 1

Tesla Motors called New Jersey out yesterday for introducing a new rule that would block the automaker's ability to sell electric vehicles directly to customers, but it didn't seem to do much good as the state went ahead and voted in favor of it. 
 
According to CNBC, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission voted in favor of the ban of direct auto sales in the state on Tuesday. This means that Tesla must stop selling its electric vehicles directly to customers in the state beginning on April 1, 2014. 
 
Tesla already operates two stores in New Jersey, and had plans to open more before this new rule. It's possible that Tesla could use them as showrooms now, where customers can look at the Model S, but must go buy them from dealerships or online. 
 
New Jersey is now the third state to ban Tesla's direct sales model. Arizona and Texas were the first two states to give Tesla the boot. 


Tesla CEO Elon Musk

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s administration proposed the new rule earlier this week, which requires a person to have a franchise agreement with an auto manufacturer in order to be granted a license to sell. 

Following the announcement of that rule, Tesla went to its website to make its opposition known. 

"Unfortunately, Monday we received news that Governor Christie’s administration has gone back on its word to delay a proposed anti-Tesla regulation so that the matter could be handled through a fair process in the Legislature," said Tesla in a statement. "The Administration has decided to go outside the legislative process by expediting a rule proposal that would completely change the law in New Jersey. This new rule, if adopted, would curtail Tesla’s sales operations and jeopardize our existing retail licenses in the state."

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has said in the past that he'd be willing to take the auto dealership battle to a federal level if needed. 

Source: CNBC



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/12/2014 10:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Not this BS again. How many imaginary posts of mine have you conjured in your head?

I have never been anti-capitalism. I am only against pure, unregulated capitalism. I am pro-democracy: If people want gov't spending or a regulation, they should get it, and they deserve all the good and bad things that come with it. It's up to public discourse to guide democracy in the correct direction, and determine what that direction is.

You accused me of being pro-Obamacare, and then chickened out when I challenged you to find a single post of mine supporting (or even about it).

You recently called me a green party environmentalist. I'm pro-nuclear, pro-Keystone, pro-GM-food, anti-Greenpeace, against solar/wind subsidies, and against drastic action to combat AGW. That makes me a shill for environmentalism? Riiiight...

You even resorted to labeling me a fake scientist, when DT itself happened to report on my peer-reviewed research.

Take your meds and tone down the paranoia, buddy.


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 11:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
Dude please! You even think something as simple and harmless as RC planes need to be regulated by the FAA!!

You say you're for freedom and all this great stuff, sounds good on paper, then as soon as a DT article is posted about something you ALWAYS pick the big Government side.


RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/13/2014 11:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you bringing this up here instead of the drone thread? Every time you lose an argument you just change the subject.

RC planes are not harmless. Look at Ars's article about it:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/faa-can...

quote:
The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), which lobbies for "model aviators" and acts as a liaison to the FAA for them, was also taken aback by how close Pirker’s remote aircraft—flown in first-person view mode from a distance—came to buildings, ships, bridges, and a national landmark. In a statement for the AMA, spokesperson Rich Hanson said, “The nature of the flight was outside the realm of recreational aeromodeling activity as defined by the AMA Safety Code and posed a significant threat to people and property.”


That's a pro-RC lobbying group.

The problem is that with wireless internet now letting you operate one from potentially hundreds of miles away, there is no way to prosecute a law-breaker. Someone could spy on your family, damage your car, injure/kill you, etc, and authorities would have no way of tracking them (unless you let the NSA crank up the internet spying by a factor of 100). All he'd have to do is just burn the mobile device after the deed is done. In a few years, they'll be unbelievably cheap and easy to operate, too.


RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2014 3:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
See what I mean?

Whenever an issue comes up, you automatically look for a reason to justify Government involvement, more regulations, etc etc.

You even use the SAME nanny state absurd arguments Liberals make, no surprise, you are one.

Someone using an RC plane to "spy on my family"? Really? Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the only ones doing that ARE in our Government! The chances of a regular citizen doing this to "my family" is so stupidly low it's not even worth thinking about.

The chances this Government, which you think is interested in protecting my rights, spied on me and my family is 100%!!! Get a clue.

You know what, I honestly don't think you realize what a hopeless Liberal you are. Please do yourself a favor and take a political Litmus test, and be honest. Unlike how you're being now.


RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/14/2014 7:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The chances of a regular citizen doing this to "my family" is so stupidly low it's not even worth thinking about.
Typical Reclaimer, cherry-picking four words out of my post. Spying is one of many issues, but I'll bite.

I'm not talking about regular law abiding citizens, genius. It only takes a fringe 0.1% of people to be a serious problem. It could be a perv looking to catch your wife or daughter naked through a window (revenge porn and voyeurism is already a problem), an angry parent looking for revenge against your bully child, kids looking for gossip material, a thief trying to observe a credit card or PIN code, or a million other things. Are you so naive as to think there is zero malice among the populace?

As I've already mentioned, this isn't about new nannying. It's about assigning liability so that existing laws can be enforced. You can't just sit by and let anonymous automation circumvent the justice system. Law enforcement cannot work without the ability to track drones to an operator.

Imagine if cars were unregulated, and you lost an arm when hit by an unmarked and unmanned automated delivery truck. Who are you going to sue?


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki