New California Replacement Tire Standards [⛔️ ADMIN WARNING: NO POLITICS]

[northernlights]

I had heard rumors but saw this today

https://nypost.com/2026/08/18/busin...rs-approve-new-replacement-tire-restrictions/

Can’t wait to see what my authorized tire choices get to be once this goes into effect

I know this thread is meant to be apolitical, per Admin request. And I generally am not very political anyways but how do you not divorce politics from these decisions... Anyways, its part of why I don't live in Cali anymore... But I applaud their attempts to reduce global warming.

Sponsored

 

[EasternSierra]

I know this thread is meant to be apolitical, per Admin request. And I generally am not very political anyways but how do you not divorce politics from these decisions... Anyways, its part of why I don't live in Cali anymore... But I applaud their attempts to reduce global warming.

These kinds of discussions tend to slip from the first category towards the last pretty quickly:

1. What is the existing or proposed law/regulation (fair enough question, but info out there might be inaccurate and need correction).
2. What are/will be the effects on us or others? (same issues as above)
3. How can we adapt/should we oppose this? (fair question)
4. Will it accomplish what it's intended to do? (another fair question, but getting more off-topic in some cases)
5. Is this a good idea in terms of striking a balance between competing interests and concerns in society (now we're political)
6. Are the gov't officials promoting this law or regulation sensible and reasonable, and ditto for those who voted them into office. (extremely political!)

I try to stay away from numbers 5 and 6.

 

[northernlights]

These kinds of discussions tend to slip from the first category towards the last pretty quickly:

1. What is the existing or proposed law/regulation (fair enough question, but info out there might be inaccurate and need correction).
2. What are/will be the effects on us or others? (same issues as above)
3. How can we adapt/should we oppose this? (fair question)
4. Will it accomplish what it's intended to do? (another fair question, but getting more off-topic in some cases)
5. Is this a good idea in terms of striking a balance between competing interests and concerns in society (now we're political)
6. Are the gov't officials promoting this law or regulation sensible and reasonable, and ditto for those who voted them into office. (extremely political!)

I try to stay away from numbers 5 and 6.

Totally get it. Not trying to be critical of you as much as society in general which seems incapable of meaningful. Thoughtful. Respectful Debate. I digress. Carry on.

 

[Owl]

What Carlin was talking about was more a philosophy than scientific fact... which I agree on.

In regard to regulations... I would have gotten rid of the "special gasoline" that was polluting the groundwater more than helping the air. The groundwater pollution lasts a long time.

Some people just have to be kept from themselves.
What prior regulations, based on an education about them, would you dismiss;
And why¿
Really why.

I would have gotten away with about 2/3 of California's forest management policies that trimmed logging to nothing and allowed the junk/brush to get high enough for the fires to reach for forest canopies. I think the resulting fire storms speak for themselves.

I would get rid of the "no gasoline autos" (in the future) regulation that California put in, because its totally irresponsible when you look at the electric grid we have. We cannot support those EVs.

I would definitely get rid of the "diamond lanes". They do nothing but promote more pollution and death in California. Article detailing Diamond Lanes... https://www.scienceservingsociety.com/p2/X/03.htm

And I would require any lawmaker in California thinking of outlawing anything but electric vehicles to realize that it takes 65,000 miles for an electric car to break even with a gasoline powered car in regard to pollution. This includes manufacturing pollution.

Earth.org article on some of the reasons -- https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-battery-production/

That would be a good start.

(I wonder how long an electric cord would have to be to support an E-Bronco over the Rubicon?)

 

[EasternSierra]

I would have gotten away with about 2/3 of California's forest management policies that trimmed logging to nothing and allowed the junk/brush to get high enough for the fires to reach for forest canopies. I think the resulting fire storms speak for themselves.

Except that California's laws and regulations didn't do that (other than the air pollution mandates coming through the state from federal law/EPA). The state owns only 3% of its forests. It's pretty much either private or federal here, and state forestry regulations still allow logging on private lands throughout the state. You can see the clearcuts on Google Earth.

The ultimate reason for the fuel buildup on many western lands (not just California) has been a very long-term society-wide illusion that in fire-dependent landscapes you can keep out all fire including little ones, allow for vegetation to fill in, build rustic houses and cabins all over out in the countryside, and have that work out in the long run. Just check out private rangelands in central Texas that have been taken over by flammable juniper over huge areas over many decades. Who caused that? Not greenies, but fire suppression.

That attitude towards fire mostly worked for a long time. Now with climate change, and with fires behaving very differently as a result, the bill is coming due. Unheard-of and extreme fire behavior is happening in all western states, in many vegetation types, and on federal, state, and private land. Houses are burning down thanks to windblown embers from far away, and fires are jumping over multiple miles thanks to those windblown embers.

Like I said before, listen to the firefighters.

 

[ducksface]

I'm in northern Arizona.
Exaiplaining that a juniper is an evergreen-tumbleweed is pretty hard to do to someone who thinks bougainvillea is a protected species because they're so pretty.


Signed,
Me and my 15,000 junipers and pinons.
(At least they keep the soil within a few sections of land during a flood)

 

[Owl]

The state owns about 4 million acres in California.

About 48 million acres are privately owned in California.

That makes 52 million acres that are still subject to state control, and environmental laws.
In other words... just because I "own" property doesn't mean I'm not under state control.

So... acting like the state controls only 3% is a bit ingenuous... don't you think?

But "yes"... the Feds own about 46 million acres.

========

Just For Thought...
The state doesn't own any tire companies that I know of, but they sure will control the tires sold in California. (Always got to bring it back to the original topic).

Still need to get rid of those dang "Diamond Lanes". They are without actual purpose.

 

[demos1970]

I had heard rumors but saw this today

https://nypost.com/2026/08/18/busin...rs-approve-new-replacement-tire-restrictions/

Can’t wait to see what my authorized tire choices get to be once this goes into effect

For crying out loud. What a load of crap!!! I guess USAID slush fund isn’t giving them enough.

Sponsored