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

[Owl]

Well, if you want to see "cycles" look at the studies on the Vostok ice core samples for the last 800,000 years... not 100,000 years, not 450,000 years, but 800,000 years. The earth goes in cycles, and spikes about every 100,000 years.

If you want to read how the native Americans used to manage the forests (better than we obviously have done) get the book "Tending The Wild" by Kat Anderson. Hint -- they did burns and didn't worry a lot about the spotted owls (who figured things out themselves)... and one of the reasons the great minds of today didn't manage the forests very well at all. Let the brush build up, add a little lightening, and poof!

And finally... you put a lot of houses in forests, and you will eventually get a bunch of them burned down. That is what happens. It isn't that hard to figure out.

And after all... one of the theories about the word "California" is that it was derived from phrases that meant "hot furnace"... so what do you expect? That is where we live.

Low humidity, little rain 6-9 months of the year, and forest mismanagement!

(Bringing it back around though... I'm sure those new tires will fix everything!)

Sponsored

 

[EasternSierra]

Well, if you want to see "cycles" look at the studies on the Vostok ice core samples for the last 800,000 years... not 100,000 years, not 450,000 years, but 800,000 years. The earth goes in cycles, and spikes about every 100,000 years.

If you want to read how the native Americans used to manage the forests (better than we obviously have done) get the book "Tending The Wild" by Kat Anderson. Hint -- they did burns and didn't worry a lot about the spotted owls (who figured things out themselves)... and one of the reasons the great minds of today didn't manage the forests very well at all. Let the brush build up, add a little lightening, and poof!

And finally... you put a lot of houses in forests, and you will eventually get a bunch of them burned down. That is what happens. It isn't that hard to figure out.

And after all... one of the theories about the word "California" is that it was derived from phrases that meant "hot furnace"... so what do you expect? That is where we live.

Low humidity, little rain 6-9 months of the year, and forest mismanagement!

(Bringing it back around though... I'm sure those new tires will fix everything!)

Speaking of cycles, those Milankovich cycles should be leading to a gradual cooling over the next few thousands of years, not sudden warming in 50 years.

The spotted owl (and other old-growth forest species) got messed up because too many chunks of old-growth forest got highly fragmented by industrial forestry over tens of millions of acres of landscape. Indigenous burning didn't have that effect. They did maintain limited open areas in forests in some areas, as well as open oak woodlands in the Willamette Valley and elsewhere.

Yes, the Indians were doing a much better job at forest management than the Yale-educated foresters sent out west in the 20th century. Those had been indoctrinated in German forestry and its belief that fire in forests is always bad. That was a huge debate in the Forest Service back in the 1920s, with the anti-fire forces winning out in the end. Add in all the houses in the woods since then, and here we are today.

 

[Owl]

Well... if you watch "George Carlin On The Environment"... that pretty much says it all for me.

George had it right.

If you haven't seen it... please do.

 

[T800]

Well... if you watch "George Carlin On The Environment"... that pretty much says it all for me.

George had it right.

If you haven't seen it... please do.

Love Carlin! Went to a live show once.

 

[EasternSierra]

Well... if you watch "George Carlin On The Environment"... that pretty much says it all for me.

George had it right.

If you haven't seen it... please do.

George was truly a great and I miss him, but he was really, really over his head on that particular one. Profound scientific ignorance masquerading as common sense.

Let me give an analogy. Would you trust some rando on YouTube for reliable info on wrenching your Bronco, just because he had an entertaining patter as he prattled his nonsense?

 

[Brian_B]

Let me give an analogy. Would you trust some rando on YouTube for reliable info on wrenching your Bronco, just because he had an entertaining patter as he prattled his nonsense?

Seems to be working out just fine for all those Gen-Z’ers

 

[ducksface]

When you all reference a long dead comedian as a voice of authority or if you're going to try to combat how you used him as an authority yet you used him as a source nonetheless,
And you all don't know that you're all already HEAVILY regulated on what tire compounds you can run because of DOT and you KNOW 4x4 life as a hobby will surely end due to some new law you feel you could not possibly adapt to...yet you've adapted to thousands of regulations you don't have an inkling of a clue about...

Historical hysteria:
Catalytic Converters were going to end the world according to 1975 blurb folk
Saftey bumpers were going to end the world according to 1973 folk.
mandatory shoulder seat belts were going to kill thousands of people according to 1968 folk.
Safety rims were an outrage according to 1953 folk.(this why beadlocks are generally not allowed).
Laminated windshields are a death trap according to 1923 folk.

Blurb folk.

 

[Brian_B]

Historical hysteria:

So it’s ok to keep throwing straws on the camel’s back? Because we have previous regulation it’s cool to just keep adding more. Gotchya

Carlin appeals because at some point you would hope Humanity would just start to rely on common sense, and not have to dictate to everyone that coffee is indeed hot and can burn you, the smoking cigarettes is not a healthy thing, and that driving a motorcycle without a helmet may be dangerous.

 

[userdude]

mandatory shoulder seat belts were going to kill thousands of people according to 1968 folk.

I've known several guys (always... guys) that refused to wear seatbelts or would put the shoulder behind them. Because, of course, "the man". Nevermind it wasn't the "gov't man" that got that done, it was the "insurance man". One old friend from college told me it was cuz a friend of a friend of a friend knew a guy whose mom lost a boob in a car accident, sheared it right off! "You'd rather go through the windshield or hit the steering wheel than deal with a burn on your chest?" "Ima die Ima die!" No shit.

 

[ducksface]

So it’s ok to keep throwing straws on the camel’s back? Because we have previous regulation it’s cool to just keep adding more. Gotchya

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.

Not want, just reasoned and commendable thought based on facts, not comedic routine of the past.

 

[Brian_B]

Some people just have to be kept from themselves

And that right there is the crux of it

I think Darwin can figure it out better than any regulation.

I prefer to be able to make decisions, be they good or bad.

 

[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.

 

[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?)

Sponsored