Future events? How would you feel?

[PES+]

I recall several ballots that have long since been forgotten calling for a useful lifespan for on road passenger vehicles.

I can't help but wonder if the small engine manufacturers might not attempt the same using the same logic and reasoning.

How would you feel if laws were passed requiring you to return a saw or mower or brush cutter at the end of a predetermined by the factory time period in the name of the EPA.

It seems like things are pointing in that direction....we shall wait and see.

Several states attempted this with cars and light trucks but they were always struck down but I bet even those laws are coming

 

[RaisedByWolves]

Id feel like I was living in a communist country........




They can pry my old Homie from my cold dead hands!!!!



I would probably do what the good AMERICANS in NJ did when they tried to ban certain Hunting rifles ( By calling them assault weapons), put them in PVC tubes and bury them in the ground untill the tide changes.




Not that I, Umm, Know anyone who did this......

 

[Erick]

How would they implement a policy like this
How would they determine the lifespan A predetermined time i.e. 1 year, 5 years, 10 years? Some saws are shelf queens all there life and I don’t think anyone would be willing to trade in a saw that has 5 tanks of fuel through it just because its been on the shelf for 5 years. Maybe by the number of hours on the saw? They might start requiring you to keep a log of the hours you've used the saw. Naa too easily manipulated (oops forgot to write that one down, or no I cut that 40" Doug Fir with my Wildthang not that 660). Maybe an hour meter on the saw? (I can bypass that) And where would the saws that have been "rebuilt" fall in? All of the wear and tear that occurs on a saw that would concern the EPA would be to the rings, piston and cylinder if all of these parts were replaced with factory originals that 1500 hr saw would have the same EPA emissions as a new saw.

Just my .02 but I don’t see it ever happening.

I know it won't stop them from trying though.

 

[PES+]

How would they implement a policy like this
How would they determine the lifespan A predetermined time i.e. 1 year, 5 years, 10 years? Some saws are shelf queens all there life and I don’t think anyone would be willing to trade in a saw that has 5 tanks of fuel through it just because its been on the shelf for 5 years. Maybe by the number of hours on the saw? They might start requiring you to keep a log of the hours you've used the saw. Naa too easily manipulated (oops forgot to write that one down, or no I cut that 40" Doug Fir with my Wildthang not that 660). Maybe an hour meter on the saw? (I can bypass that) And where would the saws that have been "rebuilt" fall in? All of the wear and tear that occurs on a saw that would concern the EPA would be to the rings, piston and cylinder if all of these parts were replaced with factory originals that 1500 hr saw would have the same EPA emissions as a new saw.

Just my .02 but I don’t see it ever happening.

I know it won't stop them from trying though.

The very same company that has developed the feedback carb/ignition system that is coming also has in all their new coil circuitry an hour meter...

The saving grace for the foreseeable future is the coils don't work very long.

Failure rates are climbing for various reasons

 

[computeruser]

So long as products continue to be sold, rather than leased/licensed, I don't understand how this could not act as a taking requiring compensation presuming that it was adjudged constitutional in the first place. This was the problem with the Chevrolet EV1, after all - the vehicles were leased with a no-buyout provision and when the lease term was up they were forcibly reclaimed and crushed. Owners had agreed to this at the inception of their leases and prior to taking possession of the vehicles, after all. Had the vehicles been sold outright, where title passed to the purchaser free and clear of any residual interest or reversionary interest in the manufacturer/dealer then this problem would not have occurred.

Listen, folks, there are a lot more issues - philosophical, political, etc. - that should be evaluated when voting for candidates for public office than whether they will give you free stuff, whether they want to "share" their religious views with the greater public, whether they will lower or raise taxes, whether they want to leave Iraq ASAP, etc. Core philosophies and beliefs about the relationship between the individual and the state are, or at least should be, of at least coequal importance with the day-to-day issues of governance that candidates generally address.

Similarly, individuals need to vote with their actions and pocketbooks when offensive contract terms or public policy are forced upon them. If NOBODY had leased an EV1 with the offensive terms, the manufacturer would either have not sold any at all (bad for them, neutral for everyone else) or amended their contract terms (neutral or good for them, good for everyone else). But this didn't happen; people accepted the terms as presented and gave up the right to complain about them later.

It ain't much different with saws.

 

[PES+]

So long as products continue to be sold, rather than leased/licensed, I don't understand how this could not act as a taking requiring compensation presuming that it was adjudged constitutional in the first place. This was the problem with the Chevrolet EV1, after all - the vehicles were leased with a no-buyout provision and when the lease term was up they were forcibly reclaimed and crushed. Owners had agreed to this at the inception of their leases and prior to taking possession of the vehicles, after all. Had the vehicles been sold outright, where title passed to the purchaser free and clear of any residual interest or reversionary interest in the manufacturer/dealer then this problem would not have occurred.

Listen, folks, there are a lot more issues - philosophical, political, etc. - that should be evaluated when voting for candidates for public office than whether they will give you free stuff, whether they want to "share" their religious views with the greater public, whether they will lower or raise taxes, whether they want to leave Iraq ASAP, etc. Core philosophies and beliefs about the relationship between the individual and the state are, or at least should be, of at least coequal importance with the day-to-day issues of governance that candidates generally address.

Similarly, individuals need to vote with their actions and pocketbooks when offensive contract terms or public policy are forced upon them. If NOBODY had leased an EV1 with the offensive terms, the manufacturer would either have not sold any at all (bad for them, neutral for everyone else) or amended their contract terms (neutral or good for them, good for everyone else). But this didn't happen; people accepted the terms as presented and gave up the right to complain about them later.

It ain't much different with saws.

Excellent post and point .........Thanks

 

[spike60]

"The government can have my saws when they pry my dead fingers off of them"

 

[Erick]

So long as products continue to be sold, rather than leased/licensed, I don't understand how this could not act as a taking requiring compensation presuming that it was adjudged constitutional in the first place. This was the problem with the Chevrolet EV1, after all - the vehicles were leased with a no-buyout provision and when the lease term was up they were forcibly reclaimed and crushed. Owners had agreed to this at the inception of their leases and prior to taking possession of the vehicles, after all. Had the vehicles been sold outright, where title passed to the purchaser free and clear of any residual interest or reversionary interest in the manufacturer/dealer then this problem would not have occurred.

Listen, folks, there are a lot more issues - philosophical, political, etc. - that should be evaluated when voting for candidates for public office than whether they will give you free stuff, whether they want to "share" their religious views with the greater public, whether they will lower or raise taxes, whether they want to leave Iraq ASAP, etc. Core philosophies and beliefs about the relationship between the individual and the state are, or at least should be, of at least coequal importance with the day-to-day issues of governance that candidates generally address.

Similarly, individuals need to vote with their actions and pocketbooks when offensive contract terms or public policy are forced upon them. If NOBODY had leased an EV1 with the offensive terms, the manufacturer would either have not sold any at all (bad for them, neutral for everyone else) or amended their contract terms (neutral or good for them, good for everyone else). But this didn't happen; people accepted the terms as presented and gave up the right to complain about them later.

It ain't much different with saws.

+1
Well said
To many people just accept things as they are and say "well what can I do about it". That kind of thinking will only tell them that you will accept whatever they give you, and they will continue to do so.

 

[PES+]

The whole point of this topic was to get us aware and discussing the business.

A lot of people like to call me paranoid but I have seen some pretty strange things in my time and it looks like more are coming

We are required here to seperate our trash for recycling and it goes into seperate roll off containers which are then dumped back together in the same pile at the transfer station.

Good intentions gone haywire....and the price per bag went double

 

[habanero]

They can pry my old Homie from my cold dead hands!!!!

Amen to that!

 

[spike60]

Ideas such as this are often hatched by people on the political fringe. They usually go nowhere since they are for the most part unworkable in the real world.

 

[Another Bucker]

"The government can have my saws when they pry my dead fingers off of them"

Not me... Gubmint can't have my saws, vehicles, guns ect. ever PERIOD. Unless they hire me or even need me to volunteer. But to just fork stuff over because THEY say so, no way, not now, not ever.:biggrinbounce2:

 

[PES+]

Back when I cared about politics at all...which I no longer do.....I lived in one of the states attempting to "get those old polluting hazards off the road"

Guess who were the proponents of the laws? The Car makers and the dealers

big surprise eh?....that's why I am always watching

perfect paranoia is perfect awareness

 

[JUDGE1162]

As an enviromental engineer I most likely have a diffrent take on this then most of you. I would think the whole return your car, your saw, your lawn mower to the dealer at a set point will never become law there is too many variables like usage, a pro may use his 372 for 10 hours a day 6 days a week I may use my 455 for 1 day a week for 8 hours 6 months out of the year after 5 years or 10 years the saws will be in much diffrent condition but what most states have now or will real soon are emmisions standards people who live in metro area know what I am talking about they stick a meter in your tail pipe and check the emmision and you will fail your auto inspection if you are over this is how they plan to get older cars and trucks off the road. The older motors can not pass the emmision standards. The same will happen with small engines, most likely only on a commerical uses. They wull pass a laws saying all landscaping, tree companies will have to have their equipment inspected once a year or it can be spot checked by the environmental agancy in the area.

I doubt this will ever hit private or homeowner user except that newer equipmet will have to meet these new standards. It would be too hard to enforce or police the return angle. You might be checked if you cut firewood on stateland (state forest)

 

[Lakeside53]

They will pass a laws saying all landscaping, tree companies will have to have their equipment inspected once a year or it can be spot checked by the environmental agancy in the area.

never underestimate California...

Oh great, even more will move to the PNW!:biggrinbounce2:

 

[Woodie]

never underestimate California...

Ah yes...the People's Republic of California! (I understand they're even building an embassy in DC...) :hmm3grin2orange: :hmm3grin2orange: