[Xist]

My phone and laptop suggested some interesting articles today, including the ones about Ford and GM losing business to Asian brands that still make sedans. I felt like rage-quitting when I read an article about a prominent politician claiming that saying "I won't do X unless you do Y" is a bribe.

No, that is blackmail:

the action, treated as a criminal offense, of demanding payment or another benefit from someone in return for not revealing compromising or damaging information about them.

The first part definitely fits. The second part seems too narrow.

Anyway, my phone also suggested an article about Toyota conspiring to kill the planet. Apparently Toyota and GM agree that California should not be able to define their own pollution standards. I do not know why, it definitely did not say, it was just a collection of tweets. I do not understand why articles quoting tweets write out the text and then show the tweet.

I already read that and I did not care the first time.

They claimed that seven whole people swore off Toyota forever because of this evil scheme.

They said they were hybrid and EV owners. How many Toyota EVs are there?

The Mirai, so... none.

All of the vitriol was targeted at Toyota, but at least one of those people apparently drove a Volt, so why did they obsess over Toyota, and not GM?

It was an annoying and completely one-sided article. I am not linking it or giving much information about it because I do not want to give attention to them.

Trying to find Toyota's reasoning, the first Google result is Wall Street Journal's paywall. This is the second:

The New York Times: General Motors Sides With Trump in Emissions Fight, Splitting the Industry

All that I learned was that Fiat-Chrysler sided with GM and Toyota.

Basically, those three want to make vehicles to one standard nationwide. The other manufacturers want to build to California's standards.

I did not learn anything here: Wired: The Fight Over California's Emissions Rules Just Got Real

PBS: Why Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom thinks revoking emissions standards could be "catastrophic"

Apparently, it is illegal for carmakers to set common goals: The Truth About Cars: Justice Department Subpoenas Automakers Over California Emissions Pact

Trump officials, labeling their move a win for automakers and consumers, said the action would save 12,700 lives because drivers would be more likely to buy newer, safer cars if the MPG rollback reduced sticker prices. They also argued that lighter, fuel-efficient cars were more dangerous.

WBUR: The Fuel Economy Standards Fiasco Is Classic Trump

People regularly argue that cars would be cheaper and more reliable without endless efficiency and environmental standards.

I have heard of newer cars having more and more complicated and expensive catalytic converters and oxygen sensors. Let's say that a 2020 car costs an extra thousand dollars because of those factors, compared to 2000.

How many buyers would need to buy cars one year old instead of new because of those factors? How much does safety vary from year to year?

The MSRP on a 2020 Civic is $21,650. That sounds high to me, but in2013dollars.com assures me that it is $14,047.50 in 1999 dollars. What percentage of the $21,650 cost is from emissions and fuel efficiency systems?

However, the second sentence is pure garbage. Larger vehicles are safer?

For whom?

Generally, drivers in SUVs are safer than those in small and mid-size cars. In an IIHS survey of death rates per million registered vehicles per year, by vehicle style, smaller cars fared worse than bigger ones. Four-door minicars have a death rate of 82, compared with 46 for very large four-doors." This survey reflects the effects of both vehicle design and driving behaviour. Drivers of SUVs, minivans, and large cars may drive differently from the drivers of small or mid-size cars, and this may affect the survey result.

Wikipedia: Criticism of sport utility vehicles

They suggest that the drivers of large vehicles drive safer than drivers of low vehicles?

How?!

How many drivers use large vehicles to make smaller vehicles move out of the way? How many drivers drive more defensively in small vehicles than in larger ones?

According to Consumer Reports, as of 2009, SUV rollover safety had improved to the extent that on average there were slightly fewer driver fatalities per million vehicles, due to rollovers, in SUVs as opposed to cars. By 2011 the IIHS reported that "drivers of today's SUVs are among the least likely to die in a crash".

"[W]hen a driver feels unsafe when driving a vehicle, it makes the vehicle safer. When a driver feels safe when driving, the vehicle becomes less safe."

"US SUV drivers were found to be less likely to wear their seatbelts."

I cannot find any other articles about it. Why do you guys think that Toyota, GM, and Fiat-Chrysler are trying to forgo California standards? Do you feel that people are safer in small cars or SUVs?