Staff Reports
In today’s world, where social engineering often masquerades as progress, one cannot help but chuckle at the absurdity of forcing drivers to endure stop-start technology in their vehicles. It’s not rocket science to understand why many people are frustrated by a system that kills their car’s engine at every red light. The Environmental Protection Agency, with its head-scratching policies, seems to think this gives us a shot at a “climate participation trophy.” Meanwhile, car owners just want a smooth, uninterrupted drive. The frustration is palpable.
The gospel, smacked onto us by well-meaning bureaucrats, lauds this stop-start gimmick as the planet’s savior. Allegedly, it cuts down emissions and saves a few nickels in gas money. But drivers aren’t seeing it that way. Over 65% of vehicles now have this technology, so most people have resigned themselves to necessarily disabling it whenever possible. After all, who wants their engine sputtering out every time they pause for a traffic light? It’s important to note that modern batteries are designed to handle frequent stop-start cycles, and there is no direct evidence that this technology causes increased engine wear.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan, not Lee Zeldon, heads the agency. The notion that cars should stall themselves into fuel efficiency is a textbook example of over-regulation that has yet to meet the practical test of driver satisfaction. If such features were genuinely beneficial, cars would have integrated them voluntarily long ago, rather than being mandated by overzealous regulators.
It’s vital to understand that meddling under the hood affects more than emissions. It chips away at the driver’s comfort. Imagine being in a constant battle with your car, simply because someone somewhere decided that this would save Mother Earth. Expect the same kind of ingenuity from the people pushing a cashless society – convenient, they say, until systems fail and leave everyone stranded.
Common sense and autonomy must take the wheel back from one-size-fits-all environmental policies. It’s time to have regulations that respect individuals’ choices and convenience, instead of prioritizing abstract ideals. Perhaps then, the EPA won’t just be an echo chamber of progressive wish lists, but a sensible body that enacts policies reflecting reality, side-stepping frustrations, ensuring smooth rides, and most importantly, staying rooted in practicality.
