Words to the Wise About Gap Insurance - Never Buy From Car Dealers!

I first published a post about this back in 2017 on my blog. A few months prior, I had just discovered Gap insurance, did some research on it, and found what a gold mine it was for car dealers. If you feel you need it, there's a much cheaper way!

"7/1/2017: A couple months ago, I wrote a post titled Why I Absolutely Hate Buying Cars about my recent experience buying a car from a dealer.

Prior to this year, the last time I bought from a dealer was in December of 2008. I purchased a 2009 Malibu that Chevrolet had just redesigned for the new model year. I bought it from Gus Paulos Chevrolet and they gave me an excellent deal on it. It certainly helped that the 2008 recession was full on, cars weren't selling and dealer lots were full. They gave me financing that matched my credit union rate and didn't try to find ways to rip me off like this most recent dealer attempted to do. The contract was clean and no "extra" charges were added to what we originally agreed to. Since moving to Salt Lake City from Wisconsin in 1993, I've bought three new vehicles from Gus Paulos and they have been fair to deal with. That Malibu turned out to be a great car and I seriously considered getting another, but decided on a slightly used 2016 Nissan Altima dealer fleet car that had only been titled for 6 months.

What a difference this year I had with this other cutthroat dealership! Prior to a couple months ago, I had never heard of "Gap Insurance" and had to ask what it was when this latest dealer tried to include it on my contract for $895.00 and throw it into the finance agreement so I could pay interest on it! The finance guy stated that if I totaled the car in an accident and received less than I owed on it I wouldn't be responsible for the difference! I refused and almost walked out on them until he redid the contract, taking it out along with a couple other things they were trying to get me for.

Since then, I've done a little research on this Gap Insurance thing. My thoughts: First, if you ever think you need it or want it, you can get it through most car insurance companies for a couple dollars a month! (My car insurance renewal is coming up next month and I actually just checked a quote I had for Progressive: $6.00 for six months.) Don't get it through a crooked car dealer that charges $895.00 and tries to throw it on your finance agreement. I am still so aggravated that jerk thought he could sneak that past me, it makes me wonder if there was sign on my forehead that said "stupid"?

Second, if you are so upside down between your finance agreement and what the car is worth, you probably made an incredibly BAD deal. You can't trust a car dealer to be looking out for your interests, they will clean your pockets out of everything they can get. You have to examine every line on the contract and finance agreement and understand what you are getting charged for.

In a conversation with one of our drivers this past week, he told me about buying a new vehicle and falling for the exact same thing. He never realized what he was signing for until after the deal was done. By that time it was too late and it cost him over a thousand dollars.

Don't become a victim!"

My Amazon Author Link

Salute to the Tasmanian Devil of Third Party Logistics

A Celebration of Life service is being held today in Las Vegas for my old boss, Craig Schneider. He was just 74 years old and only recently retired. I am also now retired and had the very great fortune of spending 10 years working for him starting in 1993. I was working for Ryder Dedicated Logistics in Wisconsin and transferred out to Salt Lake City, UT. Craig was a senior logistics manager there at the time.

That division of Ryder Systems, Inc is a third party logistics provider employing more than 10,000 drivers serving the transportation needs of companies throughout the US. Our major customer in Salt Lake was/is one of the largest independent bottlers of Coca-Cola in the world.

It was a hell of a ride with Craig rapidly being promoted to Director in the company (Ryder). There are only a very few people in the lives of most of us that really make a difference. One of those for me was Craig. Long story, short, he was most responsible for my 25 years spent living and working in Utah. The man taught me so much, and reined me in hard when I needed it. I always appreciated his work ethic and what he taught me about business. A great man that made a huge difference in my life.

Craig was always thinking “outside the box” and throwing out ideas and concepts to customers, colleagues and employees constantly. I remember a customer's high level manager telling me that hearing some of Craig’s ideas would seem so off the wall, but ended up being brilliant. Hence the “Tasmanian devil” and “bull in a China shop” references to him. His leadership style produced amazing results directing a great team that enjoyed working for him throughout the inter-mountain west. Rest in peace Boss!

What follows are some of the online comments I received expressing how respected and appreciated he was from colleagues and former employees:

From BM:

Craig was a hell of a boss and mentor!!!! He stuck up for me when others were trying to take me down. I owe him so much with what I learn in life and management!!! Rest in Peace My Dear Friend!!! Thank you Dan for posting this!!!

From YS:

One hell of a boss for sure. Rest in peace boss man.

From DT:

God Bless him and his family

From MC:

Oh no, what a great loss. One of the greatest guys I ever knew and worked for! RIP Craig!! Thoughts and prayers go out to you and your family!!

From ML:

I am so sorry to hear, he was a great person and boss. RIP

From CW:

He was one of a kind! I learned so much from him in the 15 years I worked with him. He was the kind of boss who believed in his people and brought out the best in them. I was shaped by his leadership and he pushed me to be the best I could be. I will forever be grateful! This world lost a good one.

From NW:

With Dan's comment, Craig gave me opportunities that I never dreamed of. Will miss him

From DC:

Sorry to hear

From BK:

Good man, I have a picture of him and me together of him handing me the 1st place truck rodeo trophy. Condolences to his family.

From JD:

Lousy news. He was his own logistics engineer because he could keep the numbers in his head. More importantly he led his team with an all for one and one for all approach that for a long time produced some impressive results.

From DT:

A Good man

From YM:

That's Craig for ya. He used to make me laugh with his stories of different startups. RIP Craig

From JP:

Amen, brother. Only reason I became COO of *****, was Craig. I owe him for taking a chance on me. Speaking of *****, I retired. Will re-engage somewhere, and take some time for rest.

Bottom line (one of Craig’s frequent expressions), he had such an impact on so many lives, he deserves a tribute. I authored a book in 2020 that describes many of our adventures throughout the 1990s, into the early 2000s, My Truck Driving Life, if you’re interested. From us two haoles working a startup in Hawaii to Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, Seattle and throughout the intermountain west, it was a fascinating ride for me, a cheesehead from Wisconsin. I wish I could be there in Las Vegas today, not possible, but this man will live on in my frequent dreams as long as I’m still around. Craig Thomas Schneider, always will be, The Boss!

On this road called life, you have to take the good with the bad, smile with the sad, love what you got, and remember what you had. Always forgive, but never forget, learn from your mistakes, but never forget. People change. Things go wrong. But just remember, the ride goes on. Credit: simplereminders.com

Craig Thomas Schneider Obituary

Crime Story TV Series - Vintage Las Vegas and Cool Cars!

Do you like to see Las Vegas the way it was in the late 1980’s? Or, how about seeing the really cool cars of the late 1950’s and early 60’s?

We ran across this TV series starring Dennis Farina called Crime Story that ran for two seasons starting in 1986. The series setting starts out in Chicago in the early 1960’s. Farina plays a Chicago Lieutenant cop chasing down mob figures and transfers his team to Las Vegas after a few episodes. Before Dennis Farina started his acting career he spent 18 years in the Chicago police department advancing from a patrol officer to detective.

In Las Vegas, a lot of scenes were shot inside the old Bob Stupak’s Vegas World that eventually became the Stratosphere, now named The Strat. About 1989, my wife and I went to Vegas World using one of Stupak’s promotion club deals. They would give you $1200 in slot play tokens, vouchers for table game play with a room and meals for 3 days for $400 per couple. We actually broke even on one trip out there from Wisconsin. Since the series was shot in the late 80’s, it was cool seeing all the original decor, layout and even the same carpeting in the TV show! Lots of action on Old Fremont St. downtown before all the changes and great scenery.

And then, the cars! So many late 50’s and early 60’s pristine classics! Farina had the best set of wheels, a jet black 1957 Chrysler 300C convertible. It had a factory 392 hemi engine with 2 four-barrel carburetors producing 375 hp. In some scenes you can clearly hear the powerful engine as the car accelerates. No wonder Farina wanted to drive that car for both seasons. It's like watching a vintage car show. They didn’t abuse the car too much in chases, as I’m sure the owner would have had a problem with that. Too many cars to list from an early 60’s Corvette to T-birds, Cadillacs, late 50’s Fords and so many others.

With the TV show produced in the 1980's I was unaware until finding it on Amazon Prime a few weeks ago. There’s about 40 episodes over two seasons and we just started the second and final season. The show has enough action to be entertaining. There were quite a few guest stars in the first season including Debbie Harry, Paul Anka, Gary Sinese and Julia Roberts among others. It’s available to stream on Amazon, Tubi, Peacock and others.

And, I just was sent a recent photo of the original car this afternoon (Edit 4/3/2025), after posting to another group. The original car is in Chicago (Pic on the right)! The friend of the owner said he has had it since the 1970's! I asked if the car was for sale and was told the guy will never sell, has two of them, and his two daughters will each get one when he passes. Guess I'll just have to own it in my dreams!

Message received from a car owner, "I owned the 1959 Cadillac used in the filming in 2 seasons in Vegas. At first it was white, and the next season it was painted brown. They paid me $50 per day, and kept it 2 months! When I got it back, it was full of 30 MM spent cartridge rounds. They wanted to blow it up in the final episode, and I refused to sell it, so they had to change the ending of the show."

My Amazon Author Link

Pioneer QX-949 Quad Receiver - The Cat's Meow in the 1970's

For a few years in the early 1970's 4 channel quad stereo receivers became all the rage. in 1973, Pioneer came out with their top of the line QX 949 that was capable of Discrete 4 quad. I was young, single and able to purchase one around that time. The receiver was huge and weighed about 50 pounds, costing around $800 without extras like speakers and turntable. Of course, if you wanted the ultimate quad experience, you also had to buy albums that incorporated the technology. I think that's what ultimately led to failure in the marketplace, as the equipment needed was quite expensive back then. Also, you would certainly lose some of the advantage unless you were seated near the center of the surrounding four speakers.

But that set could put out amazing sound at 40 watts per channel, 160 total. I bought a reverb, and 4 big speakers, having that setup for more than 30 years! Those were the party days!

Also, you would certainly lose some of the advantage unless you were seated near the center of the surrounding four speakers. But with the super cool display, you could custom tune the output of the individual speakers!

My Amazon Author Link

Where Would We Be Without Drug Companies? Consider This!

Why? Why all the hate for pharmaceutical companies?

I know a guy. Well, it would be more accurate to say that I know of a guy, or that I used to know a guy. I didn’t request permission to identify this guy, so I won't. But this guy's story should be told. Why? Read on.

This guy, in his mid-teens in the 1980s, was at a crossroads. Grades were not that great in school. He, and his entire family, had an extremely traumatic experience earlier in his life. He kind of grew distant and quiet. But he picked the right friend, who had a great family that surely helped inspire him. He became a really good athlete in high school football. Got a summer job at a cheese factory but seemed to quickly figure out that was not what he wanted to do with his life.

Soon after, there was an amazing change when he hit the books in school and his grades came way up. After high school, he and his buddy went off to college. He received a Bachelor of Science Chemistry degree at University of Wisconsin Oshkosh in 1993 and a Doctor of Philosophy in 1998 at the University of Utah. After earning his Ph.D., he accepted a Postdoctoral Fellowship at University of Utah with Prof. Gary E. Keck.

While studying in Utah, this guy met his future wife, a great gal from Ohio, who also got her Ph.D in chemistry. They have successfully raised two daughters.

After his education, this guy was hired by Pfizer Pharmaceutical with he and his wife moving to Connecticut, where she was also hired. He began his industrial career as a Research Scientist at Pfizer Inc. and was promoted to Research Fellow in 2012. He then was promoted to Drug Discovery Design Lead. During his time at Pfizer he received numerous awards; the most notable was the W.E. Upjohn Award for innovation. He has over 90 patents, publications and external presentations including two most cited articles, one in the journal of ACS Chemical Neuroscience (2010-2014). He has authored nearly 40 scientific papers. Beyond developing new medicines targeting Alzheimer's disease, this guy has developed compounds to treat Schizophrenia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), narcolepsy and allergic rhinitis.

After Pfizer cut back funding of his department, he was hired away by a competitor, Aquinna Pharmaceutical, as Vice President of Research for a couple years. In 2020, this guy and a fellow Ph.D friend from Pfizer co-founded a new company Rgenta Therapeutics, Inc. with his title being Chief Scientific Officer and his partner Chief Executive Officer. They currently have a new drug, a potential treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in Phase 1 of a clinical trial.

Which brings me around to the point of this story. This doctor worked his way through advanced degrees on his own. Whatever grants, scholarships, loans he could get, he would also work. His education took him until he was close to 30 years old before he started making real money. I don't know how long it took him and his wife to pay off their debts. 

The survival of their new company is dependent on investors paying to fund their research, which is ongoing. Research and development costs are enormous. With drugs in clinical trials, if successful, could be life saving to many. Researchers and scientists need to be paid for what they do. Their investors take risks and need to be compensated if and when their products get to market.

Drug companies? Of course, there’s bad actors out there, as there are in any business or profession. The opioid scandal involving some drug companies was shameful. But, also shameful, was the lack of oversight from the Federal Food & Drug Administration and their failure to safeguard the public. There needs to be oversight, but, come on, thank God for the good they also do.

The many thousands upon thousands of dedicated guys/gals that work hard every day trying to cure disease. Many spend a third of their lives before their education is complete, which it really never is, as they have to continue to study throughout their working lives. Which is what they do, like this guy. And we should appreciate all the great work that these guys and gals do every day, for all of us.

My Amazon Author Link

A Landmark Moment in Motorist Advocacy

I am a member of The National Motorists Association, believing in their cause for more than 50 years. Having written several posts about them, I am re-publishing this info I received in their New Year's email. I hope you would consider joining the fight against the war that is still being waged on the motoring public.

On January 2, 1974, President Richard Nixon signed the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act into law, which included a key provision: the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) of 55 mph on interstate highways. The stated goal of the law was to conserve fuel during the oil crisis of the early 1970s, but it soon became a source of frustration for American drivers. While the government aimed to reduce energy consumption, the NMSL quickly proved ineffective, leading to longer travel times, massive ticketing, and more driver frustration without achieving the desired results.  And so was born the Citizen’s Coalition for Rational Traffic Laws, eventually to be renamed the National Motorists Association.

As people who are deeply committed to motorists rights, we take great pride in the role that the NMA played in the effort to repeal this unworkable and unpopular law. Under the leadership of Jim Baxter, the NMA launched a tireless campaign to overturn the NMSL. Jim understood that speed limits should be determined by road design, safety conditions, and reasonable drivers’ decisions—not by a one-size-fits-all federal mandate. The NMA worked relentlessly, organizing grassroots campaigns, reaching out to lawmakers, and rallying the public to join the cause.

Our message was simple: speed limits should be based on rational principles, such as the 85th percentile speed, not arbitrary rules that make the vast majority of reasonable and safe drivers into violators.

Our efforts culminated in 1995, when the National Highway System Designation Act was signed into law, effectively repealing the NMSL. This victory was a monumental step forward for the NMA and for all Americans who believe in the freedom to drive responsibly. By returning the authority to set speed limits back to individual states, we were able to restore common sense to the way we manage our highways and roadways. States could now set speed limits based on engineering, road design, and local driving habits—factors that made more sense than a blanket 55 mph limit.

The repeal of the NMSL was not just a win against a bad law—it was a victory for the principle of rational traffic policy. It demonstrated the power of grassroots advocacy and the importance of organizations like the NMA in protecting the rights of drivers.  And we couldn’t have done it without the tireless efforts and financial support of our members and donors.

But our work didn’t stop there.

Since the repeal, the NMA has remained vigilant, advocating against unnecessary restrictions on motorists and continuing to fight for fairer, safer, and more reasonable road policies. Whether it's pushing back against speed traps, opposing unjust traffic enforcement measures like red-light cameras, or advocating for better highway infrastructure, the NMA has always been at the forefront of protecting motorists' freedoms.

As we look back on January 2, 1974, and the signing of the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, it's important to remember the legacy of the NMSL repeal and the ongoing fight for motorists’ rights.

The road ahead may be long, but together we’ll keep pushing for common-sense policies that protect the freedom of the open road.

TAKE ACTION:

If you're not yet a member of the NMA, we encourage you to join us in this important mission—because the fight for motorists' rights is never over.

VOLUNTEER

DONATE

NMA NEWS

The True Cost of Electric Vehicles

First-of-kind analysis reveals true cost of owning, operating EVs without govt. subsidies

October 25, 2023 | by Vivek Saxena

Article thanks to Vivek Saxena and American Wire News Service. Link to the original follows below: 

A study by a conservative think tank has determined that electric vehicles would cost oodles more if it weren’t for all the subsidies.

The study from the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) found, for example, that the average 2021 electric vehicle “would cost $48,698 more to own over a 10-year period without $22 billion in government favors given to EV manufacturers and owners.”

“EV advocates claim that the cost of electricity for EV owners is equal to $1.21 per gallon of gasoline (Edison Electric Institute, 2021), but the cost of charging equipment and charging losses, averaged out over 10 years and 120,000 miles, is $1.38 per gallon equivalent on top of that. Adding the costs of the subsidies to the true cost of fueling an EV would equate to an EV owner paying $17.33 per gallon of gasoline,” the report reads.

“And these estimates do not include the hundreds of billions more in subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act (2022) for various aspects of the EV supply chain, particularly for battery manufacturing. It is not an overstatement to say that the federal government is subsidizing EVs to a greater degree than even wind and solar electricity generation and embarking on an unprecedented endeavor to remake the entire American auto industry,” it continues.

Yet, the report notes, the public’s response to this endeavor has been “tepid” primarily because most Americans can’t afford the upfront (not to mention the long-term) costs of an electric vehicle.

“Car lots are swelling with unsold EVs (Muller, 2023), and the Ford Motor Company is losing over $70,000 on each EV it currently sells,” the report notes.

The report’s overarching goal is “to analyze how regulatory credits, hidden costs, and subsidies disguise the real cost of electric vehicles (EVs).”

“With the Biden administration’s continued push for electrification and states such as California implementing laws to ban the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035, ‘Overcharged Expectations: Unmasking the True Costs of Electric Vehicles’ reveals the regulatory tricks at play and how these costs are socialized on to taxpayers and gas vehicle owners. This study was also submitted as part of a public comment on the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s proposed fuel economy standards,” a press release from TPPF states.

The press release also includes a statement from the report’s author, Jason Isaac.

“The Biden administration and leftist states such as California have pushed for widespread electrification in less than 20 years through government subsidies and coercive regulations, but the price you see in the lot is not the true cost of an electric vehicle,” he said.

“Electric vehicle owners have been the beneficiaries of regulatory credits, subsidies, and socialized infrastructure costs totaling nearly 50 thousand dollars per EV. These costs are borne by gasoline vehicle owners, taxpayers, and utility ratepayers, who are all paying a hefty price for someone else’s EV,” he added.

The report also found that electric vehicles receive roughly 7x more in federal fuel efficiency credits than they actually provide in fuel economy benefits.

Also, the report determined that electric vehicle charging stations will cost roughly $11,833 per electric vehicle every 10 years — costs that will have to be shouldered by taxpayers, regardless of whether they personally own an EV.

In conclusion, the report argued that “the true cost” of an electric vehicle is light years ahead of the cost of a traditional vehicle.

“The stark reality for proponents of EVs and for the dreamers in the federal government, who are using fuel economy regulations to force manufacturers to produce ever more EVs, is that the true cost of an EV is in no way close to a comparable [internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV)],” the report reads.

“Without increased and sustained government favors, EVs will remain more expensive than ICEVs for many years to come. Hence why, even with these subsidies, EVs have been challenging for dealers to sell and why basic economic realities indicate that the Biden administration’s dream of achieving 100% EVs by 2040 will never become a reality,” it continues.

According to Fox News, the report’s publication comes as Democrats on both the federal and state levels continue to attack gas-powered vehicles while promoting EVs.

“Biden has set a goal of ensuring 50% of all car sales are zero-emissions by 2030 and his administration has pursued rigorous restrictions on gas-powered vehicles,” Fox News notes.

Most recently, the Biden administration announced new emissions rules that “are significantly more stringent and … cover a wider range of heavy-duty engine operating conditions compared to today’s standard,” as reported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The problem, according to truckers like JKC Trucking co-owner Mike Kucharski, is that the new rules could bankrupt truckers and thus destroy America’s supply chain.

Appearing on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” last month, he explained that the “regulations are not practical and impossible for five reasons,” including the fact that “the costs are astronomical” and “truckers will not be able to afford these things.”

“A new clean diesel long haul tractor typically costs in the range of $180,000 to $200,000. A comparable battery electric tractor costs upwards of $480,000. That’s about a $300,000 upcharge, [which] is cost prohibitive for the overwhelming majority of motor carriers,” he said in a separate statement to Fox News.

Link to the original article posted by American Wire is below:

True Cost of Owning/operating EVs

 My Amazon Author Link

Your Freedom to Travel is Under Attack

Article re-printed from The National Motorists Association newsletter last month. Please consider supporting them by joining at the links provided. These issues will affect all of us soon and they need our help to fight back. By Jay Beeber, Director of Policy & Research, National Motorists Association

From April 2,2023:  If there was any doubt before, now we have a clear indication that the WAR ON CARS is real –and it’s being waged at the highest levels of society by authoritarian culture warriors. These tyrannical elitists seek to eliminate our freedom to travel where we want, when we want, and how we want by impairing our ability to use our personal vehicles. While often promoted as “safety” measures, this campaign to “get people out of their cars” is, in actuality, a crusade against a middle-class lifestyle represented by single-family homes and automobiles.

Prompted by their cataclysmic view of climate change requiring a drastic reduction in carbon emissions, cars are activists’ favored target to reduce greenhouse gasses. Their “solutions” would mostly lead to a diminution of our standard of living and curtailment of our personal liberties. And those hurt the most will be the poorest among us, those disproportionately affected by traffic fines and often forced to travel longer distances to jobs and educational opportunities.

The “Paradise” of these collectivists’ dreams is the “15 Minute City”, a dense urban prison where everyone travels by bicycle or government-run transportation systems –and never ventures more than a few miles from home.

The War on Cars takes many different forms:

Vision Zero: Both an ideology and an organization based on the belief that we can make roadways so safe that no one ever dies in an automobile accident. Numerous U.S. cities have adopted Vision Zero as an official policy. Yet it has failed almost everywhere it has been tried. The original target date for zero deaths was 2018, then 2020, then 2025. It has now been pushed to 2040 – far enough in the future that the lack of progress and failure in policy is impossible to demonstrate. Of course, the logical conclusion to this ideology is that society must eliminate or severely curtail all motorized travel, starting with personal automobiles.

20 is Plenty: A policy that cars shouldn’t be allowed to go faster than 20 mph in urban areas –because at higher speeds, fatalities will occur if a vehicle hits a “vulnerable road user” like a pedestrian or bicyclist. In other words, 20 mph is plenty fast enough for you to drive. The 20 is Plenty policy has been implemented in many European cities and is now starting to roll out in the U.S.

Arbitrarily Lowering Speed Limits: It is well-documented that the number on the speed limit sign has little effect on travel speeds. Rather, it’s the design of the roadway that determines at what speed people feel comfortable driving. Traditionally, speed limits have been set at or near the speed 85% of reasonable drivers don’t exceed. This practice ensures that we don’t criminalize the behavior of the majority of otherwise safe drivers. But now, a movement is sweeping the country to eliminate this standard and set speed limits at whatever speed “feels right” for those vulnerable road users.

The USDOT’s “National Roadway Safety Strategy” sets a target date of 2024 to “Revise FHWA guidance and regulations to … [encourage] the setting of context-appropriate speed limits…” That means speed limits no longer must be rational. Instead, more arbitrary and politically motivated methods will be used. The $1 trillion infrastructure bill signed into law in 2021 provides funding to local jurisdictions to enforce those unrealistic speed limits with automated ticketing cameras.

The consequence will be that the majority of otherwise law-abiding drivers will unintentionally become violators. For the anti-car fanatics, this is a deliberate feature of these policies. They’re eager to criminalize the act of driving, and arbitrarily lower speed limits enforced by automated ticketing cameras is their back-door way of achieving this goal.

Expanded Use of Automated Ticketing Cameras: Anti-car extremists love these ticketing machines because they can penalize drivers for the most insignificant violations, such as driving a few miles per hour faster than an arbitrarily lowered speed limit or making a slow rolling-right-turn at 2 am when no one is around. Activists tout automated enforcement as a way to increase equity since cameras supposedly can’t racially profile. Yet, studies have shown that poor and marginalized communities are the ones often targeted by ticketing cameras. And their residents are the ones least able to afford the billions of dollars in fines that follow from these policies.

Complete Streets (aka Road Diets): Although over 90% of workers commute by auto, anti-car activists believe we dedicate too much roadway to automobiles. In their view, “equity” dictates that we reserve an equal amount of roadway space for other users, especially bicyclists. Many cities are removing half the number of car lanes on high-volume roadways and dedicating that space to bicycle lanes –notwithstanding that bicyclists are as rare as unicorns in many locations. These policies have created massive traffic jams and lost travel time. But again, for the fanatics, this is a feature, not a bug. For them, using the personal automobile is too fast and convenient, so we must impair their use to equalize travel times compared to bikes and mass transit. Think of it as roadway socialism.

Eliminating Parking: If you eliminate parking, people will give up their cars in favor of bikes and buses, and the world will be a better place. Many university urban planning courses teach this dogma as part of the “New Urbanism” of densification and elimination of suburban sprawl. The curriculum even fosters the foolish notion that cities should remove parking at transit stations so commuters can’t drive their cars to access trains and buses. Abolishing parking is a significant feature of the 15 Minute City.

Eliminating Right Turn on Red: The Washington D.C. City Council recently voted unanimously to impose a citywide ban on right-turn-on-red. Officials in Austin, TX, Berkeley, CA, and Cambridge, MA, are also exploring a prohibition on right turns at red signals. And the movement is growing throughout the U.S. If this crusade isn’t stopped now, in just a few short years, we could all be forced to idle needlessly at red lights, adding precious extra minutes to each trip’s travel time.

These two articles sum up the anti-car ideology perfectly:

Cars are killing us. Within 10 years, we must phase them out

Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That.

What used to be a fringe ideology has taken root in our mainstream institutions, from the Federal Highway Authority and NTSB down to local government. It has infected the organizations that make and recommend public policy, such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and university research facilities. The World Economic Forum heavily promotes this ideology. Whether you know it or not, it is coming to your city and neighborhood.

The invention of the personal automobile has been a primary factor in the human flourishing and massive increase in our standard of living, which has occurred over the last century. It has allowed humans to thrive in ways never before imagined in the history of the world. It has freed up our time to pursue economic and leisure activity, spurred amazing innovation, and allowed us to experience life in new and unique ways.

But we could easily lose all these benefits if we’re not vigilant.

With a renewed sense of purpose and vigor, the National Motorists Association is formulating a strategy to fight back against these anti-human policies and protect our freedom to travel. In the months ahead, we’ll share these plans and may ask for your assistance. In the meantime, if you still need to renew your membership, now is the time. And if your membership is current, consider gifting a membership to a like-minded friend or relative. If we are going to win this war, AND WE MUST WIN, we need an army – and that army is formed one driver at a time.

Join Supporting – National Motorists Association

What's Next in the War Against Motorists? Noise Cameras!

I'll preface this post by saying that I am not a fan of people driving around in unmuffled cars, trucks, motorcycles, atvs, etc. Especially frustrating are semi drivers using straight pipes with unmuffled jakes trying to sound "cool" and make noise!  Then we wonder why so many communities are putting up "no engine brake" signs all over. The older I get, the more I appreciate peace and quiet. Sensible noise laws should be on the books and enforced by law enforcement. However, if you read the following newsletter put out by the National Motorists Association, we need to be aware of the reasoning behind ideas of such things as "noise cameras". The number one "government" motive behind this is revenue generation. But the more insidious backing of this bad idea is the anti-car tree hugging crowd, as you can read in the newsletter below. Consider their statements as to why they support something like this. Please support motorist's rights by joining the National Motorists Association at the links provided.

Presenting the Next Automated Traffic Enforcement Device—the Noise Camera: NMA E-Newsletter #656

August 8, 2021  Let's face it—most of us dislike loud motorcycles or vehicles revving up next to us at an intersection, blowing by us on an interstate, or disrupting the solitude of our neighborhoods. But to use automated devices to catch people who are exceedingly noisy seems to push us deeper into the world of Big Brother than we should ever go. Unfortunately, the anti-car folks are using loud vehicles as an excuse to advance their agenda. New York State Senator Andrew Gounardes recently introduced two bills to fight loud vehicles. The first is S9009, the SLEEP Act (Stop Loud and Excessive Exhaust Pollution). This bill would increase the punishment for noise limit violations and streamline the process for officers to enforce noise limit law. Currently, the penalty for violations attributed to after-market muffler and exhaust systems is up to $150. Gounardes wants to increase that amount to $1,000. The New York criterion for a violation was described only as excessive or unusual noise that was left to the officer's discretion. Under the bill, the noise limit would be defined as 95 decibels for motorcycles and 60 for cars. Here is a reference point—a vacuum cleaner within 10 feet has a noise level of approximately 70 decibels. If the SLEEP Act becomes law, it would also require that all police vehicles be equipped with sound level meters. The second bill, NY Senate Bill S6057, asks for noise-monitoring cameras to be implemented in New York City. Similar to speed cameras, the devices would capture photo and video footage of vehicles that exceed the noise limits outlined by the NYC Noise Control Code. Westchester County, New York, has already decided to do a trial run with these microphone-enhanced cameras. In July, the Westchester Board of Legislators approved a $125,000 noise camera pilot program located along the Bronx River Parkway. The county would not be able to issue any tickets during the six to nine-month program since S6057 hasn’t been passed by the state legislature in Albany yet. Where this all gets insane is through the overwrought rhetoric spewed by the anti-car crowd. Here are some snippets from a recent opinion piece on the Streetsblog NYC website: "Loud driving is destructive recreation that glorifies fossil-fuel consumption." "Promoting car culture by letting loud drivers do what they want normalizes driving for another generation of impressionable New Yorkers. It mocks our climate goals." "Deliberate, fossil-fueled noise is a growing public-health threat demanding a multifaceted, whole-of-government solution." "As with Vision Zero, better engineering of our public spaces is the most important part of confronting loud driving. The opportunity to speed is an opportunity to make noise. Engineering solutions to speeding—road diets, narrowed lanes, automated enforcement, and more—will also quiet traffic." "Law enforcement should focus on the loud-driving profiteers, from carmakers to gas stations." We would laugh if the people behind those thoughts weren’t so dead serious about canceling car culture. The acoustic cameras are currently being tested in the United Kingdom. In 2016, the British government enacted a law to limit new cars to no more than 74 decibels. The targets of the regulation are mostly older cars and modified motorcycles. At issue, though, is whether these type of cameras can identify one vehicle's noise emissions from another's and single out cars from other possible sources of sound. The website DriveTribe has a funny take on noise cameras that only a Brit might appreciate. Meanwhile, UK Transport Secretary Chris Grayling remarked that the acoustic cameras could help the already stretched thin police officers enforce noise regulations on 'boy racers in souped-up vehicles.' The mission creep of automated enforcement is impressive, and not in a good way.

Click the Donate Today button to find out how you can support drivers’ rights. Donations to the nonprofit National Motorists Association are tax-deductible to the fullest extent permitted by law.