Well, it's a free country. Maybe they shouldn't ban spinners - just make the owners pay a hefty Wanker Tax

Shiny paint, noisy parts or an airbrush mural of a naked barbarian chick might be a distraction, just like any other thing, but spinners are unique in that they give the illusion that a car is moving when it isn't. Hell, even those epilepsy-causing flashers that US emergency vehicles have are less distracting than spinning hubs on a parked car. In a split-second driving decision, doing a double-take at a parked or stationary car because you aren't sure if it's moving or not could mean the difference between a slight bump and a big whack. I can see where those in favour of the ban are coming from. I ride to work each day and you need enough concentration as it is to avoid being roadkill.

Imagine - you're on a bike or driving, coming to a green light - in the corner of your eye you see spinning wheels, all chromed up, and you wonder if someone's running the red because it looks like he's moving. You hesitate, maybe slow down a bit to double-check but the guy behind you hasn't seen you slow down and he nails your arse, or has to throw out the anchors or swerve and he hits someone else or someone hits him, or whatever. All that only has to take up a second of your life but it could be nasty, especially if you're on two wheels. That sounds like an extreme situation but a lot of road laws are designed with a worst-case scenario in mind, because you can't legislate common sense. It's why you have child crossings at schools - you can't trust people to slow down just because there are kids there, so you put up signs and lights and hire crossing guards who wear day-glo pink and you make them slow down.

Whether you ride or drive it only takes a small thing to distract you from what you should be looking at, and if you need to double-take at some blingin' homeboy with spinners on to check if he's actually moving or not, you might miss that dumbass who jumps into traffic to save his e-Pod, or the twat who pulls out from the kerb without checking his mirrors first.

I know there are already plenty of things to distract you when you're going somewhere so why add another one? Spinners are just a retarded fashion accessory like fluffy dice and neons and serve no purpose other than to advertise how much your lack of taste makes you spend on your car. IMHO banning them would be doing everyone a favour and removing an unnecessary distraction from the street

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Anyway, good luck banning everything that's dangerous. By the way; how many deaths do you have in NY due to spinner wheels compared to, say, firearms?

What is your point? NYS has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country. Our urban centers consistently enjoy less gun crime than say, Florida's. In fact, most of the crime guns used in NY come from VA, GA, AL, MS, and the Carolinas.

I absolutely do not suggest that we ban things that are dangerous. I suggest we ban things that are dangerous to others who can't reasonably avoid the risk presented to them. The spinners aren't that dangerous to the mouth-breather using them. Nor are the stupid wings the EU has banned.

Quote from thestig :

Think about it, if this goes through then what comes next? Ban performance exausts for pollution? Performance tires for their tendancy to drone and not work in the rain? Ban repainting your car as it might be a distraction to other drivers?

Newsflash: every tire you purchase has met minimum federal standards for performance in the rain, amongst other requirements. Newsflash2: performance cat-back exhausts don't effect emissions. Headers and the like that haven't been certified by the manufacturer are already challenged in many places, and illegal for road use everywhere.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

When I lived in NJ my truck failed inspection every single time! I ended up driving a vintage '60s Volvo because at least that car didn't have to pass an emissions standard!

Right, and that is just fine for enthusiasts in my book. The average American is far too lazy to drive a forty year old automobile just to avoid an emissions standard. Most cars that can't meet emissions standards reliably get recycled quickly. Good for our economy, and a good incentive for people to buy newer and less dirty vehicles.

Of course, you could have just turned a wrench and fixed your truck yourself...jeebus, its a truck, and its a simple emissions test. Not that hard.

Quote from Hankstar :

In a split-second driving decision, doing a double-take at a parked or stationary car because you aren't sure if it's moving or not could mean the difference between a slight bump and a big whack. I

Someone else's poor taste has reduced your margins of safety, and there is very little you can reasonably do about it other than legislate their idiocy into a small corner. These things don't belong anywhere other than cheesy music videos and the vacuous town they come from.

Quote from skiingman :

Right, and that is just fine for enthusiasts in my book. The average American is far too lazy to drive a forty year old automobile just to avoid an emissions standard. Most cars that can't meet emissions standards reliably get recycled quickly. Good for our economy, and a good incentive for people to buy newer and less dirty vehicles.

Whilst in the US it is possibly slightly different (due to the fact old cars are such enormous heavy uneconomical lumps of crap) I strongly disapprove of the constant car recycling culture. IMO it doesn't help the environment, just the economy. It takes a huge amount of energy to build a car, the equivalent of driving it for years.

Quote from ajp71 :

Whilst in the US it is possibly slightly different (due to the fact old cars are such enormous heavy uneconomical lumps of crap) I strongly disapprove of the constant car recycling culture. IMO it doesn't help the environment, just the economy. It takes a huge amount of energy to build a car, the equivalent of driving it for years.

You do have a very valid point, and in actuality the average fuel economy of the US fleet fell considerably between the middle of the 1980s and the first half of this decade. Its sad, you point out that old American cars are heavy lumps of metal, but so are new American cars. The Japanese manufacturers wised up and built plants and design studios here to build super-sized lumps of blah specifically for the US market. Honda started selling the Jazz/Fit here, and most Americans see it as comically tiny...and Honda stuffed a bigger motor in it just for the US.

The smog forming pollutant emissions of the newer cars are dramatically lower than those of just ten or fifteen years ago. Most Americans are a long way from accepting that greenhouse gases are more than a news story, so the fact that our new cars spew more C02 than those of the 80's is largely irrelevant to most people. You are certainly correct that the life cycle costs to the environment in churning out new cars are high. But this is America, and outside of the Northeast and Pacific Northwest, no one recycles anything other than cars, so at least its good to see that cars get recycled pretty well.

I don't think incentives to extend the product life cycle are terribly wise in any case: Take a gander at the General Aviation fleet and consider the almost imperceptible pace of progress in that industry which has every incentive to extend product life and massive disincentives to innovate and improve. All brand new light aircraft come with crankcases that vent oil directly to the atmosphere, eschewing the dead-reliable and cheap PCV systems we've had for forty years improving engine durability and rather dramatically reducing emissions in automobiles. These ancient aircraft cost more in inflation adjusted currency than they did decades ago. In that time period automobiles have improved in astounding ways and gotten no more expensive.

Personally, I do adhere to the idea of making good use of something rather than tossing it away. My van is a 1994 with 200k miles, my MX6 is a 1993 with ~140k miles (and forced induction of my own manufacture) and while new cars are in some ways dramatically better, I don't want to trade stuff that works for much more expensive new products...I get most of the important benefits of technology a decade late at a tiny fraction of the cost. Bought the Mazda for $800 only 10 years old.

Newsflash: every tire you purchase has met minimum federal standards for performance in the rain, amongst other requirements. Newsflash2: performance cat-back exhausts don't effect emissions. Headers and the like that haven't been certified by the manufacturer are already challenged in many places, and illegal for road use everywhere.

Whilst my information may not be exactly accurate, you get the point I was trying to make. One thing leads to another and soon you can't do squat.

You should be very happy with what is still allowed in the states

You would be quite suprised what is restricted in Germany.

Little statues of Santa pointing at the sky, for one thing

Quote from Hankstar :

Little statues of Santa pointing at the sky, for one thing

OMFG.

This is old news to all South Park fans - never trust Santa ( or Frosty.....)