Profile: plsathome
This is plsathome's Profile page. Use it to view plsathome's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments plsathome has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
December 3, 2009 10:07 am
We’ve found that a few comments were not reflected in the summary, due to some confusion on using the site’s comment interface. We’ve fixed the problem and they will be reflected in the final version.
April 27, 2010 7:59 pm
Thank you. This is a helpful suggestion. We’ll put in citations to the NPRM where we can in the final summary. Once the rule comment period closes, we’ll also talk to the agency more generally about what would be useful to them.
April 14, 2010 3:58 pm
Thanks for this insightful suggestion! I’m wondering if anyone else on here can think of any problems this approach might raise.
No comments
At least one comment (mine) was specific that the dimensions of difference, as well as (though contributing to understanding trade-offs) should be clearer. Having a sense of how many gallons of gas one might save at, say, the required national average fleet mileage level, for each 10,000 miles of driving would convey that.
I’m with the focus group — this is what I want to know first. Given the relatively slight effects on fuel efficiency as I understand it, .03-.04 gallons/100 miles — 2.47 gallons/100 miles v. 2.5 gallons/100 miles on my car, or about $.09/100 miles, I’d rate this one last.
THe first and last are clearest to me
I’d suggest having for each of the three criteria an indicator of “best” and “worst” rated tires. Particularly nice if there were a computer site with a sorting feature common to spread-sheets, that permitted one to rank one’s most important characteristic (say, traction) first, and then within the top 20%, the second most important characteristic, revealing the third.
It would be helpful to FMCSA, and reflect some of the thought that inspired this approach, if the comments as submitted could be organized to, or at least reference, the specific paragraphs of the proposed rule to which they relate. To be sure, this is more work for you; but what is likely to be persuasive to rulemaking officials about the desirability of an approach like this, is that it produces focus on particular elements of a proposal. If they still have to do that work, they will not think they have gained much.
I’m unclear why there’s a limit to entry of alphanumeric characters. the exceptions and reasons for them are clear enough … but there are a fair number of electronic devices that can be used in ways that engage hands, eyes and brain without involving alphanumeric characters — game-playing, for example. Is it perhaps thought that no one would be so stupid as to play computer poker with himself or with friends? Mightn’t it be better to approach the problem in terms of the three-fold engagements, and then state exceptions, rather than to describe only a limited set of behaviors that reflect those engagements?