Here's Where Tesla Can (And Cannot) Sell Its Cars

OK, I'll bite. I'm not American so I'm completely bemused. I can't find anywhere in the article, or the one on Frobes that preceeds it, to say why New Jersey (and others) have banned the sale of Tesla cars. That would be illegal in Europe. And I've never really thought of Christie as a mad uber-left market interventionist either. Could anyone explain it to me? Slowly?

It has something to do with dealership franchise laws and auto workers unions.

If some individual wants to open a dealership and sell some manufacturers vehicles, they can. However, a auto manufacturer cannot open a dealership to sell their own cars.

I'm sure it boils down to dollars in a politicians pocket provided by a lobbyist group.

Thismay cause a division on CR4, but many believe that the USA is the land of the free! Even a car may not be sold anywhere.....

A further example that even all the states cannot agree on something or not!!!!

I have nothing against the USA, but only something about the few that are always shouting about Freedom!!! Please realise that NOBODY in this world is truly free anymore. Maybe an African Tribesman in the bush, maybe.

Especially, To my mind, ANY country that NEEDS/REQUIRES an ID card, CANNOT be free.....

Other countries without ID cards somehow keep going (not Germany by the way, we HAVE IDs!!), so who does it help most this important bit of plastic:-

The individual? the Police? the State? The Government? The Secret Services?

What are your thoughts on this point?

Sadly that is true. The USA ranks 12th out of 178 countries for economic freedom.

Now economic freedom is not the same thing as political freedom.

My understanding as to why Tesla is prevented from selling cars in some states does have to do with laws designed to protect dealerships.

In the US you need ID for some very screwy things and no ID to vote, just your signature which says you are eligible to vote - cross your heart and hope to die.

As technology advances the temptation by "authorities" to use that technology to put their noses in places where no nose has gone before is simply the natural order of things. The definition of "privacy" will continue to become shorter and shorter until it is reduced to functionally This one word. At least theoretically.

I was surprised to see Germany at 18, I would have guessed far lower down!!!

There is no legal requirement in the US requiring a natural born citizen to have an ID. However, there are lots of laws, customs and other requirements that force you to provide proof of identification.Many of these vary by state.

One unfortunate fact of life here, though, is that most local police don't know that you don't need to have an id and will haul you in for not producing identification. They soon figure out that they have to release you.

Of course, individual experience here may vary, so "opinions" on the subject do also.

Hooker

To my mind, ANY country that NEEDS/REQUIRES an ID card, CANNOT be free....
In Texas if you fail to show an approved ID and you are over 18 years of age you can be jailed.

They're banned in NJ because gas station attendants can't pump gas into them!

LOL!!

But they CAN, but you get stinky wet feet!!!

Remember the old 1972 Porsche 911s with the oil port on the outside rear fender?

That got changed to inside the engine compartment after too many attendants put gas into those oil tanks.

I'm reminded of the automobiles designed and built by Eddie Rickenbacker during the 1920's. A new feature he introduced was brakes on all 4 wheels. The big three auto manufacturers were taken by surprise (back then it was customary to put brakes on the two rear wheels only) and they responded by declaring that brakes on 4 wheels would put the driver's heads through the front window during rapid deceleration. This (among other things) drove the Rickenbacker Company into bankruptcy.

Heh, THAT reminds me of an old editorial I read somewhere about why the Big Three appear to be so 'safety oriented' with driving, openly welcoming every new safety feature that gets mandated into law.

Each feature makes the care more expensive, and the requirement for government crash testing means that before a new line is offered to the public, X number of production models need to be handed over to be destroyed to test their safety features.

The Big Three can easily bankroll the 'sacrificial cars,' knowing they can recoup the hit to the pocketbook when they start selling the cars. For a new 'upstart' auto manufacturer, however, the initial 'sunk cost' is more than their small balance sheets can bear, and being a new company, they cannot swing the loans needed to make X number of cars simply to smash them up. And now that the Big Three have been declared, like the Banking Industry 'Too Big To Fail,' they know they'll get whatever money they need to comply with the increasing cost of 'keeping the little guys out,' er, I mean, 'safety.'

I gave you an off topic because the big 3 would like Tesla to win and reduce the political power dealership groups have and your post does not have a thing to do with dealerships protection laws.

Just a thought but New Jersey has a current road tax of 14.5 cents/gallon. it is one of the lowest in the country. If electric cars use the roads but do not pay taxes via the road tax on gasoline, should we not ask why? If gas taxes are the method today of collecting money to maintain and build roads, a new method may be needed in the near future. If gas tax is deemed unfair (my opinion) then get rid of it. Perhaps a flat tax on the licensing of vehicles, not unlike what trucks are faced with today. It may be something like $500/yr or even a cost per mile driven. Whatever options are selected, it should not add to the existing fees already imposed. Are electric cars or non gasoline engines going to overtake a majority of future vehicles? Just musing.

As I understand it, Tesla is just as free as Ford/GM/Chrysler to sell its cars in New Jersey and other states. It's about dealerships: Tesla is banned from DIRECTLY selling its cars to consumers.

Seems anti-competitive to me.

Hi all,

At the risk of sounding like an anonymous poster.... I'm still a little lost. What argument would someone put forward against direct selling?

Thanks!

Evan

It's called protectionism and it is not about protecting the consumer.

Dealers don't want the direct sales competition, which logically should be at just the manufacturer's margins, resulting in lower costs to consumers. It isn't really about Tesla alone but about ALL auto makers. If Tesla can sell direct then eventually so will GM, Ford, etc. Once that begins to happen then traditional dealerships will be unnecessary. At least that's the thinking behind these so called bans.

Personally, I'm not so sure the big volume auto makers will want to add dealership ownership to their balance sheets.