According to the Daily Mail, Lee Zeldin’s fed up, and so are millions of drivers. The EPA Administrator dropped a bombshell on X, promising to kill the auto start/stop feature that’s been plaguing cars since it became standard. His post exploded, racking up 8 million views and a tidal wave of support from folks tired of their engines playing dead at every red light.
Zeldin’s proposal targets a technology that automakers have adopted to meet fuel economy rules. Auto start/stop shuts off your engine at a stop and restarts it when you hit the gas, supposedly saving fuel. In one swift move, Zeldin called it out as a clunky, driver-hated gimmick.
The tech, standard in most cars by 2020, was a darling of the EPA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Automakers got to claim fuel savings, but drivers got stuck with the inconvenience. No air quality benefits, just a lot of annoyed commuters.
Zeldin didn’t mince words: “Start/stop technology: where your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy.” His X post, dripping with sarcasm, struck a nerve, earning 11,000 reposts and 92,000 likes in a day. The green agenda’s sacred cow just got skewered.
Drivers from all sides cheered Zeldin’s plan. Michael Barone griped, “Not only does your car die at every red light, so does your air conditioning.” In places like Florida, where summer feels like a sauna, that’s not just annoying—it’s torture.
The feature’s automatic activation is a special kind of nanny-state nonsense. Every time you start your car, you have to manually turn it off. It’s like the EPA decided drivers can’t be trusted to make their own choices.
Zeldin’s proposal isn’t just a MAGA rallying cry; it’s a bipartisan middle finger to bad tech. Matt Van Swol quipped, “If Trump gets this done, he belongs on Mount Rushmore.” Hyperbole aside, the sentiment’s clear: people want their cars to stop acting like overzealous eco-warriors.
Car salesman Litizen Jeff piled on: “I can verify, as a car salesman, nearly everybody hates it.” He tested it himself—900 miles, 0.02 gallons saved. That’s not progress; that’s a rounding error wrapped in a safety hazard.
Jeff’s not alone in calling it dangerous. Matt Nachtrab fumed, “It makes cars hesitate when you are pulling out across traffic.” When your car stalls in the middle of a left turn, “fuel efficiency” is the least of your worries.
Nachtrab added, “Our Honda would stall and not start, leaving us in vulnerable situations.” That’s not a feature; it’s a liability. Turns out, forcing engines to play on-off games doesn’t just annoy—it risks lives. Darren Montgomery brought the heat: “Auto stop-start in a Southern summer is attempted manslaughter by climate control.” No AC in a sweltering traffic jam? That’s what happens when bureaucrats prioritize spreadsheets over people.
Freda Drake pointed out another flaw: “We had to replace our battery much earlier because of this feature!” So much for saving the planet—more battery production isn’t exactly a love letter to Mother Earth.
Zeldin hasn’t laid out his game plan, but the public’s response suggests he’s got a mandate. Dread Pirate Roberts summed it up: “No one asked for it, no one wants it.” When even pirates are on your side, you’re onto something. The EPA, predictably, went radio silent when the Daily Mail came knocking. No surprise there—defending a feature this unpopular is a losing battle. Zeldin’s move exposes the gap between ivory-tower policies and real-world pain.
This fight’s just beginning, but Zeldin’s tapped into something big. Drivers aren’t just sick of start/stop; they’re fed up with being guinea pigs for half-baked green schemes. Actions have consequences, and this one might just spark a rebellion.
