California lawmaker wants to end emissions exemption for some old cars
Since the 1970s California has required car owners to get their emissions tested periodically before they can renew their registrations. However, for obvious reasons, cars built before 1976 were exempted from the rules since they could not reasonably expected to meet newer standards. Now, though, California state Senator Dean Florez wants to repeal that exemption at least in the San Joaquin Valley area. Given that the number of pre-1976 cars on the road is shrinking every year, and many of those that remain are restored classics and better maintained than most cars, this seems like pointless posturing on the part of Florez. Perhaps a more effective approach would be to offer some sort of incentive to owners of old beaters to get them off the road and replace them with modern vehicles. This would help to get the real offenders out the population. I mean, the true classics are typically driven relatively few miles each year and aren't really part of the problem. Thanks to Kevin for the tip!
[Source: Bluehornet.com]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mike Z 4:19PM (3/26/2008)
I wonder if Jay Leno will be forced to move his collection out of state?
Reply
Throwback 4:43PM (3/26/2008)
I will be shocked if this goes anywhere. Cali has a huge car culture with some serious collectors. Who also happen to be very rich and very influential. Restore em don't crush em!
Reply
Wildgoosechase73 4:46PM (3/26/2008)
This is a big deal, most replacement part manufacturers have quit making California only parts for all but the most popular engines. Is the Sate of California going to make them?
Reply
Lad 5:55PM (3/26/2008)
This guy needs to concentrate and to focus his thinking and to use his energy on something that would be of value to the people of California. How about how to fund the schools or how about how to reduce state spending?
Reply
Speedzzter 6:49PM (3/26/2008)
Some radical environmentalists, however, are such purists that they cannot fathom why anyone would drive a historic vehicle, even on occasion.
Politically, attacking vintage cars is almost a guarantee of awakening a mass of voters who have let CARB's excesses slide. And the cost-benefit of such a regulation has to be absolutely horrible. However, the purists won't be satisfied until they force everyone into a government-regulated microcar (or on to public transportation)
Many automobile enthusiasts see the carbon dioxide litigation and legislation as not a serious threat. Yet a look at the battles against tobacco and guns ought to suggest otherwise. The cigarette companies fought their battle in the courts for over twenty years, before they lost. And they started losing because public perceptions changed.
The gunmakers are still fighting their battle (although the early results have been mostly positive--as they were for the tobacco companies). And every year, legislative attempts are made to pass expensive, restrictive stuff, such as ammo "fingerprinting," ammo taxes, and ownership restrictions.
Although the case for automotive liberty is inherently much stronger than the argument in favor of tobacco use, the battle for public opinion can still be lost through neglect or inaction. If the radicals win, policies oriented towards killing both the new and vintage high-performance automobile hobbies can take hold.
http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2006/10/should-automobile-enthusiasts-be.html
Reply
jmspearman 7:36PM (3/26/2008)
There seems to be a snarky anti-environmental sentiment from a lot of your posts, Sam, which is funny considering it's a blog talking about green cars. And you don't even drive a green car which erases most of your credibility (your posts take care of the rest). Maybe you should start a new blog called antigreenautoblog.
Reply
Sam Abuelsamid 9:12PM (3/26/2008)
jmspearman, First, how do you know what I drive? Secondly I have a strong sentiment against political grandstanding at the expense of real practical moves to reduce fossil fuel consumption (and consumption in general). I don't like seeing people who are naive to technical realities being taking advantage of whether it's by politicians looking for a vote or charlatans trying to sell something that either doesn't exist and likely never will or doesn't do what's promised.
Reply
Chris M 9:42PM (3/26/2008)
Here in California, there are already a program in place to help pay for repairs to meet emission standards if needed, and another to pay a bounty for polluting old clunkers, removing them from the road.
With a dwindling number of such old cars on the road, and rising fuel prices reducing their use, this bill is unnecessary, and unlikely to pass.
Reply
4.7onN20 10:05PM (3/26/2008)
This is stupid. If anything they should just be limited on how many miles they can drive per year. Most classics don't get many miles put on em and it would be a shame to ban a car that doesnt even get
driven. My old firebird probably only has about 2500 miles on it in the last 4 or so years.
This would effectively kill the beater daily driver cars and keep the classics driving from car show to car show.
Reply
Wildgoosechase 12:28AM (3/27/2008)
It takes a lot of money to restore and maintain classic cars, it's not a poor mans hobby. I just wonder how many more high income Californians will leave the state.
Reply
Dave 2:53AM (3/27/2008)
Sam, the problem with these old cars is not that their fossil fuel consumption. The problem is the huge amount of HC and NOX emissions. A single old car on the road, well maintained or not, likely emits pollutants which exceed dozens of new cars combined. Unfortunately, the article did not have any information how much they expect to be able to reduce overall emissions for the region by forcing smog tests for these old cars, and that information is critical to determining whether or not this legislation is worthwhile. I am sure that CARB has this information somehwere.
Smog is a big problem in the central valley of California, so I'm not surprised that they are leaning this way (though all those mega cattle farms aren't likely helping, either).
Reply
Wally 8:04AM (3/27/2008)
NC recently put in law that vehicles over 35 years old were exempt from emmissions AND safety inspections. Since I own a 39 year old Firetruck, I sure appreciate that, especially since it is driven about twenty miles a year. Now if they would exempt licencing.
Reply
Teargas 9:27AM (3/27/2008)
Dave, old cars do emit more pollutants than new cars. No question about it. However, there are very few old cars still in operation today and those that are average about 1500 miles per year. Their impact on smog and air pollution is negligible.
Reply
Bill 1:29PM (3/27/2008)
At worst, the owners will simply plate them in another state instead of California.
South Dakota is very popular with RV owners.
Reply
Unclewill 1:19AM (3/28/2008)
Kids will be kids and a lot of adults operate in a "kids approach" world. I've found that the easiest way to silence those with ideas like a child would think up is to treat them like kids treat each other...point your finger at them and laugh at them and tell them 'that's a dumb idea'...it works for kids and it works for adults with childish, simplistic ideas. Why do we insist on being nice to those who are not being nice to us and want to always get their way? If enough people will laugh at the goofy idea they will drop their desire to implement their idea for fear of further mocking. Our society is way too quick to accept the 'wants' of a minority at the expense of the majority. The expense involved in a law that requires 'emission checks' for old cars is a 'dumb, childish, simplistic idea'...and that's all I have to say about that!
Reply