ATTN: All California car enthusiasts!

[AZhitman]

California Introduces Bill to Exempt pre-1981 Vehicles From Emissions Inspection Requirement

In 2004, legislation was enacted to repeal California’s rolling emissions-test exemption for vehicles 30 years old and older and replace it with a law requiring the lifetime testing of all 1976 and newer model-year vehicles. This year, a bill has been introduced in the California Senate (S.B. 1224) by Senator Doug LaMalfa ([email protected] ) to exempt all motor vehicles prior to the 1981 model year from the emissions inspection requirement. The bill will be considered in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on March 27, 2012.

We Urge You to Contact All Members of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee (Contact Info Below) Immediately To Request Their Support for S.B. 1224 - HURRY UP!

S.B. 1224 recognizes the minimal impact of pre-1981 vehicles on emissions and air quality.

S.B. 1224 acknowledges that pre-1981 vehicles still constitute a minuscule portion of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to look for emissions reduction.

S.B. 1224 endorses the fact that pre-1981 vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new vehicle).

For years, legislators, regulators and stationary source polluters have felt the heat from failed efforts to meet air quality goals and have looked to older cars as a convenient scapegoat, using false data and inflated annual mileage assumptions to further their case. S.B. 1224 helps validate the truth. The old car hobby should not continue to carry the burden of past mistakes!

DON’T DELAY! Please contact members of the California Senate Transportation and Housing Committee immediately to request their support of S.B. 1224. Please e-mail a copy of your letter to Steve McDonald at [email protected]. Also, please forward this Alert to your fellow car enthusiasts.

To e-mail all members of the Committee, copy and paste the email address block below:

Senator Mark DeSaulnier (Chair)
Phone: (916) 651-4007
Email: [email protected]

Senator Ted Gaines (Vice Chair)
Phone: (916) 651-4001
Email: [email protected]

Senator Tom Harman
Phone: (916) 651-4035
Email: [email protected]

Senator Christine Kehoe
Phone: (916) 651-4039
Email: [email protected]

Senator Alan Lowenthal
Phone: (916) 651-4027
Email: [email protected]

Senator Fran Pavley
Phone: (916) 651-4023
Email: [email protected]

Senator Michael Rubio
Phone: (916) 651-4016
Email: [email protected]

Senator Joe Simitian
Phone: (916) 651-4011
Email: [email protected]

Senator Mark Wyland
Phone: (916) 651-4038
Email: [email protected]

[sbird1]

Awesome. Hopefully I won't have go smog the 510 I plan to get eventually!

[C-Kwik]

S.B. 1224 recognizes the minimal impact of pre-1981 vehicles on emissions and air quality.

S.B. 1224 acknowledges that pre-1981 vehicles still constitute a minuscule portion of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to look for emissions reduction.

S.B. 1224 endorses the fact that pre-1981 vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained and infrequently driven (a fraction of the miles each year as a new vehicle).

I'd like to see statistics on this. CARB estimated that pre-1981 vehicles would contribute about 20% of the total vehicle emissions as of 2010 (study was done in 2004). Another claim is that 1976 vehicles pollute 2.5 times more than 2004 vehicles on a daily basis. I believe that was based on a study circa 2004 as well. I could only find references to the citations and haven't been able to locate the original studies yet, but if true, SEMA is hugely misleading us with the first two statements. I'm all for having cool cars on the road, but I'd like to see the studies SEMA is basing their statements on. Not to mention how they came to the conclusion that the methodology used by studies that support stricter emissions are incorrect.

Frankly, since its enthusiasts that are the biggest supporters of this bill, I'd speculate those who gave a crap about their cars would pass smog just fine. This would mean a minimal impact on them, save for those doing engine swaps and such. But there are ways to make that legal so long as the motor was sourced from a vehicle that passed smog here. The problem is there are plenty of people out there that don't give a crap about their old cars and this is just a free pass not to do anything about it. I have too many friends whose health is affected by air quality around here to ignore the effects of emissions. That said, I'd like to see more data from both sides before I come to any conclusions.

[AZhitman]

I'd like to see statistics on this. CARB estimated that pre-1981 vehicles would contribute about 20% of the total vehicle emissions as of 2010 (study was done in 2004). Another claim is that 1976 vehicles pollute 2.5 times more than 2004 vehicles on a daily basis. I believe that was based on a study circa 2004 as well. I could only find references to the citations and haven't been able to locate the original studies yet, but if true, SEMA is hugely misleading us with the first two statements. I'm all for having cool cars on the road, but I'd like to see the studies SEMA is basing their statements on. Not to mention how they came to the conclusion that the methodology used by studies that support stricter emissions are incorrect.

Chano, you're usually spot-on, but you're way off here.

CARB estimated that pre-1981 vehicles would contribute about 20% of the total vehicle emissions as of 2010 (study was done in 2004).

Aside from the obvious pocket-lining horse-*** CARB has been spewing for a decade, let's look at that nonsense. In 2009, the mean age of all privately-owned vehicles on the road in the US was 10.2 years (which means a 1999 car). http://www.bts.gov/publications/nationa ... 01_26.html

CARB would have us believe that the infinitessimally-small percentage of pre-81 vehicles on the road in 2010 (when the mean vehicle age would be a 2000-model) are responsible for 20% of the TOTAL vehicle emissions for that year? What-freaking-ever. Even if every pre-1981 car registered in CA were driven as many miles as its newer counterparts (they're NOT), it would have to generate a thousand-fold MORE emissions just to overcome the sheer disparity in numbers.

Another claim is that 1976 vehicles pollute 2.5 times more than 2004 vehicles on a daily basis.

More spin. Sure, put a '76 and a '04 in the same room together and the '76 is EASILY going to emit 2.5x the emissions of the '04. Throwing the "on a daily basis" in there is simply appealing to the ignorant (or people who couldn't pass first-year Stats). Guess what? That '04 is being driven 12K-15K miles per year, and its peers (other '04 cars) probably comprise 30% of the total # of vehicles on the road. The '76 isn't being driven 12K miles a year, and even if it WAS, big deal? You think there's not 2.5 new cars for every '76? Why not outlaw them?

Sound silly? Eleven 2009 Corollas pollute more per hour at 45 mph than a single '76 Grand Prix. So, why pick on the Pontiac? Why not tell the nitwits with the Corollas to quit driving so much? Hmmmmm.... sounds like discriminatory practices to me.

What's misleading? Can you seriously not comprehend that antique cars have a miniscule effect on air quality? Can you seriously not comprehend that antique vehicles constitute a minuscule portion of the overall vehicle population?

C'mon... Rally your cause all you want, but for F*** sake, quit picking on the minority. You and CARB.

Why not outlaw drive-thru fast food windows and ATMs? WAY more pollution from people idling for hours per day waiting on their Super-Buttload Supreme With Fries out there in Bankruptcyland than ALL the antique cars combined.

I'll tell you why. Because it's easier to pick on the small group without a loud voice. Some democracy.

I have too many friends whose health is affected by air quality around here to ignore the effects of emissions. That said, I'd like to see more data from both sides before I come to any conclusions.

Sounds like they might be better off living in South Dakota or Montana. How about one less flight per day out of LAX to NY? 2.5 Tons of greenhouse gas emissions per flight. http://planetgreen.discovery.com/travel ... arbon.html

Oh noes! But people need to travel! BOO-freaking-hoo.

Why aren't the nitwits at CARB lobbying to shut down all the shady garages that turn a blind eye and give emissions passes to illegal swaps? Hmmm? Because it's easier to pick on the .001% of car owners who still have a pre-'81 car on the road.

And CA gives AZ a hard time over picking on illegals? How many Mexican Nationals drive pre-'81 cars? A LOT. Go ahead, take away their sole means of transportation... at least they won't get deported, right?

The state that calls itself the birthplace of the car culture (and hot rodding) should be ashamed of itself.

Chano, none of this is personal - But the hypocrisy of questioning the stats above, when you fail to critique the nonsense and drivel from CARB, is simply unfair. They're advocating for old car owners, and the CARB people are advocating for crushing anything that's not a Prius.

Which one is more invasive on peoples' personal freedoms?

[C-Kwik]

Greg, you should reread my post carefully before you start claiming I am way off. Nowhere did I offer a conclusion. I only said that IF the arguments posed by CARB are true, than SEMA is misleading us. I am interested in seeing the data BEFORE I reach any kind of conclusion. I offered that I do not have the source of the data that CARB and another entity used in an attempt to be transparent about where it came from and that it doesn't reflect the data directly. I still need to find the source of the data, but that is what they claim the data shows. Since I don't have any of SEMA's data, or even any reference to data used to come to their conclusions, I can't comment on it directly.

Regardless, I'll address a few of the points you bring up:

CARB would have us believe that the infinitessimally-small percentage of pre-81 vehicles on the road in 2010 (when the mean vehicle age would be a 2000-model) are responsible for 20% of the TOTAL vehicle emissions for that year? What-freaking-ever. Even if every pre-1981 car registered in CA were driven as many miles as its newer counterparts (they're NOT), it would have to generate a thousand-fold MORE emissions just to overcome the sheer disparity in numbers.

The mean doesn't tell you enough to determine what the actual spread of vehicles across model years is. So I don't automatically buy that these cars make up an infinitesimal percentage of vehicles in CA. It should be small, but as of 1998, 1981 and older vehicles represented 15 percent of the cars on the road. It should have diminished by now and some of it will have been due to the fact that they can not pass smog without some work. According to one study, the numbers of 1981 cars as of 2008 are less than a third of that. How many were retired due to smog is unknown, but I suspect it may be significant. If it is, it could infer that a lot more older cars spew out excess emissions than you might think.

http://www.imreview.ca.gov/presentation ... tment1.pdf

Skip to the last couple pages for their conclusions.

Secondly, without the numbers, you don't know how big the magnitude of emissions needs to be in order for these older cars to contribute 20% of the emissions. Forgive me if I don't trust your assumptions, the last one you made (about the throw away cars) was way off the mark when I did the math. I'd prefer to see it for myself. If you have the data, feel free to share. I suspect you don't though as it would be the first thing someone supporting this bill should post.

More spin. Sure, put a '76 and a '04 in the same room together and the '76 is EASILY going to emit 2.5x the emissions of the '04. Throwing the "on a daily basis" in there is simply appealing to the ignorant (or people who couldn't pass first-year Stats). Guess what? That '04 is being driven 12K-15K miles per year, and its peers (other '04 cars) probably comprise 30% of the total # of vehicles on the road. The '76 isn't being driven 12K miles a year, and even if it WAS, big deal? You think there's not 2.5 new cars for every '76? Why not outlaw them?

It wasn't a spin. The quote was saying that the combination of all 1976 cars are putting out 2.5 times more emissions than the total of all 2004 cars. It wasn't trying to compare two individual cars from the 2 years.

The law isn't saying those cars are no longer allowed to be driven. Its merely saying those cars must pass smog like they always had before. That generally requires maintenance and perhaps repairs as needed. Enthusiasts probably have less to worry about as many are willing to put the work and money into an older car to keep it properly running. Its the gross polluters we want off the road. Wanna keep it on the road? Fix it. Its not unreasonable in concept. If the numbers are truly insignificant, then fine, but I want to see the facts for myself.

I won't bother responding to the rest. Its all an irrelevant argument to an argument that didn't exist. But if you want to see who is rallying for a cause, reread your post.

[S133P3R]

Bump for people to do something about their gov't activities.
Whosver to agree with, you're Congress won't know unless you tell them.
DO SOMETHING!

[AZhitman]

^ That.

Be it known, I'll oppose ANY initiative that seeks to usurp the personal freedoms of the citizenry. I'm a Libertarian, that's how we roll.

I also don't buy for one second that the net result of eliminating old cars in favor of newer ones reduces overall emissions. That's a very narrow-minded view. Remember, the old cars require energy to be recycled, which pollutes. New cars have to be manufactured, transported, and sold, all of which requires energy - ergo, pollution.

There's more to the equation than what comes out of individual tailpipes... which, in my experience, is almost identical to what comes out of politicians' mouths.

I *will* concur with this: "Wanna keep it on the road? Fix it."

Totally agreed.

[S133P3R]

Plus, there's a smog low-income repair assist program that I'm sure could use a break in applicants. My tax dollars are better spent somewhere else in this broke a** state.

[TTkickedin]

f*** smog tests. i hate cali for that s***.

[C-Kwik]

Be it known, I'll oppose ANY initiative that seeks to usurp the personal freedoms of the citizenry. I'm a Libertarian, that's how we roll.

Well, you might as well remove all laws as every law removes some level of liberty. Unless you're an anarchist, I doubt you believe that having no laws is practical. Where one feels the line between our liberties and the good of a society is drawn is certainly up for debate. Ultimately, that is what's in question. And to assess what the good of the society is, we need to understand the problem correctly. In this case, SEMA is claiming a certain statistic exists. I'd like to see the data. CARB has also made their claims. I'd like to see their data and compare them to SEMA's. I'd like the LIBERTY of making up my own mind.

I also don't buy for one second that the net result of eliminating old cars in favor of newer ones reduces overall emissions. That's a very narrow-minded view. Remember, the old cars require energy to be recycled, which pollutes. New cars have to be manufactured, transported, and sold, all of which requires energy - ergo, pollution.

How is it narrow-minded to be open to the possibility that either case could exist? I can't make any kind of conclusions without some kind of data. Both scenarios are plausible. Which one is true is going to be dependent on the data.

Your argument about the cost of recycling and building new cars is again plausible. But what kind of data are you basing that on? How much does each old car pollute? How much energy does it take to crush or recycle an old car? How much energy does it take to build a new car? How clean is that energy by comparison? What is the net result?

There's more to the equation than what comes out of individual tailpipes... which, in my experience, is almost identical to what comes out of politicians' mouths.

Of course Greg. But that's exactly why looking at the data is important. So we can put some actual numbers on it rather than rely on politicians and politically motivated groups. Unless your intent is to support this bill regardless of what the actual data says...in which case, you might want to check what is coming out of your tailpipe, er...mouth.

[S133P3R]

i just hope this passes. i dont want to recycle my 1981 tercel. come on california!

[AZhitman]

What is the net result?

My bet (and I agree, I'd love a comprehensive, exhaustive look at raw data) would be that it's a wash.

Most things that are this polarizing usually turn out that way.

[C-Kwik]

What is the net result?

My bet (and I agree, I'd love a comprehensive, exhaustive look at raw data) would be that it's a wash.

Most things that are this polarizing usually turn out that way.

Its a possibility, but I tend not to try and bet on politics. I'd rather make informed decisions.