SEMA Urgent Legislative Alert: California Lawmaker Trying to Sneak by a Bill to Require...

[Ed Kellock]

I seem to recall that the issue as presented is not regarding the testing
itself, but instead with the manner in which California legislators are
attempting to increase the frequency of said testing.   Currently it is
mandated every 2 years.  Someone wants it to happen every year and they're
apparently attempting to implement that w/o too much public awareness, or
otherwise dishonestly.

BTW, CA performs emission testing only, no safety testing is part of the
inspection in question.

Just trying to stay on point,
Ed


> -----Original Message-----
> From: quattro-bounces at audifans.com 
> [mailto:quattro-bounces at audifans.com] On Behalf Of Geraint Lloyd
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:05 AM
> To: 'Quattro'
> Subject: RE: SEMA Urgent Legislative Alert: California 
> Lawmaker Tryingto Sneakby a Bill to Require...
> 
> 
> 
> There is another point of view though.
> 
> In addition to the 89 200 TQA and the 964 C4, I have an 87 
> former Group N British Rally Championship winning Golf GTI 
> (cos its European, it's not just a GTI)with me in Canada. The 
> car had an annual MOT safety inspection starting when it was 
> 3 years old (vehicles in the UK are exempt from testing for 
> the 1st 3yrs) and when I moved it to France in 2003, it had 
> its bi-annual Controle Technique. Both included emissions 
> tests that required the car comply with the emissions spec at 
> manufacture. In fact the emissions tests in the uk started in 
> 93 or something but still.......  
> 
> In Quebec the car was inspected at import in 2005, but there 
> is no annual test up here at all. I feel a bit odd about this 
> since obviously I don't have to pay for the test and remedial 
> work if required, but then again the wad of passed safety and 
> emissions test certificates that I used to silence the "it's 
> old, dangerous and polluting" brigade stops at 2005. Right 
> now there is nothing legal to distinguish between my slightly 
> battered looking (down boys - you know who you are) German 
> built Golf2 and the multitude of Mexican and Pennsylvanian 
> examples that have done far more winters in Quebec than mine 
> and consequently have wildly different levels of condition in 
> key structural areas. Basically mine has a floor.
> 
> 
> Al this to say that I actually believe in annual testing. I 
> do believe that a properly tuned older vehicle has its place 
> on the road. Sure they use more gas per mile, but none of the 
> assessments of what the emissions are include emissions 
> created during manufacture. That being said, there is no real 
> excuse for letting people drive around in any old shed, but I 
> have to say that I am more concerned with safety on this one. 
> I you want to know what I mean, come to Montreal some time.
> 
> Also, how many of our cars are running with only "original to 
> the vehicle" and new parts? Surely we should get a 
> proportional carbon footprint credit for the manufacturing 
> associated emissions of the vehicles that we pillage in scrap yards? 
> 
> So that's my $0.02. Regular testing is ok by me as long as 
> the vehicle is not supposed to exceed the specifications that 
> applied when it was made.
> 
> Geraint
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> quattro mailing list
> quattro at audifans.com http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/quattro
> ---
> Watch this space for ads :)
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.10/1638 - Release 
> Date: 8/27/2008 7:06 PM
>