SEMA Action Alert - CA

[Steve1968LS2]

And for you guys in other states.. if this passes here it will eventually happen in many other states as well. This is just a stepping stone to making ALL cars, regardless of age, non-exempt from emmision testing.

---------------------------

California Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions Tests for Vehicles 15-Years Old and Older Passes Assembly; Moves to Senate

Legislation (A.B. 616) to require annual Smog check inspections for vehicles 15-years old and older has been approved by the California Assembly and has been sent to the Senate for consideration. The bill would also require that funds generated through the additional inspection fees be deposited into an account which can be used to scrap older cars. You may recall that in 2004 a new law was enacted in California to require the lifetime testing of all 1976 and newer model-year vehicles. Pre-1976 motor vehicles would remain exempt under A.B. 616. The bill has been now referred to the Senate Transportation Committee.

We Urge You to Contact Members of the Senate Transportation Committee (List Below) Immediately to Oppose A.B. 616

A.B. 616 ignores the minimal impact vintage cars have on air quality.

A.B. 616 could entice vintage car owners into allowing these vehicles to be scrapped.

A.B. 616 ignores the fact that vehicles 15-years old and older still constitute a small portion of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to look for emissions reduction.

A.B. 616 ignores the fact that classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained and infrequently driven.

A.B. 616 would increase costs by creating an annual inspection fee for owners of these vehicles.

A.B. 616 represents another attempt by California legislators and regulators to scapegoat older cars.
Please contact members of the California Senate Transportation Committee immediately by phone, fax or e-mail to request their opposition to A.B. 616.
Please e-mail a copy of your letter to [email protected]. Thank you for your assistance.

Senate Transportation Committee

Senator Alan Lowenthal (Chair)
[email protected]
(916) 651-4027

Senator Tom McClintock (Vice Chair)
[email protected]
(916) 651-4019

Senator Roy Ashburn
[email protected]
(916) 651-4018

Senator Gilbert Cedillo
[email protected]
(916) 651-4022

Senator Ellen Corbett
[email protected]
(916) 651-4010

Senator Robert Dutton
[email protected]
(916) 651-4031

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

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

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

Senator Tom Torlakson
[email protected]
(916) 651-4007

Senator Leland Yee
[email protected]
(916) 651-4008

[CraigMBA]

Do you really care about annual inspections of the fleet of 1989 Ford Crown Vics on the road?

It doesn't state that it repeals existing law on pre 1975 cars. Does it?

[zbugger]

...It doesn't state that it repeals existing law on pre 1975 cars. Does it?

Read this...

You may recall that in 2004 a new law was enacted in California to require the lifetime testing of all 1976 and newer model-year vehicles. Pre-1976 motor vehicles would remain exempt under A.B. 616.

Still exempt. But I'd now have to spend another $50 a year at least to smog my daily driver. And then another when I get my Camaro back on the road. These legislators just suck at their job. They should do some research and actually find the percentage of cars older than 15 years old that are actually on the road. Figure that out, and you can control things better rather than just blanket everything.

[69TAPoser]

Do you really care about annual inspections of the fleet of 1989 Ford Crown Vics on the road?

It doesn't state that it repeals existing law on pre 1975 cars. Does it?

"California Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions Tests for Vehicles 15-Years Old and Older Passes Assembly."

So I am reading it wrong?

Phil

[69TAPoser]

Nevermoind, got it. Missed the prior exemption wording.

But you have to know that pre-'75 vehicles will be next on the hit list if this passes.

Phil

[CraigMBA]

"California Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions Tests for Vehicles 15-Years Old and Older Passes Assembly."

So I am reading it wrong?

Phil

That's why I asked for clarification. I tried to find the specific bill and was unsuccessful at getting a good answer.

SEMA yells fire a lot. Most of the time there are fires. As far as I'm concerned everything 1995-1975 needs to get smogged every year. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff that's out there.

I am no tree hugger, but IMO I get something out of the clean air laws. To me, it makes sense to try to enforce them on cars that are most likely to violate them. Much the same way it doesn't make any sense to require my 89 year old grandmother to take her shoes off at the airport, or the recent recall of pet food that wasn't gluten related.

[CraigMBA]

But you have to know that pre-'75 vehicles will be next on the hit list if this passes.

No, I don't know that. Don't ASSume anything. Ask questions instead.

I seriously doubt they will go after pre '75. Frankly, it doesn't add up to much in the big swing of things clean air related.

[CraigMBA]

I have a customer who recently retired his 1989 Honda Prelude that he bought new. It had a funny Honda carburator that was worn out. The car ran okay, but it refused to pass smog. The last time it passed was 2000. He continued to pay the tags and insurance on it, even though it wouldn't pass smog. He'd get pulled over about once a year and explain to the cop (who was totally confused at this point because the car showed current regestration on the PO's computer) that he couldn't get it smogged and he was "working on getting parts". He finally sold it to Pick a Part and bought a new Toyota.

THIS HAPPENS A LOT. HE is who they are trying to get off the road.

Apparently it's not illegal to drive with expired tags if you pay the fee and don't mind getting pulled over from time to time.

[Steve1968LS2]

Do you really care about annual inspections of the fleet of 1989 Ford Crown Vics on the road?

It doesn't state that it repeals existing law on pre 1975 cars. Does it?

This is sorta like the tale where they came to take the jews but that didn't affect me so I didn't care. Then they came to take the next group and I didn't care.

When they came to take me there was nobody left to care.


This is just a step toward thier ultimate goal of repealing the exemption deal. I could see them changing it from '75 and older to '69 and older.. then '65 and older.. and so on.

It's called the "slow burn" where they creep up on thier agenda.

[Steve1968LS2]

I seriously doubt they will go after pre '75. Frankly, it doesn't add up to much in the big swing of things clean air related.

with the 'global warming' hysteria in politics I wouldn't bet on it.

[CraigMBA]

This is sorta like the tale where they came to take the jews but that didn't affect me so I didn't care. Then they came to take the next group and I didn't care.

A little hyperbolic don't you think?

You're out of line.

[Steve1968LS2]

A little hyperbolic don't you think?

You're out of line.

It's an analogy.. we shouldn't "not care" because it doesn't yet affect us.

That was the point.

[Steve Chryssos]

Aren't they still trying to outlaw Carbon Dioxide in California? Brilliant.

[CraigMBA]

It's an analogy.. we shouldn't "not care" because it doesn't yet affect us.

That was the point.

Understood. But using the death of six million innocent Jews as an equivlent to some slippery slope "The Government is out to get Us" argument by making smog inspections annual instead of bi-annual on cars that are likely the biggest contibutors to the problem is way out of bounds.

The state of California has a real problem getting certain areas to comply with Federal Clean Air Act requirements. Most of them are in areas of the Southern San Joaquin valley. The government is trying to clean this up. They are not trying to take your rights as an automotive enthusiast away, but may if you don't get involved in a proactive mannar.

SEMA's idea of being proactive is to stop all legeslation cold by stirring up the masses. Bad idea. How about getting the masses involved by edumcatin' on what the problem really is?

Naw, screw it. Just stir up the sheeple instead. Then listen to them complain when they get a half baked piece of junk legeslation instead of getting them involved to fix the problem.......

[zbugger]

...Apparently it's not illegal to drive with expired tags if you pay the fee and don't mind getting pulled over from time to time.

Actually, it is. I got pulled over three times, twice in the same day, and got three fix-it tickets. I had to get the car smogged and show the officer registration, proof of insurance, and proof of smog certification if I got pulled over again. Even then, I could have still gotten a ticket for driving an unregistered vehicle. As for the customer you mentioned, that doesn't happen as often as you think.

I seriously doubt they will go after pre '75. Frankly, it doesn't add up to much in the big swing of things clean air related.

They already have. They wanted to have everything 45 years old tested at one point. That meant you'd be smogging a 1958 Chevy when they first wanted to pass that. Jay Leno got involved and that one fell through.

Aren't they still trying to outlaw Carbon Dioxide in California? Brilliant.

Just to warn you, New York state is trying to follow closely in our footsteps...

[mdprovee]

Why not go after the big corporations that pollute. No they get pollution credits for doing this and/or crushing that, and dont have to clean up their act.

Why is that? Cant tell me that a little money to the election fund doesnt help.

[Steve1968LS2]

Aren't they still trying to outlaw Carbon Dioxide in California? Brilliant.

lol.. yea, they would ban cars if they could.. and everyone must hold thier breaths for one hour each day.

Gotta save the Earth.. ;)

Why not go after the big corporations that pollute. No they get pollution credits for doing this and/or crushing that, and dont have to clean up their act.

Why is that? Cant tell me that a little money to the election fund doesnt help.

Or the trucks coming over from Mexico belching smoke?

[Steve1968LS2]

Understood. But using the death of six million innocent Jews as an equivlent to some slippery slope "The Government is out to get Us" argument by making smog inspections annual instead of bi-annual on cars that are likely the biggest contibutors to the problem is way out of bounds.

The state of California has a real problem getting certain areas to comply with Federal Clean Air Act requirements. Most of them are in areas of the Southern San Joaquin valley. The government is trying to clean this up. They are not trying to take your rights as an automotive enthusiast away, but may if you don't get involved in a proactive mannar.

SEMA's idea of being proactive is to stop all legeslation cold by stirring up the masses. Bad idea. How about getting the masses involved by edumcatin' on what the problem really is?

Naw, screw it. Just stir up the sheeple instead. Then listen to them complain when they get a half baked piece of junk legeslation instead of getting them involved to fix the problem.......

Ok, substitue "plaid people" for the term "jews"...

It's actually an old saying (pertaining to WWII) that I paraphrased... but the point is the same. Sometimes LARGE changes are made from many small steps so that people don't notice or care.

[Larry Callahan]

Thanks for posting that Steve. I was working on this on my lunch break and was just about to paste it when I found yours. Now, It's time to start calling people.

I can't beleive we are having to do this again.

[trapin]

How exactly can you require a car to be smog legal that was not built in the era of emmisions standards? Would the guy in the big block '69 Chevelle have to put Catalyatic Convertors on his duel exhaust?

That's about the dumbest sh*t I ever heard in my life. Who are these idiots?