Monday, May 26, 2014

Who Decided That Its New Cars' Sole Responsibility To Clean The Air?

The push for cleaner and more efficient new cars is important but what about the older inefficient cars that we allow to remain on the roads for years and years and in some cases for free?  Ever check out the cost of licensing classic cars? Yes, you read it right, its currently $51.75 to license a "classic" for the LIFE of the car in WA State. And in truth, its a great program  but like all good things, abuse is prevalent.

What it boils down to is as long we allow it, the "under $1000" car market will continue to flourish. This can be stopped requiring all cars to either conform to modern pollution AND mileage standards or be scrapped before any new transaction can happen.  This will cause a HUGE jump in the cost of used cars and really put a lot of people in a bad situation, right?

Well, maybe that is where we need to go. The cost to drive in the U.S. is one of the lowest in the industrialize World and lately I am beginning to think that is not a good thing.  Is it because I am getting tired of getting stuck behind cars that put out more smoke than the old Marlboro Commercials?  We do have laws that are supposed to prevent junkers from being licensed but they don't always work. Either the inspection time frames are inadequate or the "variances" that allow POS's to continue on is too lax. In WA, we have this thing that if the repair is too expensive, they don't have to do it? WHAT???

How does that logic make sense?  But that is only part of it.  Because here if an oil change won't fix the issue, then don't worry about it and you have the blessing of the State!!

Am I crazy? Ok, well maybe the "oil change" statement is stretching it a bit but from the link above

If your vehicle fails its emissions inspection, you will be required to have the vehicle repaired to bring it into compliance. However, there's a limit to how much money you have to spend on this. If you've spent more than $150 on repairs and you car still fails a retest, you might be eligible for a repair waiver.

$150!! Like what??? ok, i amend my statement because for some cars, that is only HALF an oil change!!

Remember "cash for clunkers?"  ok, its intent was good but the execution left a bit too much on the table. Maybe we need more of this.  Obama's Health Care plan made it thru the very deep sea of red tape to become a reality because of the enormity of the need.  Its my opinion that a revised and better controlled Cash for Clunkers Program based on income has almost the same level of need in this country

**Edit**  A response from a Tacoma EV Association member who actually does those smog inspections says the biggest problem with the entire program is that the $150 "ceiling" has not been raised once in the 25+ year history of the law.  He remembers back then, most repairs cost that little (my oh my how cheap it used to be!)  but nowadays nearly everyone comes in willing to pay the $150 to get the waiver and have zero interest in getting the car fixed or even finding out what even needs to be fixed!

25 years?? that is worse than the 20 year old federal gas tax!!

9 comments:

  1. If the govt requires us to buy health insurance AND new cars it they should probably consider just increasing that minimum wage to $50 instead of the $15 currently the talk in WA state. Problem solved.

    Actually, I don't see all that many excess polluters on the road. I'm am surprised by the number of fairly new cars. I have no idea how people can afford them in these times. Cash for clunkers took many perfectly good cars which were paid off and saddled people with long term debt to bankers. Cash for Clunkers also took those perfectly good parts out of circulation making repairing those older cars even more expensive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "perfectly good"

      Only the sense that they ran fine. Many were perfectly awful at pumping pollution out and dripping oil. One old clunker can spew 1000 times as much pollution as a newer car. They also tend to be much less safe, often in poor repair. They might be perfectly cheap but they impose a costly burden on the rest of society that isn't factored into their selling price.

      Delete
    2. There was a study done in the late 90's about oil leaks from cars getting into Puget Sound thru the stormwater system. The math was later challenged but still leaves the fact that older cars tend to leak more (a LOT more) and that is another hit to the environment

      Delete
  2. great comment from a guy who does these inspections on the Tacoma EV association website and it only takes one older car polluting to match the output of thousands of clean cars. maybe its how often we are out on the roads that makes the difference in our views on the subject. because I travel as part of my job, I am out there a lot and I posted a video of a semi pouring smoke out to the point that even being a mile behind him, I could still smell the exhaust. I also posted a video of a pickup that punched it getting on the freeway at Ft. Lewis and same result; a cloud that lingered forever! so the question is how many of these types of situations will offset thousands of new cars costing millions?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I assume those examples are diesel which I certainly have seen. I've also noticed when bicycling or driving with the windows down that you can smell the exhaust of the old carburetored cars. What I don't see are they cars that burn oil with blue smoke blowing like in the old days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lucky you. I see the blue smoke exhaust probably at least every week. two days ago, I saw what i think was an early 70's pickup completely loaded with gravel tooling down the road. I fully expected to see it blow up. it did not but the smell (and smoke) was getting to me since i had my windows open so I simply decided to turn at the earliest convenience instead of going his way although it was also my way. But you said it yourself; if you can smell it, then it is already several times over any modern limits because I have been in a sea of new cars (like EVERY DAY on I 5) and not smelled anything

      Delete
  4. I have a very nice '74 BMW 2002tii that I got collector plates for. In the 13 years I've owned it, I've driven it less than 7500 miles. I take it to events, and an annual fun drive (usually through the foothills) and am not one of those elite rich guys with lots of toys in the garage. (I only have a 1 car garage). Abuse? I suppose there are those who do, but most of the people I know with these cars have them for the love of having them and getting them out on the road once in a while. I also have Hagerty classic car insurance for it which is also steeply discounted from "regular" car insurance. If I had to pay 'full bore' pricing on both, I would not be able to have ever enjoyed this classic driving machine. Go after the Hummers and trucks that foul the road more. May e tax vehicles like they do in Japan based on both weight class (Heavier vehicles damage roads more than light ones) and on engine class (size). Bigger engines pollute more than smaller ones in general. EV's would qualify for the lowest engine class rating, but might take a hit on the weight. But that's fair IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BTW, I'd by happy to take my BMW in for emission testing. That, too, is fair if I want to drive it around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon; let me make sure you understand I am not against old cars. Only old cars that are not in good running order and are allowed to continue to run poorly due to the $150 spending limitation that has not been raised in 25 years. I mentioned we drive very cheaply in this country. Imagine how many cars would be on the road if a driver's license cost everyone $2000 which about the going cost in countries like Germany. the whole point of this article is there are some very simple things we can do that will make an impact on the emissions we create but we simply fail to do so. this emission testing loophole is one, a BIG one

      Delete