California may not have much rust, but it’s got something far, far worse: lawmakers on the constant attack against old cars. The latest culprit is Assemblyman Dave Jones, who has drafted a bill that would require all cars 15 years or older to undergo annual emissions testing (currently state law says pre-1976 cars are exempt).
Even worse, Jones is, as SEMA discovered, trying to sneak this in as an amendment to an unrelated bill!
Do we really have to go over why these laws are… what’s the term… stupid? Apparently so. Here we go again:
- Old cars make up only a tiny fraction of the total number of cars and trucks on the roads today.
- The majority of collectors do not use their vintage cars as daily drivers.
- And most of all, encouraging the disposal of an old car so that a new one can take its place does not account for the manufacturing costs of the new vehicle.
This is merely the latest in a string of attempts to send more old cars to the scrapper. Earlier year this year a similar bill was introduced but defeated thanks in part to those who wrote in expressing their outrage/sound reasoning. However, California and Texas also have buyback programs designed to take old cars off the street.
Come on, legislators, think about it. How much fossil fuel does it take to turn a pile of iron ore buried in a mountain – along with plastics, rubber and assorted chemicals – into a new car? Let us get every mile we can out of these old cars, whose pollution costs generated during manufacture have already been paid for.
The hearing is set for August 28. If you are a California resident – or are simply pretending to be one – please write to your legislator and express your views on the subject. Thank you! Full details and legislator’s email addresses after the jump.
In an effort to avoid public scrutiny, California Assemblyman Dave Jones (Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov) has amended a completely unrelated bill with language to require annual Smog check inspections for vehicles 15-years old and older. This represents an obvious attempt to sneak through legislation in the closing days of the legislative session that had been previously defeated (A.B. 616). The new bill is designated as A.B. 3053.
While pre-1976 motor vehicles would remain exempt under existing California law, this proposal 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. Furthermore, the bill would direct that the funds generated through annual inspection fees be used to scrap older cars. This represents another attempt by California legislators and regulators to scapegoat older cars.
This is the type of activity that fuels distrust in public officials. SEMA caught this lawmaker’s underhanded attempt to circumvent public process and is now calling on you to help defeat A.B 3053 before it’s too late.
Time is of the Essence! We Urge You to Call the California Senate Appropriations Committee (List Below) Immediately to Oppose A.B. 3053
California Senate Appropriations Committee
Senator Tom Torlakson – Chair
Phone: 916/651-4007
Email: senator.torlakson@sen.ca.govSenator Dave Cox
Phone: 916/651-4001
Email: senator.cox@sen.ca.govSenator Sam Aanestad
Phone: 916/651-4004
Email: senator.aanestad@sen.ca.govSenator Roy Ashburn
Phone: 916/651-4018
Email: senator.ashburn@sen.ca.govSenator Gilbert Cedillo
Phone: 916/651-4022
Email: senator.cedillo@sen.ca.govSenator Ellen Corbett
Phone: 916/651-4010Senator Robert Dutton
Phone: 916/651-4031
Email: senator.dutton@sen.ca.govSenator Dean Florez
Phone: 916/651-4016
Email: senator.florez@sen.ca.govSenator Sheila Kuehl
Phone: 916/651-4023
Email: senator.kuehl@sen.ca.govSenator Jenny Oropeza
Phone: 916/651-4028Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas
Phone: 916/651-4026Senator George Runner
Phone: 916/651-4017
Email: senator.runner@sen.ca.govSenator Joe Simitian
Phone: 916/651-4011
Email: senator.simitian@sen.ca.govSenator Mark Wyland
Phone: 916/651-4038Senator Leland Yee
Phone: 916/651-4008
Thank you to SEMA for looking out for the interests of car enthusiasts and to Toygarage for the tip!
Just to clarify, this amendment (while asinine) maintains the exclusion for pre-1976 cars. So your 323GTX might be in trouble, but your ’69 240Z with that insane Weber setup is going to be just fine.
Still, if it’s cars 15 years now, it might be all classics next session. Write your legislators!!!
another tippy-toes politician wants to ensure he and his offspring have a clean, safe environment to reproduce themselves in
The funny thing is, if he was really concerned about that he would consider the manufacturing costs of the new cars that will replace the old ones.
Not to nitpick, but its fossil, not fossel.
The muscle guys will be all over this.
Thanks John – corrected 🙂
Somebody needs to do a audit of the carbon footprint of a Prius (and heck, while they’re at it, a F-150) with absolutely 0 miles on the odometer. I’d bet the wiring harness of a Prius has a footprint larger than the difference between that car and mine over 100,000 miles. The Prius, and certainly the F-150, are undoubtedly more Eco-Friendly if you just Leave Them In The Ground! At no point in that triangle that they are always showing us does it become a square— Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, Throw Away The One You Have And Buy A New ONE!
Everyone, please, Write to your respective legislators. Guys with American muscle cars , this also affects you. JAPANESE car owners let them know that this cars are collectible as American made cars.
Well said, coupeZ600!
El Kimico – very true. Last time I posted on a similar bill a site about muscle cars linked to it. No matter what country of origin, they need to be preserved!
Hi Ben! Off thread, as I am wont to do, have you ever seen a movie with the title, “The Cars That Killed Paris”? My wife really likes IFC (The Independent Film Channel), and tonight, while I was in the garage chasing a short (a short circuit!) under the dash of my car, she ran in and said, “OMG! You gotta come see this!” I only got to see the last Act, but it surely if nothing else showed a bunch of really cool Aussie rigs. My wife, at the credits said, “That is one of the weirdest movies I’ve ever seen!”. She watchs IFC all the time, so that must be an astounding endorsement.
I haven’t seen that movie, but Australian cars running amok in Paris? Are you sure this wasn’t the lost fourth Mad Max movie? 🙂
haha, The Cars That Ate Paris is a terrible old flick. Watched it years ago. It’s a lot of viewing time for little entertainment, but worth a watch. For clarification, the “Paris” in question is some tiny Aussie town in BFE, not Paris, France.
You are forgetting the most important part in this California discusion, the case at issue which demostrates the intentions of said legislation.
This legislation has as primary intent the riddance of older vehicles close to exemption status.
Before these vehicles can be placed under a grant of exemption, every effort is done and implemented to make it impossible “if posible”, or very difficult “if unsuccessful”… ( from a state revenue point of view , which has as goal denial of exemption status, and subsequent junking of collector’s vehicles )… to preclude and throw off any successful attempts to smog a car in accordance to California vehicle code.
A car that reaches exemption status is a car that creates loss of revenue to the state.
That exempted vehicle will pay very low registration fees ( as opposed to a new or newer vehicle ) and will pay zero dollars in regard to fees and charges related to smog laws.
Smog laws are seen as a revenue opportunity by the state, hence their determination in undermining all posible avenues of legaly reaching compliance status when talking about older vehicles close to and reaching the point of exemption.
The issue at hand, and more specifically, the case at issue is the following:
In order to make this older car riddance plan work, there has to be a way to ensure that the state’s collusion and connivance plan can and will work. This plan is posible because the state of California only , and “ONLY” , requires auto manufacturers to manufacture, market and provide the loyal clientele that purchased it’s vehicles, and the generations of american citizens and residents that continue using, enjoying and restoring these vehicles with the material, necessary and explicit smog/pollution parts, devices and gadgets that will assure the vehice’s compliance under the CA vehicle code.
By acting in collusion with automakers, the automakers get “off the hook” so to speak, having no committment nor obligation in supplying parts and components as defined beforehand.
The state enjoys complete unopposed tirany on the subject, by requiring vehicles to perform in the smog pollution tests to the best of standards, that is to say , to brand new specifications.
No car that is 10, 20, 30 or more years old can perform to factory standards while no parts and components are available, and in this action, exhibiting collusion, suppresion and conspiracy, the State of California, it’s representatives, together with automobile manufacturers and lobby ists find themselves under criminal law, in what it is known as racketeering.
If manufacturers can only produce and present to the public, (under the acceptance and endorsement of the State of California) smog/pollution related parts for a period of 10 years after a vehicle hits the show rooms, then the smog /pollution requirements should reflect such acceptance and endorsement exhibited by the State of California.
Or else, cars should be sold within the State of California with a disclaimer, “Disposable Vehicle”, discard after 10 years. Cars should be sold at a much cheaper price, or else, the state has to offer restitution to unsuspecting customers of these automobile manufacturers that act in such irresponsable manner “in concert” with the State of California.
Jaime Aguirre.
I forgot to mention in my previous intervention the case at issue, which is that auto manufacturers are required by the State of California to produce, manufacture and sell smog and pollution related parts and components for a period of 10, and “ONLY” “TEN YEARS” after a particular vehicle model reaches the show room.
That means that if you bought a Datsun B210 back in 1976, your beloved Datsun B210 ran out of luck back in 1986, year after which your beloved Datsun B210 entered Death Row.
I do not think we will be able to make any dents in this process by writting to fat cats up in Sacramento. This issue has to make it to the ballots.
Any smog requirement has to be closely related to the automobile manufacturers production of components and parts related to smog/pollution devices.
If the State wants cars to comply for 50 years, then, companies should provide the constituents with parts for those 50 years.
If the State wants automobile manufacturers to produce smog/pollution related parts and gadgets for a period of 10 years, then, smog requirements should be applicable to 10 years after the vehicles year of production and marketing.
You want clean air, it is possible, classic cars and emission requirements are compatible, provided the state does not exercise connivance, conspiracy, suppresion, collusion , in other words, racketeering with it’s accesory to the crime, the automobile industry.
Hi Jamie, very good points. It’s true that the automakers are operating in collusion with the lawmakers. I touched up on that in the post about buyback programs (http://japanesenostalgiccar.com/blog/2008/07/02/buy-back-programs-destroying-old-cars/) but perhaps did not say it as explicitly as I should have. It’s a nice little racket they’ve got going there, and the lawmakers are, depending on your perspective, either too stupid or too influenced by the companies. Beautiful system, ain’t it?
Ben.
It is the perfect trap. There are no smog related parts to refurbish your emissions system ( like selenoids, valves, air pumps , hoses, etc) and at the same time, at the state sponsored smog stations there are no blueprints, there is no advisory to the driver about the posible problems.
It is a system that does not care about clean air at all.
It’s lack of guidance and failure to produce test results that show the failing components…
…( keeps emissions test results and reasons for failures in secret, creating doubts about said smog checks’ integrity , because it is so secretive in its results that by reason of the aforegoing creates the opportunity for fraud on part of the state, interested in vehicles failing , wanton interest that , compounded to the secrecy in results and lack of explanation about the failure, the failing components and related issues opens the window of opportunity for a state to dictate, manipulate and manufacture test results in an effort to rid the state of vehicles it sees as revenue hindrances.)…
…it’s remiss and wanton collusion with automakers in regards to the 10 year limit in manufacturers’ responsability ( responsability related to manufacturing, selling and providing smog related parts and components ) and it’s monopoly on the smog check stations creates a system that has no accountability, benefits automakers by allowing them to skip their responsability about providing the public with smog related parts and components for a reasonable period of time ( which 10 years is not a reasonable time ) and forces the residents of this state to buy vehicles that pay revenue to the state, eliminating vehicles that are perfectly sound and precious under the fallacy of non compliance with the smog emissions test, non compliance that is manufactured by bogus results, results which are unaccountable, and through the implemetation of a system that assures no parts will be available for emissions system repairs.
The perfect trap, the perfect monopoly, the perfect scam. It is racketeering by definition, collusion and supression are vital ingredients of said policy.
Jaime._____________________________________________________________
I think they’re at it again… http://echo.bluehornet.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=6c38f56f8c93e8b8541cd3509ec510d5&CID=1477678666&ch=F97A37D6DB64C4E536C102FD16C6FF9D