2

2/28/2013 12:41:42 PM

Quote :

"I personally find it hilarious that cars older than model year 1996 are exempt from emissions testing. These are the cars that require emissions testing THE MOST Fucking government idiots. "

They would also be the cars that would be the most unaffordable for their owners to bring up to standard, and would outlaw almost all classic cars. In most cases the upgrades would cost more than the car's total value, and older cars are more likely to be owned by the poor.

On top of all that, it's a stipulation that of course becomes less important as 1996 sinks further into the past and more cars made before then go out of commission.

It's a matter of practicality, shithead, showing the government is able to think in far more complex and nuanced terms than you.


[Edited on February 28, 2013 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2013 1:09:23 PM

Yes, because look at all the nuanced decisions the government makes when it comes to regulatory compliance. The government is never just the most stubborn and backwards people to deal with.

I think the point is that if you're actually interested in emissions testing you don't just ignore what are likely to be the worst polluters. If you're not interested in emissions safety then just don't test for it and make it what it really is, a safety inspection. Or, and here's a though, charge people more to register classic cars or cars that don't have OBDII computers.

2/28/2013 1:27:09 PM

Quote :

"Yes, because look at all the nuanced decisions the government makes when it comes to regulatory compliance. "

We are literally looking at a case of it right now. Also, the Federal Code and IRS Tax Code aren't tens of thousands of pages long because of a lack of nuance. Just because they will almost certainly bust you for breaking the law doesn't mean the law itself lacks nuance.

Quote :

"The government is never just the most stubborn and backwards people to deal with."

Correct, those would be the kneejerk anti-government shitheads like TKE-TEG.

Quote :

"I think the point is that if you're actually interested in emissions testing you don't just ignore what are likely to be the worst polluters."

Except their role diminishes with time as a necessity of time passing, and most of their polluting has already been done. In fact, as a group, their emissions are consistently lowered year by year simply because more of them stop working each year and you can't produce more cars made before 1996 after 1996 has passed.

Forcing millions and millions of people, most of them poor, to break the bank or toss their car over such an effect is just senselessly destructive for a relatively tiny chunk of the emissions pie.

Quote :

"If you're not interested in emissions safety then just don't test for it and make it what it really is, a safety inspection. Or, and here's a though, charge people more to register classic cars or cars that don't have OBDII computers."

All cars after 1996 have OBDII computers, so see my above answer. It is about emissions, but it's also about not cutting off your nose to spite your face. AKA practicality, AKA not hurting vulnerable people because of an simple-minded commitment to consistency. Not even consistency, but a short-sighted vision of it. If your goal is "Reduce the emissions caused by cars made before 1996" then you're in luck because this will happen anyway.



[Edited on February 28, 2013 at 1:49 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2013 1:32:14 PM

My 95 Ranger has OBDII, but since its a 95, I don't have to worry about emissions. Thank God. I have some stupid code that it keeps throwing, and if I had to worry about getting it up to snuff when I moved to Orange County, I probably would have just sold it instead. Damn glad its not a 96.

2/28/2013 1:45:52 PM

Quote :

"Forcing millions and millions of people, most of them poor, to break the bank or toss their car over such an effect is just senselessly destructive for a relatively tiny chunk of the emissions pie. "

Really, millions and millions in NC huh? Where do you get your numbers? There are roughly 6 million registered private vehicles (including taxis) in NC. How many do you think are pre-1996?

More to the point, why should we not charge more for older cars, they're worse for the environment and more dangerous to others on the road. Shit, I'm all for charging registration based and inspection cost by weight and age. Older, heavier vehicles are in just about all ways more dangerous, heavier polluters, and less safe for others on the road.

I'd rather we just didn't have inspections, but if we are it should be done in a manner that actually attempts to accomplish what it is supposed to... vehicle safety and emissions control.


[Edited on February 28, 2013 at 2:01 PM. Reason : sadfasdf]

2/28/2013 2:00:56 PM

Quote :

"Really, millions and millions in NC huh? Where do you get your numbers? There are roughly 6 million registered private vehicles (including taxis) in NC. How many do you think are pre-1996?"

I was transposing the policy to to a general principle to make a point. Consider that global warming is a global issue, not an NC one.

Quote :

"More to the point, why should we not charge more for older cars, they're worse for the environment and more dangerous to others on the road. Shit, I'm all for charging registration based and inspection cost by weight and age. Older, heavier vehicles are in just about all ways more dangerous, heavier polluters, and less safe for others on the road."

I already answered this, you just seem unable to read. There are two reason:

1) Those cars are generally owned by the poorer who are unable to pay those higher charges. You might as well just advocate destroying cars made before 1996.

2) All of the risks, both environmental and to safety, are reduced over time by the mere fact that these cars are going out of commission over time and not being replenished.

Quote :

"I'd rather we just didn't have inspections, but if we are it should be done in a manner that actually attempts to accomplish what it is supposed to... vehicle safety and emissions control."

That's exactly what they do accomplish. I know you want really bad to pick a nit in this, but it's only making it obvious that you're way more blockheaded and simple-minded than legislators in NC. Yeah, I said it, I hope you have some burn cream nearby.

[Edited on February 28, 2013 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2013 2:14:46 PM

get rid of em both

2/28/2013 3:01:46 PM

Quote :

"Those cars are generally owned by the poorer who are unable to pay those higher charges."

It really is interesting how differently you and I view things like what is actually fair/just.

2/28/2013 5:02:26 PM

Quote :

"They would also be the cars that would be the most unaffordable for their owners to bring up to standard, and would outlaw almost all classic cars. In most cases the upgrades would cost more than the car's total value, and older cars are more likely to be owned by the poor. On top of all that, it's a stipulation that of course becomes less important as 1996 sinks further into the past and more cars made before then go out of commission. It's a matter of practicality, shithead, showing the government is able to think in far more complex and nuanced terms than you."

Quote :

"Except their role diminishes with time as a necessity of time passing, and most of their polluting has already been done. In fact, as a group, their emissions are consistently lowered year by year simply because more of them stop working each year and you can't produce more cars made before 1996 after 1996 has passed. Forcing millions and millions of people, most of them poor, to break the bank or toss their car over such an effect is just senselessly destructive for a relatively tiny chunk of the emissions pie. "

The flip side to this is that a newer vehicle is likely to outperform an older one regardless of the many minor issues that might trip a check engine light. So, Billy's 2003 Civic which gets 30+ MPG even with a bad oxygen sensor fails an inspection while Bob's 1994 Caprice that is blowing smoke out the exhaust has no problem. There is some broken logic in that.

Furthermore, I think it's funny that you are worried about "breaking the bank" for folks with cars older than 1995, yet you don't show sympathy for people with cars built after that point. Money is money whether you're spending it on a car from 1995 or a car from 1996-2013. Computers may help diagnose an issue, but the computer itself and the many sensors in a car can also add to the complexity and price of repairs.

If the car is safe I don't know that it's the state's job to dictate how people maintain it. We have a system that overly penalizes minor issues that may or may not even effect emissions; yet a person can still choose to buy a Hummer, put it on 35" tires, and floor it from every stoplight to legally net 9 MPG if they so choose.

CarZin had a relevant frustrating experience with failed emissions inspections in this thread:
message_topic.aspx?topic=602139[/link]

2/28/2013 5:26:11 PM

^very well put.

Quote :

"They would also be the cars that would be the most unaffordable for their owners to bring up to standard, and would outlaw almost all classic cars. In most cases the upgrades would cost more than the car's total value, and older cars are more likely to be owned by the poor. On top of all that, it's a stipulation that of course becomes less important as 1996 sinks further into the past and more cars made before then go out of commission. It's a matter of practicality, shithead, showing the government is able to think in far more complex and nuanced terms than you."

Good to know you can always count on name calling and personal attacks from St8Foolish.

-If you can't afford to keep a car on the road that has a) functional brakes b) an unshattered windshield c) treaded tires and d) a functional catalytic convertor then you shouldn't be driving, at all. Last time I checked driving is a privilege. Maybe in your utopian society it's a right, but not here.

-It is true that as time goes by cars from pre 1996 are less of a piece of the emissions pie. But this law has been in effect for a while so that argument was previously weak but obviously now stronger.

-most classic cars are exempt anyway, but they have to be registered in a different way and annual mileage is limited. Nevermind that classic cars are usually owned by car enthusiasts who maintain them impeccably.

Of course we're going off topic here. The OP is discussing vehicle safety.

3/1/2013 1:06:06 PM