Classic Mustangs List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Greg (email redacted)

I only had to read the first couple of paragraphs of this proposal to
conclude that it is seriously lame!! I would seriously question their
fingers regarding the amount of emissions that pre 73' vehicles are
responsible for (ie "..they account for 7% of total tailpipe HC emissions,
8% of total CO emissions and 4% of total NOx emissions.". I commute down
the San Francisco peninsula every day (most of the time NOT in my classic
Mustang) and I see maybe one or two pre- 73 vehicles a day. Even if their
figures are close, and they were able to get two-thirds of these vehicles
off the road (highly unlikely), they would only be able to reduce pollution
by 3%-5%. Sounds like a !@#$% way to spend our tax dollars to me!

Somehow they don't realize that it is not the type of vehicle that is
causing our pollution problems, it is the QUANTITY of vehicles that are
responsible for it. Maybe if they tried to make improvements to
California's mass transit systems then people would drive less. What a
concept!

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now

Greg
> Message: 4
> Reply-To: <(email redacted)>
> From: "Chuck Colvin" <(email redacted)>
> To: "Classic-Mustangs Mail List" <(email redacted)>
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:52:48 -0800
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Subject: [CM] California's IMRC Smog Proposal
> Reply-To: (email redacted)
>
> Hi all,
>
> I shared knowledge of California's IMRC proposed repeal of SB42's smog
> exemption for 1966 to 1973 vehicles with a friend and he in turn found the
> proposal (imreview.ca.gov/current_recos.html).
>
> But, what about 30 year old vehicles?
>
> Will this still remain in effect?
>
> He also wants to know if there is a place to sign up, so that we can be
> notified of the progress of this smog check measure?
>
> He then made a rather interesting suggestion.
>
> I've included his comments below;-)
>
> Chuck Colvin
> (email redacted)
> CoolRides.com/member1/
> CoolRides.com/torinonut/
>
>
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> $$$$$$$$
>
> "Ok, what I am about to mention here is serious.
>
> You may think it is impossible or out of the ordinary but here goes.
>
> Arizona is what one would consider to be a free state.
>
> That is, not much legislation that would limit the freedom of individuals.
>
> Consider the annexation of Southern California into the State of Arizona.
>
> This would extend Arizona's boundary to the Pacific Ocean.
>
> But, most importantly, it would restore our freedoms with regard to
classic
> car smog checks and firearms.
>
> Possibly even other freedoms that the State of California has taken away
in
> recent years.
>
> Ask your friends the question, "How would you feel if Southern California
> became part of the State of Arizona?"
>
> See what they say. So far I have 100% in favor of this.
>
> However, I don't know if Arizona would accept Southern California as part
of
> it's state."
>
> Verl
>
>