Classic Mustangs List Archive

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

This is only an opinion and I desire only to pose questions and thoughts
that may not have answers. We all have a stake in the laws regarding
older cars, especially our Mustangs.

My wife and I agree that polluting vehicles should be taken _off_ the
road. We also are at odds with the idea of confiscation and destruction
of said vehicles. If it pollutes: it is harmful to others and should
legally be restricted from being driven not destroyed. We also highly
disagree with the pollution credit schemes that allow organizations to
destroy one pollution type and ignore another. We also disagree with
the "moving target" plan - this means that in the year 2026 a 1995 car
that is to have (hypothetically) 0 pollution emissions is now exempt and
can pollute. This does not make sense, to us at least.

However, we also do not understand the reluctance of law makers to use
common sense regarding older cars (all cars and law in general?). And,
the constant clash over pollution mandated emissions and modifications.
If the modified car does not pollute any more (and maybe less) than it
did from the OEM *why* is it illegal for an owner to do desired
modifications? Too many questions?!?!?????

Why is there not a push to update these laws to read - something like -

Cars with mandated pollution ranges for CO, HCO3, NOX (what ever) are to
be tested to comply with said given ranges regardless of internal or
external equipment changes (exclude?! race(ing) only vehicles). All
pollution devices are to be fully functional. As long as all equipment
and factors being monitored for pollution are within the mandated
parameters, as set at the time the car was manufactured, the car is in
compliance.


hypothetical emission standards and modification standards:

No limit to modifications meaning 1."All pollution devices are attached,
operational and functioning". 2."Polution devices may be replaced or
upgraded in function with OEM or after market equipment of and with the
same pollution protection intent and function and subsequent follow-up
tests provide documentation that performed modification did not render
operation outside given standards or mandated pollution ranges".

It might include fuel consumption guidelines as well. E.G.: a car stated
to have a fuel consumption range or 16 - 25 MPG cannot fall below the 16
MPG mark - though enforcement of this may be extremely difficult.
-------------
Proof of compliance is the responsibility of the owner/operator: with
the compliance of and with the manufacturer's claims and liability
thereof.

1966 - 1969 model year cars may only express 1pound of chocolate per
month - EPA 1966 mandate - no limit on modifications

1981 - 1989 model year cars may only express 0.33 pounds of chocolate at
a 50% reduction of stated caffeine rate of 1980 models - EPA 1981
mandate - no limit to modifications.

1996 - 1997 model year cars may only express 0.25pounds of chocolate at
0% caffeine "decaffeinated" per month - EPA 1996 mandate - no limit to
modifications.

- period - no: Ifs; Ands, or; Buts - The car is to comply with these
emission standards from date of manufacture until the day the car is no
longer road worthy and is parted or destroyed.
------------
Registration of and ownership of non compliant vehicles shall not be
illegal. Storage of vehicle to comply with covenants and rules where
owner resides.

Licensing for operation of or use of non compliant (non race(ing) track
functions) vehicles _shall be disallowed_, until vehicle is proven
compliant with. . . . .for year of vehicle.

"on road use" = any vehicle to be driven in, on or about the planet
earth that is not specifically for "racing" on/in/at a sanctioned or
designated "race" - this means that motorized vehicles (of any type) are
to comply with pollution emission standards weather driven on paved or
unpaved roads, or no roads at all (pastures, mountains, deserts), in/on
our lakes, rivers and oceans, in the air, etc..


It is ust my opinion
Yes, there are many things I might not have taken into consideration and
may not.
No, I am not against anyone or anything on this list.
I only... .. well never mind. take this for what it is worth - if it is
not worth much to you then just toss it.

If you have an opinion or want to flame me please do so, however,
Please do not make flames a part of the Classic-Mustang list's general
bandwidth.
(email redacted).

I put this out as -food for thought- maybe someone with the knowledge to
do it can use this as a spring board to start something that will help
all of us with car hobby/livelihood endeavors. If you think your opinion
may help other on the list with legislative matters I can only agree
with telling everyone on the list - other wise blast me not everyone
else.

Yes, I do enjoy cars, racing, breathing and living. My 1971, pollution
controlled, car is to be a fun. legal, enjoyable, part of my life as
long as I can possibly have it. I am personally triing to make my car
*more* efficient, less polluting and as much fun to drive as possible.

Keith, '71 rag-in-resto
----------
From: (email redacted)
Bill 42 in California (to exempt cars older than 25 years from smog 20)
just had a yes on its financial analysis following passage in the
senate.
Where does it go from here?
Tony
'67 GTA Convertible

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

Peterson, Keith wrote:
>
> This is only an opinion and I desire only to pose questions and thoughts
> that may not have answers. We all have a stake in the laws regarding
> older cars, especially our Mustangs.
>
> My wife and I agree that polluting vehicles should be taken _off_ the
> road. We also are at odds with the idea of confiscation and destruction
> of said vehicles. If it pollutes: it is harmful to others and should
> legally be restricted from being driven not destroyed. We also highly
> disagree with the pollution credit schemes that allow organizations to
> destroy one pollution type and ignore another. We also disagree with
> the "moving target" plan - this means that in the year 2026 a 1995 car
> that is to have (hypothetically) 0 pollution emissions is now exempt and
> can pollute. This does not make sense, to us at least.
>
> However, we also do not understand the reluctance of law makers to use
> common sense regarding older cars (all cars and law in general?). And,
> the constant clash over pollution mandated emissions and modifications.
> If the modified car does not pollute any more (and maybe less) than it
> did from the OEM *why* is it illegal for an owner to do desired
> modifications? Too many questions?!?!?????

snip


This is very easy to answer. Lawmakers care nothing about pollution,
only money. Pollution credits make business more money and they in turn
make politicians rich. Confiscating and destroying cars in just another
way of making the population dependant on the government (read slaves)
but making the only source of transportation public government owned
transportaion. When no one can afford a car that meets the pollution
standards then the government can charge anything it want to ride their
buses and trains, which BTW will be polluting thanks to pollution
credits given to them by the people.

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


I recently had a discussion about this with the people on my ISP's
mailing list. I'll take a short time out from studying, and restate what
I said to the list (pro-SB42)

It is not the right of the government, who has/will never created
something, to tell creators how to create. By this I mean 0% pollution
vehicles.

since the time of pollution controls, pollution has (proven) gone down
very little if at all. In LA for example, 1/4 days throughout the year
is deemed hazardous due to air quality. Lets assume that 100% pollution
comes from cars. Lets also assume that the number of cars, since
pollution controls, has doubled. the controls, even with these
assumptions, are very inneffective.

Road-side pollution detectors have found that 10% of the cars out there,
are doing 90% of the polluting (again, proven).

Am I polluting? With my modified car? Nope, I pass smog just fine.

The point is, that cars that are 25+ years old, usually aren't driven out
of necessity, but rather, because the driver has chosen it as his/her
form of transportation over newer cars. God knows, that my car costs
just as muc if not more than a new one (parts etc..). That said, these
drivers normally want their cars to run good. A bad running car
pollutes, and is therefore not likely to be owned by a car afficianado
(owner of an old car)...or, it will be fixed. Also, the average time a
person own a car is 9 years.

Next time you're on the fwy, check out who it is that's polluting. The
same amount of new cars are polluting as old cars (proven). Get rid of
the _POLLUTERS_ by road-side checking, and you'll be much more efficient
than with smog controls.

sorry my argument is all over the road (studying does that), but why can
the gov't tell me how to run something that I bought? Something that is
mine?

BTW, I'm a libertarain ;^)



|URL: www.smartlink.net/~levl289/ = Lev Lvovsky
|FTP: ftp.smartlink.net/pub/users/lev
|Most cherished possesion: '66 Ford Mustang (modified)
|"There is no race with a franchise on misery"--MR. KFI AM 640
|Q:"What do you think about American Culture?"
|A:"I think it's a good Idea."