From: darling@simlab.arc.nasa.gov on behalf of Dave Darling [darling@simlab.arc.nasa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 9:31 AM To: pelicanparts@csi.com Subject: Re: [914] Is this for real? Re SB2585 >Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:26:36 -0700 >To: GTE/michel1 >From: Dave Darling >Subject: Re: [914] Is this for real? Re SB2585 >Cc: "914" <914@rennlist.org> >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >At 7:12 PM -0700 4/27/99, GTE/michel1 wrote: >> From: >> Rosemary Capuano >> .... >>CALIFORNIA ALERT!!!!!!! >>SAVE YOUR AIR SUCKER FROM THE CRUSHER! >> .... you >>can be motoring down the road and get "monitored" for smog by a >>road-side sensor. If you fail, you can then be forced to have your >>car tested for "Smog II" compliance, and if you fail, your machine >>can be taken from you. > > Oy, here we go again with the hype. > > Technically, all model year 1966 or later cars registered in >California have to keep all the required smog equipment. Even those >of MY 73 and before. Those cars are exempted from biannual testing >and also from testing upon transfer of ownership, but they are still >supposed to at least keep all the original induction (read carbs, FI) >equipment. > Next, NOBODY CAN FORCE YOUR CAR TO GO TO THE CRUSHER. That >means NOBODY. If you fail a smog check and cannot bring the vehicle >into compliance, you have the OPTION to let the state crush your car-- >and they'll give you a couple of bucks for the privelege. But they >cannot "take your machine from you". The worst that can happen is >that you'll have to non-op it for a while. > > Road-side testing is something that is not specifically dis- >allowed with the current scheme. It is implied in SB285 that the 66- >73 MY vehicles would be exempted from the roadside deal, as they would >be exempted from all smog testing, but there is nothing in there about >specifically allowing or banning the roadside sniffers. > > If I were allowed to state political opinions from a ".gov" >account, I would think that SB285 is indeed a good thing for owners of >older cars. It would certainly take a bit of hassle out of their >lives. But trying to support it with mis-statements and overblown >hype is not the best idea... > >--DD > Dave Darling 74 914 2.0 (decapitated) darling@simlab.arc.nasa.gov "OFF WITH ITS HEADS!"