Chuck Renner wrote:
>>The latest vandals with that attitude are in our Oklahoma State
>>Legislature; I was advised yesterday morning that they are
>>developing a
>>secret plan to require emissions tests on all vehicles
>>starting in 2005.
>
>
> All vehicles, or just those in Tulsa and/or OKC?
According to Rick, the whole State.
>>The citizens of the State demanded a while back that the Oklahoma
>>"safety check" be abandoned, so they no longer require it. It was a
>>bogus deal anyway. Now it seems they plan to bring it back, but with
>>California-style enviro-wacky fascist rules based on bad "science."
>
>
> I can't say that I dislike safety inspections. Yes, they provide room
> for the shop to abuse people, and there is plenty of ways to get your
> approval without the car ever being looked at. But for the population
> at large, it makes sure that the car gets a going-over on a regular
> basis. However, the way it was done in OK was a bit silly. A
> Jiffy-Lube is hardly equipped to do a proper vehicle inspection.
Exactly! I could name you at least five "testing stations" that didn't
even pop the bonnet. The test was five bucks. One guy near 21st and
Sheridan said "Gimme the five bucks and I'll put a Safety Sticker on
your dog or your skateboard." ;)
> While I was living in Tulsa, there were frequent non-attainment days for
> pollution levels. If these continued, it would mean things like an
> emissions inspection program. So this shouldn't have been a big shock.
If these idiots would fix the mistimed traffic lights, I'll bet the
pollution index would go down at least ten points. All the unnecessary
stop-and-go really pumps it up.
> I can't imagine them having this program in anything but the
> metropolitan areas. For example, in Missouri, we have emissions testing
> for the St. Louis area, but the rest of the state, including Kansas
> City, doesn't. (KC tends to always have air moving, so they don't get
> the high smog levels building up.)
Yes, but that has one fatal flaw for utilization in Oklahoma: it makes
good sense. I think there's an unwritten law here that no statute will
be allowed to make good sense. If one does, they add $%#@ to it until it
no longer does.
>>The person who told me this is very well informed and also
>>said that so
>>far there's no exemption provision for classic cars and
>>collector cars.
>
>
> Probably not one explicity stated, but chances are there will be a
> cutoff year. For example, in our program, no vehicle earlier than 1971
> is tested at all. Newer cars do a dyno test. Cars like my 79 B do an
> idle test.
See above: "fatal flaw." ;)
> A local club member has been working with a state legislator on getting
> the cutoff year changed from the fixed 1971 date to a rolling date 25
> years before the current model year. Currently, cars over 25 years old
> are eligible for 'collector car' plates, and if fitted with them don't
> require the inspection, although you're theoretically limited in use of
> the vehicle. State DNR, who administers the clean air program, has
> agreed to back the change.
>
> So definitely talk to your state rep, ask them what they know, and see
> if they can introduce amendments to be sure your cars will be exempt.
That makes good sense.
So, first we will have to repeal the unwritten law. ;)
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
"JJ Cale Live" CD & Video: http://www.rocky-frisco.com/calelive.htm
The Wednesday Night Science Project: http://www.wednitesciproj.us
Larry Spears and the Hapless Romantics: http://www.larry-spears.com
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|