>Laura,
>That prejudice you mention is well founded. Just take a look around and you
>will notice all kinds of junk vehicles on the road spewing
>smoke and liquids, with lights that either don't work or are pointing every
>which way but where they are supposed to be, with tires
>balder than michael Jordan and pieces falling off.
Almost all of the vehicle that I have seen spewing smoke have been trucks! Even
in Los Angeles, I haven't seen too many cars with peices falling off-it's
getting to be that seeing an old car is such a rare thing that even if it is a
paice of junk, it's like, 'Neat car!'
>These are the cars that are driving the legislation that requires annual
>inspections.
It's the hobbyist and the enthusiasts who are blocking legislation because we
don't trust the government from forcing us out of our hobby, (In my case, it's
more than a hobby as it's my only vehicle.) Because they've tried it before.
The real travesty is the way exemptions are
>given freely because the politicians feel inclined to "protect the interests
>of the poor".
Yes, exemptions are given-but rarely to the poor. The poor can't lobby and line
the pockets of the legislators. The exemptions (in California at any rate) are
given to the big, pollution spewing industries and big business. (They do have
the money to line the pockets.)
Interestingly, my aunt has reported to me that in the Orlando area she lives
in, there's no emissions testing. There's also no pollution. (Or very little.)
But, there's no pollution producing industry to speak of. Here, there's
emissions testing and regulating (for the average car owners at least.) And
there's pollution. And there's polution producing industries. They 'buy' or
'earn' exemptions. (Some of the oil companies do this by collecting and
scrapping older cars. No differentiating between a classic and a junker I
maight add. In their eyes, they're ALL junkers! Unocal is one who does this.)
Pollution rises and it is blamed on the 'Average Joes'-and on Angelenos having
backyard BBQs! (Yes, they'll blame a heavy smog day on BBQs!)
Being one of the 'working poor', and having been disabled, And knowing others
in the same tax bracket-I can assure you that 'they', the government protect
interests-but certainly not those of the poor! (The joke in my family is-'if
only Laura can make it to 65! But, she probably won't!' Gallows humour!) Where
most of us get help is through our private LTD insurance (And they'll torture
you to death so as not to have to pay.) And through private foundations.
(Though, it's a little annoying for said foundations to invite you to their
fundraisers-to which we cannot afford the tickets-but it's the thought that
counts. And we are on the mailing lists...)
Should the government ever give me any sort of exemption, I assure you, I would
die straight away from shock-and probably about 50 other people would faint
that one of us got an exemption!
This is why I fight so hard for the 'Average Joe' hobbyist-because everyone
needs to have something in their lives which gives them joy and happiness-and
not just the rich and the people who can afford to buy government policy!
>If I may be so bold, I state categorically that you can't have it both ways.
>If the governments want to control safety and emissions,
>there must be laws that are strict and unwavering. Otherwise, in the future,
>the cars we all enjoy driving may be forced off the road
ABSOLUTELY!!! If there is to be government regulations, they must be across the
board. And fair. I also think that if you have an 'old' car-and it is keep to a
certain level of restoration, rather than just looking at the year and
penalizing the owner for have a '60-something or a '70-something (or older), if
it's at a certain level of restoration, they should look at the over all
condition of the car, rather than just the vintage! (Lordy! I wish I could get
classics insurance, but I don't make enough to have a second car AND pay
insurance for both AND have a garage! So, penalize me! AUGH!)
>in favor of electric (or other polution-free) forms of power!
If one can pass the credit check and makes the required amount they want to
lease you one of these today! I doubt if electric cars will be terribly
affordable to the worker bees anytime in the near future. And then what? Are
they to be penalized?
>Soap Box Mode off.
Me too! I'm exhausted! (But these are all things I think about each and
everyday!)
Laura G.
>
>Joe
>
>Laura Gharazeddine wrote:
>>
>> I haven't any problem with making sure that cars are safe and roadworthy.
>But, I know our state government and the departments which would oversee these
>sorts of things. And I know the prejudice Sacramento has against older cars.
>(Remember that lister who sent a copy of the letter he received offering him
>$500 to get his 'old' car off the road--and his reply?)
>>
>> I don't trust Sacramento and either the state or federal governments to be
>fair to older cars regardless of their condition. And I don't trust them to
>enforce a law like that fairly and equally with all vehicles both from the
>private sector and the business sector. (As emissions controls are biased
>against privately owned vehicles now.)
>> We also have a problem here in that SUVs and truck follow a different
>emissions standard than cars do. (Though there is talk that that's being done
>away with.) Would it be that way with an MoT. Yes I know that in Britain it's
>the same across the board. But, here for emissions, it's not and I would think
>that it an MoT wouldn't be straight across the board either.
>>
>> There was a battle a few years ago against roposed 'junker' bills- they just
>wanted to get old cars off the road. Period. I would be afraid of the
>government tryong to use an MoT as a way to get rid of these cars. Which would
>be bad for us enthusiasts who aren't well to do and be bad for the working
>poor (Of which there are a great many) who couldn't afford a newer model car.
>(I sometimes have thought that must be a lobby of car salesmen involved in all
>this!)
>>
>> Until we have a fairer government, one that won't be so swayed by lobbyists
>looking to line their own pockets; one that will actually put the good of the
>people first, rather than profit for themselves, I don't see how an MoT could
>work here.
>>
>> Well...you asked.
>>
>> (Never ask a political activist to explain anything, eh?);-)
>>
>> Laura G.
>>
>> >
>> >From: Richard B Gosling <Gosling_Richard_B@perkins.com>
>> >Date: 04 Jul 2000 06:19:57 -0500
>> >To: "Laura.G" <Laura.G@141.com>, spitfires <spitfires@autox.team.net>
>> >Subject: Re: MOT Time...
>> >
>> >Laura (and others),
>> >
>> >I'm not entirely sure what your objection to ensuring that all cars are
>> > roadworthy is. Some might see that the MOT seems stringent, but there is
>> > really nothing in there that is not an essential part of ensuring that the
>car
>> > is safe to take on the roads - apart from emissions, and that you Americans
>> > (and particularly Californians) are much more strict on than the UK. If a
>car
>> > fails, it is because it is genuinely unsafe - I do not want to have cars
>> > around me where no-one has looked at the brake pipes for 10 years, and they
>> > are so chafed they could give way at any moment. I don't want cars around
>me
>> > with 3 bald tyres on, so that when they hit the brakes on a damp dual
>> > carriageway because there is a jam up ahead, they slew round and slide
>into me
>> > (I started to lose the back end of Daffy, on a damp dual carriageway, at 75
>> > mph, a month ago because of my bald rear tyres, and it scared the s*&^ out
>of
>> > me). Worse, I don't want the cars behind me not to even see that I am
>braking
>> > because their wipers don't work. I don't want to be dazzled by oncoming
>cars
>> > with badly adjusted headlamps. These are all essential items.
>> >
>> >I will admit that the structural stuff is a bit over-stringent, and I
>object to
>> > the law that requires you to wear a seatbelt, and that the check includes
>that
>> > - seatbelts are an excellent idea, but wearing them should be a personal
>> > choice, not law, as you are risking no-one but yourself.
>> >
>> >The only true extra expense of the MOT test is the 32 pounds the test itself
>> > costs. Everything else is stuff that you should be doing anyway, and if
>not,
>> > your car is not safe to be around others on the road. The MOT test cannot
>> > guarantee that every car on the road is safe, without being a weekly check
>> > rather than annual, but it definitely keeps the number of unsafe cars to a
>> > minimum. This has got to be a good thing for everyone.
>> >
>> >The MOT test applies to every vehicle over 3 years old - no-one has a
>get-out
>> > clause (except agricultural vehicles), no industry, no big business. It is
>> > enforced by the fact that all vehicles on the road must buy an annual road
>tax
>> > disc - a central computer keeps track of these, to ensure everyone has one,
>> > and they will not be issued without the presentation of a valid MOT
>> > certificate. Yes, if you are desperate they can be forged, and I'm sure
>there
>> > are appointed garages that can be bribed, but most people wouldn't bother.
>> >
>> >OK, I'll get off the soap-box, who wants to get on? Come on, if you dare...
>> > :-)
>> >
>> >Richard and Daffy
>> >
>> >P.S. apologies for seeming a bit behind in this discussion - I subscribe to
>the
>> > Digest, so I've only just got all the messages on this one!
>> >
>
|