Hey Randall, do you expect us to believe that your TR3 is your daily
transportation ? I personally think that SB800 (as its written now) isn't
all bad, as the main complaint about the current law is that it allows folks
to use any old piece of pre-1974 crap that can move under its own power as
daily transportation. The original intent of the exemption was to preserve
the classic cars by not (effectively) legislating them off the road. This
was what was presented to the legislature by SEMA and others. The intent was
never to preserve the right of EVERY old car (no matter how mechanically
unsound) to be on the road. My 1973 TR6 is far,far from a trailer queen,
but I insure it as a classic car, I keep it in good mechanical condition,
and drive it infrequently (for pleasure use). I suspect you use your TR3 in
much the same way.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Young" <ryoung@NAVCOMTECH.COM>
To: "Triumphs" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 5:42 PM
Subject: RE: Update:California SB800 /SB1172
> Eric Conrad wrote :
> > My hat's off to California for thinking about exempting 25 year and
> > cars. Many of these vehicles older than 25 years were not meant to be
> > subject to smog laws in the first place.
> Eric :
> Perhaps I should point out that California _already has_ an exemption for
> all cars built before smog laws, and that they have never tested cars to
> standards even as strict as those applied to them when new.
> SB800 is, IMO, only intended to reduce objections to a companion bill,
> would have eliminated the current 30 year exemption for _all_ cars, not
> those defined as 'collector cars' in SB800 which are only those "used
> primarily for purposes of display at events".
> SB800 will probably fail, which is fine by me since I'll (hopefully)
> own a trailer queen !
> 59 TR3A daily driver
/// firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to email@example.com
/// with nothing in it but
/// unsubscribe triumphs