Gov Christ pushing for smog laws like Calif.

You would (should) only be held to the standards that were in effect for the year of manufacture of your car. Now I know where he would be making up the lost tax revenue from the property tax cuts.

 

We don't need those kind of dumb smog laws. We have hurricanes come here every once in a while that clean out the air. http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.national

 

That would seriously suck. That is one of the reasons I moved here.

 

Now I hope you were joking about that.
Simply because our own produced problem is being "blown" into another State or over the ocean into another country does not mean we are no adding to the problem.

It is like saying: why build a nuclear reactor...my electricity comes straight from the plug.

 

But no emmisions is my nirvana.

 

We had emissions testing for several years and the hassle and expense of getting every car tested every twelve months was a real dumb idea. They can pass some laws, but they should leave it as a ticket for enforcement or repair type of thing. If a cop sees smoke or smells emissions from a car get it tested and repaired. How many cars in this state would fail (as a percentage my guess is less than 1%). So if 99%+ cars would pass, it seems inefficient to have veryone get tested every year. I don't think Crist is concerned about the revenue here, there is just too much waste in mis (and my) opinion.

BT

 

99%...no way! My guess will be a LOT higher than that. Yes it is a hassle but a lot less of a hassle than anywhere else in the world where you not just go for emmissions testing but also for general safety test. See if your frame is rusted through, if your lights are all working, your brakes work properly and your tires have meat. You may own a $500 junker but could never drive that in most Countries in the world without it being safe.
But then why have safe cars if you don't test drivers properly if they are capable of driving or simply have a donkey-license.

We can get the speed limit increased by 30-40 Mph easily if we would require proper schooling for drivers licenses and if cars would be inspected for general safety at bi-yearly inspections.

 

I would go for that!
BT

 

The governor is Crist - don't give him any more credit than he deserves

The old inspection system in Florida was a corrupt joke... anytime I took a car through that failed I'd have a pretty girl take it for reinspection a couple of days later without any repairs being made; never had a problem doing it that way.

I agree with Martin though - we need a way to get the uninsured clunkers that are spewing toxins off the road. Problem is you can expect the ACLU to raise a ruckus because they'll claim tougher emissions laws would hurt those who can't afford newer, cleaner-running cars.

I think the bigger pollution problem is being caused by all the poor-running diesel trucks I see daily. Those rolling wrecks need to be outlawed.

 

100% agree. Would rather that money be taken and have a MA style safety inspection and require proper drivers training. You just don't see the junkers on the road in MA. Or put the money into fighting uninsured motorists.

Funny thing though... The air quality index that was posted. FL is all green but yet the tri-state area and many surrounding are orange - red.

.m

 

Not exactly the same thing.

It's a waste of time and money to test all the cars when the air quality won't change much (and it's not good quality only because of hurricanes). The US needs to get its act straight and get some real diesel and not the crap they sell here. It's pretty easy to get around emissions testing if you fail. Just pay the guy off to say you passed it. I know some people up in Chicago that do that. No one cares.

As far as the guys that really mod their cars, they throw their cats back on and whatever else they did. It's only to raise money for the government since most cars pass the test anyway. Useless.

 

MA is the exact same thing. My MR2 was not street legal at all. No cats, downpipe that vented to atmosphere, full standalone computer, 2" from the ground, running NT01's all day, etc. I would never pass emissions let alone what MA calls a safety inspection. Drop the guy $200 and the sticker goes on.

 

yeah, that means the system is flawed and needs to be reworked but that does not mean it is bad to test for emmissions.
CA has the toughest smog laws and had the same problems. They recently fixed them or at least improved them so this cannot happen anymore.

 

See this is the attitude that will never produce any results. "the air quality does not change MUCH" If it changes...you are ahead of the game!
Yes our air quality is effected by the vast oceans we have on either side. They bring clean air accross our border and take a lot of pollution away. On a small scale when the everglades burn and the wind shifts to Miami we can feel it from 50 Miles away. On a much bigger scale every few years we get sand dropped on our cars from sandstorms in the Sahara Desert. This is how much polution travels. It is a problem and it is a massive problem.

You are right it will only improve "not much" (say little) but it will improve and for that I am willing to go through smog testing.

There is a lot of massive flaws in our system. Insurance requirements, uninsured motorists, underinsurance as a State requirement ($10K...give me a break), licensing, drivers license age limitations, driving tests for the elderly etc. They all should be addressed but probably won't.

 

What I'm getting at is that it's to raise money for the government more than anything else. You really don't believe it will affect much else, do you?

Auto manufacturers are the ones that actually make the cars and thus the pollution. Of course maintenance does play a role in the amount of pollution made by a car, but it's mainly up to the manufactures. Both stricter government laws set by the EPA as well as pressure from people wanting "greener" cars has resulted in newer cars meeting and exceeded the EPA smog limit. It takes time for people to start phasing out older (more polluting) cars for newer ones.

The end user, you and me, really can't change much. Sure, there comes at time when you need to change out your cats when they go bad (and you'll know when to replace them), but other than that, you can't do much else. Pay off the worker at the emissions lab and call it a day. Just more money for the gov't to waste.

 

You don't have to worry about the 76-77 carb cars. All you need is a good mechanic and one that can tune the carbs properly. So no worries that you wont be able to drive that car. I'd be more worried about the Pontiac.

As for the Diesel, that unfortunately is not the answer either. Diesel simply is puts different emmissions into the air. Not as much CO2 but tar and other polutents.

I just copied "Who killed the electric car". Have to watch that this week. Tried to find one online and could not get any. I'd drive that from and to work. Plug and play....put a new coolbody on it...off you go.

 

That is what the movie is all about. Why that stigma was added to the cars. Your range is over 100 Miles and it goes as fast as any petrol driven car. When you come home you plug it into your garage and off you go the next morning. Who really drives more than 100 Miles per day to work. We all have now 2+ cars and could easily have one for work purposes only and the other for "long" trips.

As for the Diesel. You are 100% right. Yes they are much better but they are not the long term answer. Hybrid BTW does not require an infrastructure. The power of Diesel is great. Audi is proving that with every LM race. No question that would be a great thing for the short run. It simply is not "the" answer.

 

BTW, did you realize the new commercial for the Ultro Low Sulfur Diesel? How the oil industry tries to sell this Diesel as something that goes into a truck and cleans the air?

 

Electric and hybrid cars require lots of batteries. Making the batteries produces a lot of pollution. Mining for the metals that go into the batteries as well as the manufacturing process is not good for the environment (i.e. acid rain in lots of nickel mines, etc). It also takes more energy to make a battery for these electric cars than it will ever payoff in the end. You're just footing the pollution bill to manufacturing plants (this is not similar to what a hurricane does).

Plus, it's not very safe to get into a car accident in one of those cars with a lot of batteries. It's not safe for you, people around you, or firefighters trying to pull you out of a burning battery. You'll also eventually have to replace the batteries whereas there are a lot of diesel and gasoline cars that can easily go over 200k miles with very little maintenance. Electric cars are not the answer and neither are hybrids. You're better off making a biofuel like biodiesel or ethanol from plants (or coal for ethanol) and continuing to work on getting solar power as efficient as possible.

Edit: I think I would consider electric cars a good thing is if we have more nuclear power plants and have the cars getting electricity from power lines above or in the road--not stored in batteries. Technology in batteries hasn't improved much over the years and doing something like what trains and some city buses do would be better since you don't have to lug around the heavy batteries, which don't store much energy.