Ca. Smog Law Changes, Another amendment Options

[fiid]

The bill DOESN'T add '66 - '75 cars back into the smog test loop. It still explicitly sets the exemption year at 1975, just like the earlier versions of the bill. All this amendment does is ADD a 35-year rolling exemption for collector cars, which won't have any useful effect until 2011, when '76 "collector cars" will be tailpipe test only, not visual test. From 2005 until 2010, all '76 cars would have to pass the full test, just as they do today.

If any line-item needs removing, it's the collector car provision. If ALL cars 35 years or older got the tailpipe only test provision, I'd be more in favor of this bill.

IMHO the 35 year rolling tailpipe-only should be moved to something like 20 years. Then you have a nice bill that gives people a lot more freedom without sacrificing emmissions to do it.

Fiid.

[eeyore]

The bill DOESN'T add '66 - '75 cars back into the smog test loop.

Ooooohhhhhhh, duh. Sorry.

[dmenche914]

The real danger is if the 35 year classic exemptin is made law, it would not be too far a stretch for next year to just plain eliminate the 1976 cut off, and ask all old cars to be smogged, with on the 35 classic tail pipe exemption in place as candy to sweeten the deal with the lawmakers. This is what i see coming down the road next year. face it, there are plenty of politicians that would love to force us turn in all the classic (old) cars for crushing. This is what we are up aginst.

But even the classic exemption is restricitve, because I have yet to find classic insurance that will cover me unless I have an enclosed garage for each classic car. i do not have that kind of garage space, so dispite me having classic cars, I still would not benifit from the exemption for lack of garage space. Now tell me what the fuck my goddanm garage space has to do with the pollution that my car produces?

Again this plan of classic exemptions is not thought out by the politician idiots. if the real goal was clean air, or inspecting dirty cars, then how they are insured, or where they are parked should have nothing to do with the exemptions.

Politicians making a mess and hardships for people. Something them goddamn pukes in sacromento are real good at this last decade or so.

dave

[lapuwali]

Dave, you really have to stop being so angry over this. All politics is compromise. Until 1998, all cars had to be smogged all the way back to 1966, with a complete visual test. Things are still not that bad, even assuming this bill passes as is. How many 914s were junked from 1980 to 1998 because they could no longer pass smog w/o unaffordable expenses? Now we're only losing them to rust and accidents.

As for the "no collectors insurance is available to suit me", you can be certain the market will correct for this. As soon as collector insurance becomes a requirement to jump through this loophole, you'll see a few small insurance companies offering much less restrictive "collectors" insurance. If there are mileage limitations, you can be sure there will suddenly be a spate of broken odometers.

I'm not all that concerned about the cutoff date getting removed anytime soon. After all, it took them six years to get a bill modifying the 30 year exemption this close to passing (and it hasn't passed yet). Removing the '76 cutoff will be MUCH harder to do, esp. considering the language in this bill (the word permanent is used), and it could easily take a decade of serious effort.

By that same token, it could be that the collector provision be removed instead of the '76 cutoff, so all 35 year old cars would only need to pass a tailpipe test. IMHO, it's just as likely as having the '76 cutoff removed (maybe more so).

[Allan]

Another update. Don't know what it means when they suspend assembly rule 77.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_...25_history.html

[lapuwali]

Rule 77 (looked this up) has to do with procedures surrounding Assembly bills that the Senate amended. These have to be returned to the Assembly for another vote, but first they have to stew for one full day before the Assembly votes on it, and this vote is considered final and the bill passes both houses.

Unfortunately, there's no direct mention in the rules I read about suspension, but in looking at previous cases where this happened, it seemed to mean the Assembly is summarily saying no to the amendment w/o even considering it, and thus it's up to the Senate to re-amend the bill. I don't think it means they're summarily agreeing to it, because the next step would be Arnold's desk, not the Senate, if that were the case.

At this rate, I should just set up shop in Sacto and become a lobbyist. Anyone have a lost cause they want pushed? I'm for sale...

[Allan]

Anyone know how we could collectively oppose this bill and get us added to the list of organizations against it or is it too late? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ar15.gif)

[Allan]

Here's another update. What the hell does all this friggin stuff mean??????????? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

[Allan]

Sorry, was so pissed I forgot to add the link. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquer...arch_type=email

[dflesburg]

What do you expect from the place that made it okay to:

let two guys swap spit while waiting on a bus but

no okay to:

have a hot rod, smoke, eat meat, be fat or generally be a regular guy...

Too bad it isn't going to fall in the Pacific Ocean after all....

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/headbang.gif)

[mikester]

I know they are trying to get this in before the session closes - when is that? Today?

FU$K!

[fiid]

What do you expect from the place that made it okay to:

let two guys swap spit while waiting on a bus but

no okay to:

have a hot rod, smoke, eat meat, be fat or generally be a regular guy...

Too bad it isn't going to fall in the Pacific Ocean after all....

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/headbang.gif)

Since you don't live here - why would you care either way??

BTW... California didn't invent equality, it's been around longer than this state in one form or another. You could argue that it was proposed in the Bible, and there is also some basis in English laws from somewhere around the 1600s. I believe it is also the intent of the constitution.

I think LA has one of the largest concentrations of hot-rod shops around, and also has plenty of fat people who eat meat.

Lay off California. In a lot of other ways it is an awesome place to live. It has some absurdities, but so does everywhere else.

[Allan]

The state itself is great with great people. It's just that sometimes people F@@k up and elect the worst people. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[lapuwali]

What the hell does all this friggin stuff mean???????????

My guess is this is a "do over". They're pretending they never really took the third reading, or Senate vote, or passed it back to the Assembly.

Note that they've also amended the text AGAIN, this time adding some clarifying text to avoid a conflict with existing smog laws that exempt 4 year old cars from testing (and will extend that to 6 years old starting next year). Thus, on 1 Jan 2005, you only have to get smogged if your car is a '76 to a '98 (and in '06, '76 to '99, and so on). It was this lack that probably caused this, and you'll note that it took three readings and a vote in BOTH houses before anyone caught this.

I presume they'll vote again on this in a day or so, and if it passes, it will go back to the Assembly again, presumably for real. Looks like this hot potato is still alive.

[Allan]

Actually wouldn't it be '76 and older if it dosn't pass. The rule currently states:

How old does a vehicle have to be to qualify for a smog exemption?

Vehicles with a year model 30 years old or older are exempt from the smog certification requirements.

Example: The calendar year is 2004- 29 = 1975 exempt year model

The current calendar year minus 29 equals the year model exempt from smog certification.

Note: Hybrid vehicles that use both gasoline and electricity are exempt from smog certification until 2011.

[lapuwali]

Yes, but if this bill passes into law, the cutoff will be fixed at 1975, so a '75 MY car or older will not have to be smogged, but a '76 will. Under current law, you not only don't have to get smogged if your car is 30 years old, but you also don't have to get it smogged if it's only 4 years old (so you can skip the first two smog checks when you buy a new car). In 2005, that extends to 6 years, so you get to skip the first three smog checks after buying a new car.

If this bill doesn't pass, then every new car sold would (starting next year), only have to have 12 smog checks in its lifetime (if it lived long enough). After 12, the car is 30 years old and never needs one again.

If this bill does pass, then every new car sold would have to get 14 full smog checks, then it *may* qualify for tailpipe only tests afterwards if the owner registers it as a collector car.

[Allan]

I don't know if this is good or bad. I noticed that the bill is now inactive. Ant thoughts?

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_265...827_status.html

[Allan]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/icon_bump.gif)

[dmenche914]

Not a clue what that means, but there is the the Aug 29th date mentined, so maybe something happens after them?

At any rate we need to get people to contact the Assembly and tell them to stop this, and failing that, all to contact Gov. Shwartznegger to get him to veto it.

I suggest that you (since you first alerted us to this) start a new thread on this list (as this one is old, and long) and get people to contact Sacramento.
We need to get a list and emails /phones of the people that will be voting on this, and get that posted.

The next tactic is to get everyone to contact several others, and get then to make contact also, friends, coworkers, family, and possibly most important, car clubs, particularly that deal in the vintages effected, ie 70's and 80's, but also contact other clubs, that may want to help on principle, even if it does not directly effect there year car(s).

Anyway, at the very least keep us posted on what you find out.

thanks dave

[Joe Bob]

It's dead....2nd year bills rarely pass.....