Pirate 4x4 banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,038 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I found this on another web site that I go to, sounds scary to me. Does anyone else know anything about this?

Ryan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 21, 2003 California state senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) introduced a bill SB708 that will take away smog exemptions for 1960 (yes 1960!!) cars. If passed, a car will have to get to 45 years old before it is smog exempt!!!! Please take the time to tell as many of your friends as possible by any means possible and let them know to find out who their representatives are http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html and express to them that SB 708 should not be passed!!

]http://www.congressweb.com/framesets/sema.htm & type in your zip code & it will give you the oportunity to send an email to ALL of the folks that need to hear from US.

State Senate Bill SB708
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_708_bill_20030221_introduced.html[/URL]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
this would suck if it passed, i am just about to buy a 64 nova that has a built 350 and it would not pass.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,950 Posts
I saw that here in one or two places already.

Personally, I'm not overly worried about it. If it passed, I'd still be legal(1970 engine into 60s rig) It would only hurt my plans of putting TBI on the engine :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,038 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Lil John, Except for the fact that you would then have to smog it and you dont now.

This bill was just proposed so it is in its very young stages.

Ryan
 

·
savage
Joined
·
1,973 Posts
update...

this goofball just re-wrote the bill into a smog repair bill. He also added a few provisions for "sobriety checkpoints" that will smog check your car at the same time. He also added in 20 bizzillion in state funded repairs for "low income" motorists...

why not hand out a few free paint jobs and chome wheels also?

there is a feature on that website that will e-mail you every time that a specific bill is amended.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_708_bill_20030422_amended_sen.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,839 Posts
Democrat from SHAFTER .... sounds like he's from the PLACE to give us all the shaft.:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,463 Posts
who doesn't SEMA or somebody get proactive about this happy horseshit emissions crap and come up with a common sense law.

here's an idea:
you stick a probe up the tailpipe and you pass or you fail for the year of the vehicle PERIOD. screw the poverty vouchers and the CARB # checkers.

as a taxpayer, I am NOT paying to fix Jonny Wishbone's 78 Deville because he didn't fnish highschool and can't get a real job.
Walk your ass to McDonalds, motherfucker!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,267 Posts
Sundowner said:
..................
here's an idea:
you stick a probe up the tailpipe and you pass or you fail for the year of the vehicle PERIOD. ..............
No no no no nooooooooooo...That makes to much sence, how are any of these corupt people going to profit from something so simply?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,540 Posts
I'll group a few posts:

Democrat from SHAFTER ... to come up with a common sense law ... sounds like he's from the PLACE to give us all the shaft.:D [/QUOTE]

In California "common sense" and "democrat" are two words that seldom share the same paragraph (unless it is a quote from one of the state's democrat supporters who schooled in journalism under Bagdad-Bob).

This is at least the third time this style of flawed legislation has been proposed (or revised) in the past two years (even CA did not have emissions controls until 1966). The people paying for this legislation are the same anti-access people demanding closure of public lands to vehicles, and eliminating vehicles is just another method to gain the same result -- no vehicles and no people outside the city.

CA is in need of an anti-democrat government, because this kind of paid-for legislation is what we have learned to expect from these folks (as they control the State Senate, Assembly and Governors office). Residents of other states should take this kind of legislation as a warning of what can happen in your state (if you let this type of democrat rule, with a majority in each branch of the government).

SEMA has this continuing legislation under constant supervision.

Happy Trails!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,475 Posts
This legislation has been rumored and bandied about for several years now.We have to squash it before it gets any further.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,592 Posts
This is actually one of 10 new emmisions bills he proposed, and all them are just as stupid. I think most of the others affect farmers.

Granted, not many vehicles would fail, primarily becasue the reg were real loose back then, but here's a couple of points to consider:

1. You would have to take the time and money to have the rig smoged

2. And mods not carb abvoved for emmisions conroled vehicles would be an automatic fail. Basically, any mod from stock would be outlawed. There goes the holley 4 barrel, headers, etc. Get the picture?

3. Realistically, what affect will this have? Yes, smog exempt vehicle do have a massivly greater amount of pulotion, but how many are actually driven? If you look at the average freeway, how many cars are pre 74? I'm guessing about 1 out of exery 500 or so. Is cutting the polution of these vehicles going to have any affect? I seriously doubt it.
~John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,560 Posts
Stationary air pollution sources account for an awful lot of air emissions of criteria pollutants. If the legislature is going to pursue greater restrictions on private individuals vehicles, they had damned well better apply the same degree of regulatory oversight on the stationary sources (power plant and boilers and industrial furnaces). If you look deeper, you will likely find that there are corresponding reductions on restrictions for stationary sources.

To some extent, it is shifting the burden to the user while still socializing the cost of electricity generation and industrial air pollution activities.

Also, to a great extent, we don't see things like Mercury being emitted from cars, but we do from power plants.

Don't suggest solar, it's been tried and it is not as successful, nor as efficient as we might hope-yet. Also, the pollutants generated from the manufacture of solar cells are nasty.

Peace,
Paul
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top