AutoblogGreen

1. I wonder if Jay Leno will be forced to move his collection out of state?

Posted at 4:19PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Mike Z

2. I will be shocked if this goes anywhere. Cali has a huge car culture with some serious collectors. Who also happen to be very rich and very influential. Restore em don't crush em!

Posted at 4:43PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Throwback

3. This is a big deal, most replacement part manufacturers have quit making California only parts for all but the most popular engines. Is the Sate of California going to make them?

Posted at 4:46PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Wildgoosechase73

4. This guy needs to concentrate and to focus his thinking and to use his energy on something that would be of value to the people of California. How about how to fund the schools or how about how to reduce state spending?

Posted at 5:55PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Lad

5. Some radical environmentalists, however, are such purists that they cannot fathom why anyone would drive a historic vehicle, even on occasion.

Politically, attacking vintage cars is almost a guarantee of awakening a mass of voters who have let CARB's excesses slide. And the cost-benefit of such a regulation has to be absolutely horrible. However, the purists won't be satisfied until they force everyone into a government-regulated microcar (or on to public transportation)

Many automobile enthusiasts see the carbon dioxide litigation and legislation as not a serious threat. Yet a look at the battles against tobacco and guns ought to suggest otherwise. The cigarette companies fought their battle in the courts for over twenty years, before they lost. And they started losing because public perceptions changed.

The gunmakers are still fighting their battle (although the early results have been mostly positive--as they were for the tobacco companies). And every year, legislative attempts are made to pass expensive, restrictive stuff, such as ammo "fingerprinting," ammo taxes, and ownership restrictions.

Although the case for automotive liberty is inherently much stronger than the argument in favor of tobacco use, the battle for public opinion can still be lost through neglect or inaction. If the radicals win, policies oriented towards killing both the new and vintage high-performance automobile hobbies can take hold.

http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2006/10/should-automobile-enthusiasts-be.html

Posted at 6:49PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Speedzzter

6. There seems to be a snarky anti-environmental sentiment from a lot of your posts, Sam, which is funny considering it's a blog talking about green cars. And you don't even drive a green car which erases most of your credibility (your posts take care of the rest). Maybe you should start a new blog called antigreenautoblog.

Posted at 7:36PM on Mar 26th 2008 by jmspearman

7. jmspearman, First, how do you know what I drive? Secondly I have a strong sentiment against political grandstanding at the expense of real practical moves to reduce fossil fuel consumption (and consumption in general). I don't like seeing people who are naive to technical realities being taking advantage of whether it's by politicians looking for a vote or charlatans trying to sell something that either doesn't exist and likely never will or doesn't do what's promised.

Posted at 9:12PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Sam Abuelsamid

8. Here in California, there are already a program in place to help pay for repairs to meet emission standards if needed, and another to pay a bounty for polluting old clunkers, removing them from the road.

With a dwindling number of such old cars on the road, and rising fuel prices reducing their use, this bill is unnecessary, and unlikely to pass.

Posted at 9:42PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Chris M

9. This is stupid. If anything they should just be limited on how many miles they can drive per year. Most classics don't get many miles put on em and it would be a shame to ban a car that doesnt even get
driven. My old firebird probably only has about 2500 miles on it in the last 4 or so years.
This would effectively kill the beater daily driver cars and keep the classics driving from car show to car show.

Posted at 10:05PM on Mar 26th 2008 by 4.7onN20

10. It takes a lot of money to restore and maintain classic cars, it's not a poor mans hobby. I just wonder how many more high income Californians will leave the state.

Posted at 12:28AM on Mar 27th 2008 by Wildgoosechase

11. Sam, the problem with these old cars is not that their fossil fuel consumption. The problem is the huge amount of HC and NOX emissions. A single old car on the road, well maintained or not, likely emits pollutants which exceed dozens of new cars combined. Unfortunately, the article did not have any information how much they expect to be able to reduce overall emissions for the region by forcing smog tests for these old cars, and that information is critical to determining whether or not this legislation is worthwhile. I am sure that CARB has this information somehwere.

Smog is a big problem in the central valley of California, so I'm not surprised that they are leaning this way (though all those mega cattle farms aren't likely helping, either).

Posted at 2:53AM on Mar 27th 2008 by Dave

12. NC recently put in law that vehicles over 35 years old were exempt from emmissions AND safety inspections. Since I own a 39 year old Firetruck, I sure appreciate that, especially since it is driven about twenty miles a year. Now if they would exempt licencing.

Posted at 8:04AM on Mar 27th 2008 by Wally

13. Dave, old cars do emit more pollutants than new cars. No question about it. However, there are very few old cars still in operation today and those that are average about 1500 miles per year. Their impact on smog and air pollution is negligible.

Posted at 9:27AM on Mar 27th 2008 by Teargas

14. At worst, the owners will simply plate them in another state instead of California.

South Dakota is very popular with RV owners.

Posted at 1:29PM on Mar 27th 2008 by Bill

15. Kids will be kids and a lot of adults operate in a "kids approach" world. I've found that the easiest way to silence those with ideas like a child would think up is to treat them like kids treat each other...point your finger at them and laugh at them and tell them 'that's a dumb idea'...it works for kids and it works for adults with childish, simplistic ideas. Why do we insist on being nice to those who are not being nice to us and want to always get their way? If enough people will laugh at the goofy idea they will drop their desire to implement their idea for fear of further mocking. Our society is way too quick to accept the 'wants' of a minority at the expense of the majority. The expense involved in a law that requires 'emission checks' for old cars is a 'dumb, childish, simplistic idea'...and that's all I have to say about that!

Posted at 1:19AM on Mar 28th 2008 by Unclewill