Ca. Smog Bill: A.B. 616 FOR CARS 15YRS & OLDER

[RSupdate]

Sorry if this has been posted already, I did a search and on "A.B. 616" and nothing came up.

Well, they are at it again....the spend everything we got and we want to spend more politicians in Sacramento are once again trying to put classic cars in their graves....

Now it seems as if it's a no-holds-barred assault....no limits at all....

http://www.sema.org/Main/ArticleDeta...ontentID=57690

we had ALL better contact the members of the transportation committee...or gawd knows where we'll be with our early 911's

[Bummler]

From what I read AB 616 would not effect the exemption of pre 76 vehicles. It would only make smog testing for vehicles 15 years old and older up through 77 an annual occurrence as opposed to a semi-annual one.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

CALIFORNIA BILL TO REQUIRE ANNUAL EMISSIONS TESTS FOR VEHICLES 15 YEARS OLD AND OLDER PASSES ASSEMBLY; MOVES TO SENATE

California legislation (AB 616) to require annual smog-check inspections for vehicles 15 years old and older has been approved by the California Assembly and has been sent to the Senate for consideration. The bill would also require that funds generated through the additional inspection fees be deposited into an account which can be used to scrap older cars. You may recall that in 2004, a new law was enacted in California to require the lifetime testing of all '76 and newer model-year vehicles. Pre-'76 motor vehicles would remain exempt under AB 616. The bill has now been referred to the Senate Transportation Committee and will be considered on June 26. For more information click here. For details, contact Steve McDonald at stevem@sema.org.

[72targa]

I read this as affecting vehicles made between 1976 and 1992 (as of 2007).

[john rice]

Gents,
If you are in good 'ol Calif and think it won't affect you. Well, you are correct, for NOW. Just wait. This is not a final done thing. It is not the intended end all and be all. If they get this enacted in a little while they will announce that they now realize that ALL older cars ... gasp.. pollute.. and they need to reinact regulations to cover ALL of them and, folks, you will be fighting the battle at your doorstep. Think not? Well, good luck. If you don't realize it, there are a lot of people in this state that just HATE us car folks and what we love and they will not be happy until we are all in nice little public transport modules. So, start doing something to protest now or don't complain when they come after the early cars. [Do any of you remember when it was almost impossible to register and smog an early 911S in this state and so many of them were being sold out of state for that very reason? I went through Hell trying to smog my RS spec early 911 and finally got it done but I certainly don't want to have to do that again. Remember, they don't want us to clean up our old cars. They want us to get RID of our old cars.

John Rice

[RSupdate]

Well said John.....very well said.

Thx.

[Homemade 911]

I'm not convinced this agenda isn't more about revenue...vs environmental correctness.

That said, let me pose this question:
Who on this forum would NOT want to pay a (hopefully slight) premium to Sacramento in exchange for being left alone??? What I mean by this is having some sort of "collector car" status/license plate - as opposed to jumping through some seriously misguided smog hoops. Didn't California have this in place before? (I wasn't a resident before '88). Does anyone recall what the rules were for that?

The air quality problems lie not with the older cars so much, as it does with industry and agriculture. Those are a coupla tough nuts to crack; especially agriculture. So Sacramento turns to an easier target...

I'm just thinking "out loud" here...
Any thoughts?

Cheers
Thom

[curtisaa]

what reality is: we have termed limits, and the the political atmosphere will not have the time for this non-sense. the author is NOT a political force in sacramento. the bottom line is that our governator is a big hot rod, nostalgia car fan and he would NEVER sign this bill. GUARANTEED !!

Gents,
If you are in good 'ol Calif and think it won't affect you. Well, you are correct, for NOW. Just wait. This is not a final done thing. It is not the intended end all and be all. If they get this enacted in a little while they will announce that they now realize that ALL older cars ... gasp.. pollute.. and they need to reinact regulations to cover ALL of them and, folks, you will be fighting the battle at your doorstep. Think not? Well, good luck. If you don't realize it, there are a lot of people in this state that just HATE us car folks and what we love and they will not be happy until we are all in nice little public transport modules. So, start doing something to protest now or don't complain when they come after the early cars. [Do any of you remember when it was almost impossible to register and smog an early 911S in this state and so many of them were being sold out of state for that very reason? I went through Hell trying to smog my RS spec early 911 and finally got it done but I certainly don't want to have to do that again. Remember, they don't want us to clean up our old cars. They want us to get RID of our old cars.

John Rice

[john rice]

History:
Before they enacted the 30 year rolling exclusion it was TOTAL HELL trying to smog an older 911S. Clink Dewitt did a great Excellence article on the games he had to play to get his pristine and stock 1967 911S to pass smog. It was a bad joke. The PCA guys got to lobbying Sacramento about it, along with a great many car clubs. I think the Excellence article was to get some publicity for how absurd the situation was. It didn't hurt that Clint is/was? a pretty well connected Sacrament lawyer and long time Porsche guy and SCCA racer.

However, a few years ago they pulled the plug on the rolling exemption and to toss a bone to some of us that squealed the loudest, they froze it at 1975. Why 1975? No particular reason but anything after 1975 will have to pass smog tests every year if they get their way [currently it is biannual].

Sorry, but I don't agree it is about revenue. It is about getting RID of our favorite cars. They are kinda loud, rather high profile, and pollute. They represent an easy target. They can claim they are insuring that we keep our cars as clean as possible or get rid of them.. OH, that is right.. for the moment they are only after the 1976+ cars. yea. Just wait. The day WILL come when they say "Sorry. We changed our minds" and come back after the earlier cars. Just like they did with the knife in the back with the rolling 30 year exemption.

As for our esteemed car loving Gov? He was driving a Hummer that they had to run on Michigan plates as it was so polluting. No one cared about that as he is still kinda the golden boy. He certainly has great PR back in place [did you know he has a lot of the people were running the election show for Bush now? I suspect that is a big reason he isn't tripping over himself like he did a few years ago.] BUT, thinking he is on our side because he likes neat cars is a terrible mistake. I don't think he cares a twit what WE get to do and he just slips and slides around the law and everyone winks.

I remember a while back when... in fact... I [yes, little me] was lobbying lawmakers to keep the rolling exemption but let us pay a hefty "Smog Fee" instead. Great idea I thought. I got a few positive responses but not a soul was interested enough to put a bill or amendment on the floor.

I wish I were just a loud mouth jerk but I fear this will come to pass unless we get an organized and sustained group to lobby Sacramento. The SEMA is doing good things but they aren't particularly pushing against this legislation. I am not sure what the answer is.... if there is one. Unfortunately, it IS mostly politics and politics is all about the art of the deal and leverage. It has nothing to do with logic nor fairness.
JR

[CurtEgerer]

It would be interesting to know one statistic: what are the total miles driven by vehicles manufactured between 1976-1992 as a percentage of total miles driven by all vehicles in Calif? If it were more than 2%, I'd be shocked. Whether they're going after revenue or the cars themselves, it seems to be an incredibly illogical regulation.

If they dared to use reason and logic and were truly concerned about the environment, they would come up with something that says you are subject to the new regs if you drive, for instance, over 25,000 miles per year in an old vehicle. What is the point of regulating a collector vehicle driven 1000 miles per year? It seems like they would want to encourage people to have collector cars - i.e., cars that sit parked with the engine OFF most of the time!

[larwik]

...I was just told by a police officer that this bill is once again up for consideration...i.e specifically this portion: that cars made prior to 1976/1977 are beeing considered for annual smog test$?...Does anyone know where to find/search the correct information?.... based on California's financial situation I wouldn't be surprised that we might be a $-target?..even that we don't drive many miles/year....Please post a link if you know where to find this information...Thanks / Lars...