Christine,
Confiscating pre-1973 cars? That hadn't occurred to me. Mercy, but I hope you haven't given the the folks in Sacramento an idea! <vbg>
Actually, I have no idea why the state is being so kind as to exempt the older cars. But really, when you think about it, there aren't that many of them on the roads anymore, and those that are are generally well-maintained collector cars. There still are plenty of laws in place to force the four-wheeled smudge pots to be repaired or removed from the roads.
To me, smog-checking vehicles every two years did not so much clean the air but did serve to fatten the state's coffers and my mechanic's wallet.
Do you remember the NOX devices of (I believe) 1975? NOX devices were expensive and required extensive reworking of the engines and carburetors of some cars. Californians were mandated to install these month by month, on a rotating basis, according to the last numeral on their cars' license plates. This went on until late in the year when it was discovered that while NOX devices blocked one kind of pollution they created another, equally "deadly" flavor of polution. Even with that irrefutable knowledge, the unlucky motorists who had been forced to install the NOX devices were not permitted to remove them. I wonder how many older cars have been failing smog checks beause they were outfitted long ago with NOX devices. Me? I missed having to install the NOX device by only one month. BTW, my cars never failed their smog tests--not once! Last year, I think I drove all of 700 (not a typo) miles.
I often wonder if bringing a million vehicles to a grinding halt to manually pay bridge tolls doesn't create considerable pollution. I know, some bridges now have auto-pay in place, but this has been only within the past couple of months.
I just read your post to MSB. Here's a link which contains a link to Adair Lara's column in the SF Chronicle a few days ago. This, from Lara, took me a bit by surprise:
exchange2000.com
If you are interested, I can supply some other links to some articles I have found in various California (and other) newspapers relating how the enterprising California bar and cardclub owners plan to handle this new no-smoking law. You may not be aware that the law is poorly written, with the agencies charged with its enforcement varying from county to county. As written, the onus is on the business owner, not on the smoker who chooses to violate the law. In other words, there are no penalties provided for the smoker, only for the business owner.
MSB, I'd vote for the nicotine gum over the patches--hands down!
Holly |
