Then there's Cuba...who's been victim of so many embargoes, their recycled old clunkers have become valuable commodities for Hollywood props departments :bulb:
Printable View
Then there's Cuba...who's been victim of so many embargoes, their recycled old clunkers have become valuable commodities for Hollywood props departments :bulb:
I have seen the DS in many a dystopian movie as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
DS? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Even autos meant for the discard heap will have some enthusiasts refurbishing motors, making their own parts, constantly trying to keep the old things alive...despite efforts to force their extinction.
Agreed entirely, excessively polluting cars should be taken out of daily use. But cars that are not excessively polluting should be allowed to continue :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Just because the current regime says that cars pre-1997 don't have to fall within the current emission testing standards does not mean either that all pre-1997 would be guaranteed to fail the emission testing standards or that they're not taking vehicle inspections still anyway. The very easy solution is to treat a pre-1997 car exactly the same as a post-1997 car and test it to the required standards. Pass - you can drive; Fail - you can't. What could possibly be wrong with that? Tackling an age does not tackle the problem, treating the cars individually (in already-occurring tests) does that.
The law changed a while ago in the UK (don't know if it was EU-wide or not) to state that all car's tyres must have a minimum tread on it and that failure to have sufficient minimum tread left on the tyre would result in a fine and 3 points on your license. Even if you had old tyres pre-dating the law change, the law would still apply. Apply the existing emission standards on the existing MOT tests for all cars - or get Parisian drivers to demonstrate their existing cars have passed the existing standards within the existing test, even though they didn't have to nationally.
The solution to an exemption is not to cut the throat of all who're covered by the exemption, but rather to simply remove the exemption. Scrapping the lenient standards would be a better test than scrapping all cars the lenient standards apply to. If cars weren't already getting individually tested, if emissions tests weren't already part of that individual test, then yes individually testing cars for emissions would be a ridiculous bureaucracy to introduce. But that's not the case, cars (including these) already are required to get tested and emissions tests are a standard part of that test.
On this forum Lewk (and others at times) has often spoken against the fact that USA Colleges set laxer entry standards for black than white students.
What Hazir is proposing here is equivalent to saying due to the laxer requirements in the future NO black students will be allowed to go to College, rather than levelling the requirements.
The more I think about this and read over the posts, the more it seems we're really missing a huge chunk of information here.
As Hazir points out, many older cars had zero emissions testing at all. Their actual emissions are an unknown quantity. We don't know if a 1966 Beetle or Ford Falcon has better/worse/substantially different emissions than a 1980s Chevy. For all we know, the Falcon has substantially cleaner emissions than the Beetle. Or the Beetle has similar emissions to a 1980s Chevy. Or maybe better. It's really a black box.
To me, this means that we don't have enough data given the emissions involved in producing a car. But I'd rather like that data, it would be really interesting.
In case you're not aware (Hazir should be since he lives within the EU) - every car within the EU must undergo inspections either annual [in the UK] or at the maximum biennial [every 2 years is the EU maximum]. Exception only for brand new cars which have a 4 year grace before it needs doing (three in the UK). These inspections involve a large number of safety checks to insure that beaten down old death traps aren't on the road to kill us all with - but they also require emissions testing. Some old cars are exempted from the emissions testing.
This isn't a case of testing a car when it was manufactured, its about testing it in the here and now. As it is - warts and all. A three year old car if badly looked after could fail the test. A well-maintained 17 year old car could pass it.
However because 15 year old cars were exempted from the requirement of the emissions testing part of the tests [because the standards weren't in place when they were manufactured], now apparently they should all be forced off the roads altogether. What I'm saying is that when they next have their routine test, implement the emissions standards. The standards are there already and it'll be based on what the car is measured to pump out today in a test - not what some test upon manufacture before it drove tens of thousands of miles, had parts replaced, had services or not supposedly emits.
Wait, just so I'm clear, you didn't have any emissions controls until 15 years ago?
I'll be honest I'm a bit fuzzy on that bit. The current emission guidelines came in then, I'm not sure what the threshold before it was - but I don't believe it formed part of the MOT for old cars before 15 years ago. Either way again though the standards do exist now, the cars do exist now, and the testing does exist now. A pretty perfect trifecta for resolving the question of whether or not they're safe on the standards then would be to apply the standards to them.
I agree with Rand. However: this a mayor, not national politics. Since he can only regulate his own city, he can't require all cars to be tested for emissions, or set higher standards for all MOT-like tests. He can either ban nothing, or all cars older than that. Though he could provide permits for older cars which are proven to meet the emission standards.
Also, Loki, a tax proportional to MPG.. I think you might simply be looking for a gas tax ;)
Wow, it looks like the US led the way on auto emissions pretty substantially. Don't see that every day:
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/vogel/federalism.pdf (pages 6-8ish)
Beyond leaded gasoline, it seems the US had a 15-20 year lead on nominal auto emissions limits. That certainly changes the context a bit. :eek:
Didn't think of that angle. :noob: I do think a gas tax is a good time, and gas taxes in France aren't particularly low...Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Probably not, though. Don't know if it should be even higher to compensate the 'true' cost, or lower. While it does discourage gas guzzlers, it doesn't address city problems, where density of cars is an issue. Or less clean burning, exhausts, etc., plus people in a city individually often do not drive as much which makes it less effective against pollution.
Plus a too high gas tax will cost in business that rely on transportation.
If density is a problem, why not have a congestion charge like they do in London?
If they are looking at emissions a gas tax isn't going to do anything. Some of the most efficient vehicles MPG wise are some of the worse polluters.
Examples? I know it's not one on one link between the two but it's not like they are unconnected.Loki, I don't know, tourism perhaps? It's already an expensive city.
You're effectively banning entire classes of cars. Pretty sure that would affect tourism more.
Idk, didn't think most tourists who visit paris don't drive old cars. It was just a wild guess anyway.
Occam's razor: the guy is a moron.
almost every bike out there. which may be why the bike age limit in the article above is ~40% lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
with older cars (at least in the US), if you could hit a certain MPG, you could cut corners in other areas, such as less effective (or none at all) catalytic converters. US didn't have testing for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons till 65, and the requirements were so lax that Nixon had congress agree that the approved levels needed to drop by 90% by 75. It wasn't until 92 that the EU adopted the same standard that the US had used during Nixon's time (dread's article).
You are describing the system the Germans introduced almost 5 years ago. They decided to fail all cars with a registration from before 1997. A year that coincides with the introduction of much stricter emission rules all over the EU and probably changes in the designs of cars. If there is one thing I suspect the Germans of being very good at it is this type of testing; they set the standard. If Tüv makes a claim you can be certain that they have the data to back it up. If they decided fail all old cars in 2008 they will have done so on good grounds. In Germany the move proposed now by Delanoe caused no public uproar.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
On Wikipedia you can see that around that time the rules for emissions changed dramatically. That kind of rule change must have resulted in different specifications for cars to make them cleaner.
Maybe you're the one missing info. :p States that currently do emissions testing have known results, and can compare your '66 VW with the '80's Chevy. It's not a black box at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Yeah, thank those damn tree-hugging pinko liberals from Berkeley, eh? The early environmentalists were smart enough to use a big state like California to begin higher standards for gasoline, emissions, and MPG for the whole industry. That impacted foreign imports and domestic production, and ultimately EPA minimum standards. Paris and its Mayor doesn't have the same ability to influence, perhaps not even France or any other Euro nation with more public transit than private cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
When it comes to global pollution from cars or fossil fuels, it'll be interesting to see how Asia handles it when they outnumber US drivers....by millions.
At least in the US there were no emissions tests and requirements until ~40 years ago. That means that a 1966 car had no emissions tests and (in most US states) still gets no emissions tests as part of the registration process. The data is only there for cars built after the requirements came into effect.
Also, it seems California was given its own leeway because its smog problem was particularly severe and (coupled with a large population) made their situation more pressing.
Depends on the state, the registration process, types of license plates issued....and how the car is used.
http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/mv_forms/mv-11.pdf
PA: If you want to drive a '66 VW or '85 Chevy on a routine basis it can't be registered as a Antique/Classic/Collectible. Those plates are for the life of the car, and come with usage restrictions (less than 5,000 miles/year and less than once/week) and sales transfer requirements.
There's a lot of "red tape" and legal language in our vehicular codes, but it's done to exempt truly vintage cars for collecting and show purposes -- not routine driving. The older cars that are refurbished and used for general daily transportation still have to get emissions testing. If they can't be brought up to snuff, they have to be "retired" from regular road use. That's the whole point.
Yeah, old cars without an emissions testing history still have to test. Most states have a limit on how many pollutants an older car can put out, usually based on weight. You can get exemptions from having to qualify for those tests with the proper registrations but some states still require testing so you can display the decals or forms.
Yes now that's a sensible system, test the cars and base it on real outputs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Given the cars already are required to undergo testing in the EU [and those tests already include emissions tests for post-97 cars] that'd be no extra effort or cost.
Its really a no-brainer. There is no harm in doing that at all.
You've already said earlier this thread that the German cars were the worst pre-97.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Well, there would be some extra cost for pre-97 cars.
Maybe for the garages a bit yes, because most garages don't charge less for a pre-97 MOT they just pocket the savings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Be nothing compared to destroying a perfectly good classic car though.
I don't think registering as an antique is mandatory. But you get special plates and whatnot, and some insurance companies may require it to get their classic car insurance policies (which can have milage requirements, usage requirements, etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
If I'm understanding the context here correctly, the city is having to act because existing regulations aren't doing enough to cover pollutants in high density areas, so while the cars may pass the national testing, the city needs stricker rules. Since the city doesn't have the weight or funds to test every car, and the nation has no reason to increase their costs by listing what cities a car is legal in on whatever decals or paperwork they supply, the easiest and cheapest step is simply ban the vehicles that don't pass the most stringent 97 testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
correct, in fact it can be a pain in the ass to get the special antique or collectible tagsQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The issue is that pre-97 cars are exempt from some parts of the testing. If the cars passed the testing, the city wouldn't have an issue.
The simplest solution would be for those who want to drive in Paris to ensure their cars take part in the full test, not the stripped down version. Get a certificate to say you passed with the readings (which you get anyway) and you can continue to drive.
Is there any chance the cars would actually pass? It seems unlikely if the standards were barely-there at the time.
Virtually zero, cars before 97 were seriously polluting. Germany was actively sabotaging raising the standards; I doubt they were up to the later standard.
I think you're missing something here, Dread. The purpose of emissions testing is to (A) keep polluting old clunkers from driving more than 5,000 miles/year, and (B) still allow vintage/classic/antique cars to drive in parades or auto shows, or tool around town on weekends for joy rides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
We have tons of auto shows in town, and even a popular national "hot rod" annual convention. The kit cars are treated as new vehicles, with regular registration for tags, and emissions testing. Same for older cars that have been refurbished and/or modified, but want to drive cross-country to the shows, or be used as daily transportation. You can tell by their license plates.
The truly vintage classics owners don't want to modify too much, or put in a modern exhaust system, since it loses its collectible value. They're the owners that use a vehicle hauler to bring their cars to the shows or parades, and they certainly don't want to put more than 5,000 miles/year on the car. The car geeks that love older cars and also want to drive them as their primary transportation....enjoy putting in new transmissions and exhaust systems. They wouldn't want the limits designed for vintage cars, kept in garages, toted around on trucks, treated with kid gloves. And they can meet the emissions standards, as well as safety standards. They'll replace lap belts with shoulder straps, for example. Even if that means taking out the seats to bolt them to the frame, or reinforcing the undercarriage to do that.
I think you're actually missing something; you have the purpose of emissions testing completely wrong. The goal is to enforce standards for cars and maintain/raise those standards over time until more and more cars have higher standards. This is a regulatory program that US has been implementing for 40 years. Many European countries haven't been doing this as long as we have, so a higher proportion of their car stock was manufactured with no/lower emissions standards compared to the US. This has changed the emissions profile of their car stock versus the US, hence the Paris mayor's suggestion.
Car emissions standards have nothing to do with the existence vintage cars or limiting their milage. They are about improving the environment under the assumption that the vast majority of people haven't been holding-on to their cars for the past 40 years and using them every day. Cars made before certain emissions standards usually don't have to follow those standards. You're confusing a unique registration category in a specific state with emissions requirements.
The antique registration in PA seems to basically be a ploy to print vintage-style plates, skip some safety requirements and create a new registration category to raise some cash from PA owners of vintage cars. But that's different from someone who has an old car built before certain requirements who registers their car with a standard registration.
It's not clear to me that registering your 1966 car as an antique is mandatory in PA if it's not strictly a show car. EG, a 1966 car in PA with a standard registration probably gets an emissions-pass sticker without any real emissions check in most PennDOT regions: http://www.drivecleanpa.state.pa.us/...q_customer.pdf But it's hard to tell, PA's laws seem strict at first but when you peruse them there is a convenient amount of room for screwing around with older cars.
Of course emissions testing is about improving environment and reducing exhaust pollution. :bored: What you missed is that I've been posting about PA as an example, just one of 50 different state regulatory programs. Ours connects plate/registration with mandatory inspections.
We have certain exclusions, or other "tests" besides the computerized OBD. Options for a '66 VW would be either Classic Car status (with limited mileage, spewing less pollution), OR making emissions upgrades to pass tail pipe/gas cap tests, and/or getting a waiver after spending $150 on upgrades. No idea how much it costs to install a catalytic converter, but it's probably more than $150. It's easier and cheaper to go Classic, but your driving miles will be limited. Those are your choices in PA.
We don't BAN older vehicles, but still have to meet Clean Air guidelines....by trying to keep older models upgraded or driving less. The technology will always be advancing, standards changing/increasing, and eventually even ten year old cars will be more of a polluter than new models. Europeans have been manufacturing newer cars with technology often superior to the US for decades, no idea what you mean by their "stock" being inferior.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing for or against at this point. :bulb:
No, you don't have to go buy a catalytic converter for a 45 year old car to get it to pass inspection. They don't make catalytic converters for 45 year old cars.
As with most places, the emissions tests in most of PA specifically don't apply to cars built before 1973 based on the stuff I found on the PennDOT site.
I'm arguing that you are blithely citing Pennsylvania as some kind of model without really understanding what the procedures really are.
What happened to supply and demand :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Not sure about catalytic converter, but soot filters are available, and isn't fine dust the biggest inner city problem?