On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 13:46:02 -0400,
cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." <.@
dot.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9/19/2015 8:40 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:12:53 -0500, mike <
ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
>>>>> the recall, since it's not a safety issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
>>>>> also do worse on emissions testing results).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
>>>>> think, because of those two results.
>>>
>>>>> Do you agree?
>>>>> Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their
>>>>> cars?
>>>>>
>>>> Will you have any choice?
>>>> If the test procedure for those cars is changed to test the "real"
>>>> emissions, they will FAIL.
>>>> If you care about air quality, you have to do that.
>>>> Here in Oregon, you don't get your license plates renewed if you fail.
>>>
>>> Some cut.
>>>
>>> Some states, like Nebraska, do no testing. We had some testing
>>> for horns, lights, etc. back in the 70s, but dropped it. I think
>>> the testers hollered too loud about the low testing fee allowed.
>>> I wonder how many of the non-compliant vehicles will end up in
>>> states with no testing.
>>
>>Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
>>and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
>>less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
>>cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
>>lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
>>addressed at time of manufacture.
> I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.
>
>In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
>initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
>a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
>off the road. Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
>vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
>selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
>off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
>dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.
>
>As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
>a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
>defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
>adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc) so that what left the
>manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.
>
>With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
>majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
>maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
>a money-grab -
>
>Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
>vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
>continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
>"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety
>standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered
>safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the
>road.
Safety checks on light cars and trucks are nothing but revenue
generators for the state and repair shops. The number of accidents
prevented by them is essentially zero. Emissions testing of relatively
new cars is also almost pointless but as cars age there are
undoubtedly many people who would just let the CEL blink and the car
pollute forever as long as it kept running. AZ has allowed cars to
skip the test for the first 5 or so years and then tests every other
year. Seems like a reasonable approach. Thank god we don't have
those stupid safety inspections so beloved of the anal retentive nanny
states back east.