6 ms·

Periodic vehicle inspection for emissions and safety compliance. Many jurisdictions already have this for gas engine emissions, a handful of states already hav

by repiret 4mo ago

Periodic vehicle inspection for emissions and safety compliance. Many jurisdictions already have this for gas engine emissions, a handful of states already have safety inspections. Done right, it can be low burden and low cost, and basically put an end to Def deletion. Done poorly it's grift to the shops that do the inspections, and an economically external annoyance to vehicle owners, and unnecessarily limits the ability of people to tinker with their own vehicles.

traderj0e 4mo ago
I don't really care how it affects car modders or people with sports cars. I have a sports car, and yeah the California smog test has been super annoying cause of electrical problems with that are unrelated to its actual emissions, but I knew what I was getting into when I bought something known for unreliability. Fixed it myself. There's a dude across the street with a modded car who always complains he has to bribe the smog guy $500, as if he was forced into driving a track car on the street. I just want regular cars to be drivable without undue burdens, and the enthusiasts can deal with it. California gasoline tax pisses me off more because it's higher than anywhere else and the money seemingly goes nowhere.
- Computer0 4mo ago
  As someone who lives in a state that got rid of emissions testing before I could drive it sounds like a horrifying thing to have to deal with.
  - paulryanrogers 4mo ago
    Why is it horrifying? I've taken cars in for testing for years. It's pretty quick and painless.
    - traderj0e 4mo ago
      Was going to say, you only hear stories from the relatively few people who have issues, not the people who go in and out as usual.
    - emdash 4mo ago
      My car wouldn't pass, not because it can't pass the emissions test, but because the original equipment that California requires by law failed years ago and replacements are not available. So I would be forced to get rid of my perfectly good car and buy an expensive new one not because it doesn't work, but because the law strictly requires original equipment.
    - Computer0 4mo ago
      All my Vehicles are many decades older. I think it would impose a financial burden on many in my community who also have older vehicles (less financially well off) to get them up to 'spec'. The vast majority of cars are newer and would have no issue passing.
- ryandrake 4mo ago
  I had to sell by beloved modded sports car when I moved to California. It blew clean as a whistle, but since the aftermarket parts were all from out of state (installed over the course of years), the state failed it as “tampered.” What a pile of shit. These guys are somehow driving around rolling coal on cyclists without getting grief, but I have to get rid of my car because it doesn’t have the right CA stamp on the intake system. CA’s system is terrible for home mechanics.
  - traderj0e 4mo ago
    Sucks, but it's the cost of having different standards. Same thing happens trying to import random cars to the US.
- repiret 4mo ago
  I don't care too much about hot-rodders either. California specifically requires the original emissions equipment remain intact. Here's two cases where that fails: 1. Close to 20 years ago I read about someone who converted a car to an EV with an old electric forklift motor, but then couldn't register the car. It was a model year that still required smog checks, but it couldn't pass a smog check because the original emissions equipment wasn't installed anymore. 2. My brother inherited our dad's 1992 pickup, and tries to keep it in running order mostly out of nostalgia. He would like to replace the engine with a newer model that would burn less fuel, produce more power, and correctly installed, no doubt would have lower emissions. But then it wouldn't pass the smog check, because it wouldn't still have the original emissions equipment. Having said all that, I agree that it disproportionately impacts the poor, because the poor tend to drive older cars that are more likely to need repairs to pass an inspection, and because the inspection fees make a larger impact on the budget of the poor, and because the employment flexibility to be without their car for half a day for the inspection, or longer if repairs are needed, is not as common among the poor. You could subsidize the inspections for low value cars, which would help with the cost aspect, but I don't know a way to solve the other aspects beyond trying to find the minimum amount of inspection that meets the policy goals.
  - sagarm 4mo ago
    The poor are also more likely to be harmed by air pollution.
- emdash 4mo ago
  California's way of doing it is really frustrating and very clearly meant to force older cars off the road and push people into buying new ones in an effort to help out dealers and car manufacturers. My car is a bit older but its perfectly reliable. It doesn't require a monthly subscription, it doesn't track my location, it doesn't have a remote kill switch, and the title isn't owned by some bank. It would even blow fine on an emissions test. I still couldn't use it in California though because some of the original emissions equipment has failed and original replacements are impossible to find so alternative replacements have had to be used instead.
robocat 4mo ago
> Done right, it can be low burden and low cost The rules mostly penalise the poor (and often unfairly). You are severely underestimating how hard "done right" is. I'm from New Zealand and the yearly car checkup is burdensome. About $75 and an hour wasted minimum to get car checked. However the workshop profits come from fixing faults so their economic incentive is to find faults. It costs you way more time if something needs fixing (parts delays, getting car and from workshop, etc.) Our warrant of fitness regulations are ostensibly for safety (yours and others). However the jobsworth wonks have zero incentive to balance the risks versus the costs. The rules get stricter every year for goals that have no measurable outcome. Many of the safety regulations are sensible, but many are just bullshit.
- traderj0e 4mo ago
  New Zealand sounds unreasonable. It's reasonable in like California. They don't mandate yearly checkups, just smog testing which is every 2 years for cars older than 8 years.
- solraph 4mo ago
  From memory (I haven't lived in NZ for a while now), the WoF check could be done at VTNZ stations, which explicitly did not do repairs to avoid this conflict of interest. Alas, it looks like VTNZ was privatised and the exact outcome you would expect happened.
  - robocat 4mo ago
    You imply that privatisation is the cause. But really I think the government incentives are the root cause. Fortunately I can still find workshops that care about doing a good job (more than they care about ripping off customers). But I feel bad for anyone who can't pick good services: which takes skill and costs time. I never used VTNZ because I found them to be overly picky when I tried them. I thought VTNZ followed the rules too strictly and you didn't get any fair relaxation. I didn't know the history you have mentioned.
eightysixfour 4mo ago
States, like Texas, are getting rid of this. Although they still collect the fee of course.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

by repiret 4mo ago

traderj0e 4mo ago

I don't really care how it affects car modders or people with sports cars. I have a sports car, and yeah the California smog test has been super annoying cause of electrical problems with that are unrelated to its actual emissions, but I knew what I was getting into when I bought something known for unreliability. Fixed it myself. There's a dude across the street with a modded car who always complains he has to bribe the smog guy $500, as if he was forced into driving a track car on the street. I just want regular cars to be drivable without undue burdens, and the enthusiasts can deal with it. California gasoline tax pisses me off more because it's higher than anywhere else and the money seemingly goes nowhere.

Computer0 4mo ago
As someone who lives in a state that got rid of emissions testing before I could drive it sounds like a horrifying thing to have to deal with.
- paulryanrogers 4mo ago
  Why is it horrifying? I've taken cars in for testing for years. It's pretty quick and painless.
  - traderj0e 4mo ago
    Was going to say, you only hear stories from the relatively few people who have issues, not the people who go in and out as usual.
  - emdash 4mo ago
    My car wouldn't pass, not because it can't pass the emissions test, but because the original equipment that California requires by law failed years ago and replacements are not available. So I would be forced to get rid of my perfectly good car and buy an expensive new one not because it doesn't work, but because the law strictly requires original equipment.
  - Computer0 4mo ago
    All my Vehicles are many decades older. I think it would impose a financial burden on many in my community who also have older vehicles (less financially well off) to get them up to 'spec'. The vast majority of cars are newer and would have no issue passing.
ryandrake 4mo ago
I had to sell by beloved modded sports car when I moved to California. It blew clean as a whistle, but since the aftermarket parts were all from out of state (installed over the course of years), the state failed it as “tampered.” What a pile of shit. These guys are somehow driving around rolling coal on cyclists without getting grief, but I have to get rid of my car because it doesn’t have the right CA stamp on the intake system. CA’s system is terrible for home mechanics.
- traderj0e 4mo ago
  Sucks, but it's the cost of having different standards. Same thing happens trying to import random cars to the US.
repiret 4mo ago
I don't care too much about hot-rodders either. California specifically requires the original emissions equipment remain intact. Here's two cases where that fails: 1. Close to 20 years ago I read about someone who converted a car to an EV with an old electric forklift motor, but then couldn't register the car. It was a model year that still required smog checks, but it couldn't pass a smog check because the original emissions equipment wasn't installed anymore. 2. My brother inherited our dad's 1992 pickup, and tries to keep it in running order mostly out of nostalgia. He would like to replace the engine with a newer model that would burn less fuel, produce more power, and correctly installed, no doubt would have lower emissions. But then it wouldn't pass the smog check, because it wouldn't still have the original emissions equipment. Having said all that, I agree that it disproportionately impacts the poor, because the poor tend to drive older cars that are more likely to need repairs to pass an inspection, and because the inspection fees make a larger impact on the budget of the poor, and because the employment flexibility to be without their car for half a day for the inspection, or longer if repairs are needed, is not as common among the poor. You could subsidize the inspections for low value cars, which would help with the cost aspect, but I don't know a way to solve the other aspects beyond trying to find the minimum amount of inspection that meets the policy goals.
- sagarm 4mo ago
  The poor are also more likely to be harmed by air pollution.
emdash 4mo ago
California's way of doing it is really frustrating and very clearly meant to force older cars off the road and push people into buying new ones in an effort to help out dealers and car manufacturers. My car is a bit older but its perfectly reliable. It doesn't require a monthly subscription, it doesn't track my location, it doesn't have a remote kill switch, and the title isn't owned by some bank. It would even blow fine on an emissions test. I still couldn't use it in California though because some of the original emissions equipment has failed and original replacements are impossible to find so alternative replacements have had to be used instead.

robocat 4mo ago

> Done right, it can be low burden and low cost The rules mostly penalise the poor (and often unfairly). You are severely underestimating how hard "done right" is. I'm from New Zealand and the yearly car checkup is burdensome. About $75 and an hour wasted minimum to get car checked. However the workshop profits come from fixing faults so their economic incentive is to find faults. It costs you way more time if something needs fixing (parts delays, getting car and from workshop, etc.) Our warrant of fitness regulations are ostensibly for safety (yours and others). However the jobsworth wonks have zero incentive to balance the risks versus the costs. The rules get stricter every year for goals that have no measurable outcome. Many of the safety regulations are sensible, but many are just bullshit.

traderj0e 4mo ago
New Zealand sounds unreasonable. It's reasonable in like California. They don't mandate yearly checkups, just smog testing which is every 2 years for cars older than 8 years.
solraph 4mo ago
From memory (I haven't lived in NZ for a while now), the WoF check could be done at VTNZ stations, which explicitly did not do repairs to avoid this conflict of interest. Alas, it looks like VTNZ was privatised and the exact outcome you would expect happened.
- robocat 4mo ago
  You imply that privatisation is the cause. But really I think the government incentives are the root cause. Fortunately I can still find workshops that care about doing a good job (more than they care about ripping off customers). But I feel bad for anyone who can't pick good services: which takes skill and costs time. I never used VTNZ because I found them to be overly picky when I tried them. I thought VTNZ followed the rules too strictly and you didn't get any fair relaxation. I didn't know the history you have mentioned.

eightysixfour 4mo ago

States, like Texas, are getting rid of this. Although they still collect the fee of course.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]