Let's Play: What is CA up to now? - Just got an old car survey from CARB

In reply to aircooled :

I would definitely volunteer for a focus group. I'm not saying "if I were you...". I'm saying that I, AngryCorvair, would join a focus group.

In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :

Absolutely.   And if I can get on one I should figure out how to stream it or somehow get instant feedback from here so I can generate the best possible answers!

Here's hoping that they are looking into moving the '76 limit for emissions testing to '78 if older cars don't move enough to make a difference.

Yeah, I know, CA...

Interesting!  Let us know how this turns out.

NOBODY on this planet gets out of bed to help anyone. Unless it helps them more.

There IS an  unstated agenda behind the survey. 

That agenda is either to increase the size/power of some political portfolio and/or  add to the state coffers.

The "Survey" most likely wont  be compiled and digested; most likely the outcome has been decided to meet the above mentioned hidden  agenda.

Refuse to forfeit a few minutes of your life and toss it in the shredder. Use the time to go for a drive in the old car.

Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:

Without knowing what they are trying to do, its hard to give the "right" answer.

Not really... With CARB, they're looking to minimize emissions sources, so the 'right' answer are the ones that create the least emissions.

NOHOME said:

That agenda is either to increase the size/power of some political portfolio and/or  add to the state coffers.

The "Survey" most likely wont  be compiled and digested; most likely the outcome has been decided to meet the above mentioned hidden  agenda.

Refuse to forfeit a few minutes of your life and toss it in the shredder. Use the time to go for a drive in the old car.

Their agenda appears to be figuring out how worthwhile the fight for increasing taxes/fees on classic cars would be, or if predetermined how much the taxes/fees should be, based on how environmentally negligent most classic car owners are or aren't being. For every person who could respond with the 'responsible' answers but chooses not to, it still biases the overall results that much further towards the 'negligent' answers. Not answering is almost as good for them as answering negligently, and is still playing into their hands. Submitting the 'responsible' answers is the only way to not actively help give them get the justification they're looking for.

Piguin said:

Here's hoping that they are looking into moving the '76 limit for emissions testing to '78 if older cars don't move enough to make a difference.

 

Yeah, I know, CA...

Wasn't it a rolling window at one point in time?  Like in the '90s?  I guess they figured out that since there is very little rust out there that people would drive them forever.  When I was in the Bay Area for a long while in '98 (hard to believe 25 years ago) I could not get over how common '65 to '68 Mustangs still were.  They were EVERYWHERE.

In reply to Driven5 :

They already have the answer they want. They just need statistical data to back their predicated predetermined outcome, as with most "scientific research" out now.

I'm a big California defender, but have to admit that it's not hard to imagine opening the paper one morning and seeing a headline blaring out at me: "Study shows pre-1975 cars kill more people than Cancer and AIDS combined. Registration fees to triple".

CARB and the EPA both require public input to pretty much everting they do.  Use your right to have input. If you don't, complaining here will have no real effect  

I really don't understand why people go out of their way to not participate. 

In reply to alfadriver :

Because most of the time, after the public comes out overwhelmingly against the action in the comment period, they (EPA/FAA/ATF, whoever)  just do what they wanted to in the first place without regard to the input.

In reply to Rodan :

No, they don't. Maybe the people you know, but there are plenty of groups who want the rules to be tightened. And they are well organized. 
 

Even so, that's a bad reason to forfeit your right to input. 

In reply to alfadriver :

Well, our experiences are different then.

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

From passive emissions.

There was nothing about this on SEMAs website this morning or AACA.org website , 

Maybe it's too early ?

In reply to Rodan :

I really think that the enthusiasts think they are a lot bigger group than they really are. Let alone they rarely bring data to the discussions. Just saying "we don't want it" isn't the same as "we don't need it, and here is a big study why."  
 

You also don't see the public groups that bring lawsuits, with data, demanding tightening of the rules. That's how CO2 was added to the list, not because of some CARB agenda. 

Sure seems like the guesses about evaporative emissions as the reason for 1978 and older are on the right track:

78+79 limit is 6g per test, 80 and newer 2 gram per test

Manufacturer respond to new limits (78 MY)

In reply to alfadriver :

No, I'm talking about a specific instances where there were thousands or hundreds of thousands of comments.  Much more than 100:1 against the proposals.

I understand many groups use lawfare to change policy in ways that would never be supported by voters.

In reply to Rodan :

For actual reasons or just because?  It's one thing to say you are against a proposal, it's another to demonstrate why. Especially when you are up against a proposal that is a result of a lawsuit. 
 

Having seen the proposal process, what's missing is the data showing that a rule isn't needed. 
 

Still, that's not a reason to be aggressively passive. 

Maybe they are offering a lump sum to electrify older cars?

Just kidding. They are after taxes. 

alfadriver said:

CARB and the EPA both require public input to pretty much everting they do.  Use your right to have input. If you don't, complaining here will have no real effect  

I really don't understand why people go out of their way to not participate. 

A friend of mine (that passed away last year) used to always say "Follow the money." This survey is about them creating a new revenue stream, or one of their "partners"

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

No really, please, go ahead and tell us "what's really going on" with sources instead of just dropping your opinion in without backing it up. So frustrating when people claim to have all the answers and yet won't share them let along cite them.