Team Camaro Tech banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It is happening folks!!!
Calif. Senate Bill 708 passed in the senate and was forwarded to the state assembly. On 7/7/03 the transportation committee passed the bill and it is now on its way to the appropriations committee. I have a letter from Assemblyman Cogdill assuring me that he will vote no on
this bill if/when it comes to the assembly floor.
EVERYONE in California needs to contact their assemblyman/woman and demand a NO vote on this bill.
If this bill passes, it will require smog equipment and biannual inspections on vehicle back to 1960!!!!!!!
I have 3 vehicles that is will impact. Those are the only vehicles I own. We have to make our voice heard!!!! My husband is calling everyone on the committee and telling him how he feels. Do
the same!!! Check out www.leginfo.ca.gov for more information.
WE HAVE TO BEAT THIS DOG DOWN!!!! Thanks. Karen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
There was no smog equipment on vehicles prior to 1967 in California or back to 1960 and you cant grandfather it in either. SEMA has a very big foot and I am sure if it were to pass that those involved will feel it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
What a ridiculous bill. Who comes up with this stuff. Gray Davis isn't the only politician needing recall.

If you can even find a pre-1970 vehicle being driven anymore, it sure isn't in rush hour or commuter traffic, even in California. I miss seeing the old iron on So. California roads anymore, seems like they are legislated to garages or museums.

I just smogged my 67 this morning. Arizona will not budge off of 1967 and newer vehicles for emissions test requirements. This California bill will surely kill any hope of improving the equally absurd Arizona smog laws.

Ok Someone ask me how I really feel.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
20,713 Posts
Personally I think its wrong ... but if tagged to drive daily I could see their point, sortta. I in no way condone this BS emissions testing in My Sate either, seeing some cars burning oil < profusely >and pass is unreal.
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
26,951 Posts
Slow down guys!! The bill Karen refers to 708 was re-written by SEMA and doesn't contain a word in it about smogging everything from 1960 on. the current 30 yrs or older is exempt from inspection as it has been for some time. What 708 does contain is more strict visual polution regulations and gives local authorities more control of inforcing smoking exhaust. It also raises the penelties if cought driving a smoker!!

I'm not convinced the new version of 708 is a good thing but it's not what it started life as and it will be harder to stop than recalling Davis since SEMA put it's stamp of approval on it.

Check out the links Brian provided, the first is how it started and I think the second covers the chain of events that has lead to the re-write...
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
26,951 Posts
Originally posted by DOUG G:
Personally I think its wrong ... but if tagged to drive daily I could see their point, sortta. I in no way condone this BS emissions testing in My Sate either, seeing some cars burning oil < profusely >and pass is unreal.
In CA it's either tagged to drive daily or be very limited to parade and driving on and off the trailer for the most part.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
Smoking cars should not be driven. That I support. Thanks for clearing that up Dennis. The chest pains are much better now.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
Originally posted by jackr:
Smoking cars should not be driven. That I support.
My car smokes alot, usually at slower speeds.
Oh wait, do you mean from the exhaust, or the tires?
;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
I e-mailed a response to:

[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
And have overwhelming gotten a response best summed up by Assemblyman John Campbell:

Thank you for your recent email regarding SB 708 (Florez) which would
increase the fine for smoking vehicles, expand the consumer repair and
assistance program and authorize local law enforcement to establish check
points to visually monitor and cite smoking vehicles. I understand your
concerns.

SB 708 is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. This bill
would create a new class of motorist who qualifies for the state's
low-income repair assistance program. By creating this new class, it would
increase the number of motorists who utilize the state's financial
assistance and would result in a significant new state cost. With the state
of California facing a $35 billion deficit, the Legislature should not
expand state programs. For these reasons, I expect to oppose SB 708 if it
comes to a vote on the Assembly floor.
So things are looking brighter.....
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
26,951 Posts
I guess I have an assistant!! ;)

Karen was kind enough to send me the response she got from her assemblyman dated June 30th. He quoted her from an ammendment made in March stating that in '05 any car made from 1960 on and driven more than 12,000 miles a year required a smog inspection. There were 3 or 4 other ammendments since... The state needs to think twice about the impact of the current bill as stated in Tom's post, the costs to the state in assistance could be staggering.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top