Beware if you live in Indiana bureaucrats trying to take your right to drive your cla

[93097004xx]

What else... Emissions!!

Yes they are taking a tragedy and using it as a means to create yet another bureaucracy for taxation and making it impossible to drive old cars.

They already have 70,000 signatures.

It's time we in the collector car community band together to stop this nonsense before it becomes a albatross we will never overcome.

There is more money in this hobby than any other hobby. Probably enough money that it rivals some small country's gross domestic product. We should have no problem overcoming these bureaucrats.


https://www.change.org/p/pass-savannah-s-law


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[drcoastline]

I understand your point but I am on both sides of this fence regarding safety. I can see cars being required to pass a safety test that includes the exhaust system is safe as well as the vehicle to prevent such a tragedy. In the past in my state of New Jersey all vehicles were required to pass an annual inspection as a requirement for registration renewal. This required brakes, lights, tires, emissions, wipers, horn and windshield for cracks. Now it is a biannual emissions only inspection.

I think it is far more probable a life will be lost because the brakes failed, a turn signal doesn't work, hydroplaning because of bald tires or the like. They're are a lot of people driving cars that have no business being on the road.

I have no issue of vehicles being required to pass a safety inspection. That can include that the exhaust is safely exiting and that gasses do not enter the passenger compartment. What I fear is they will attempt to morph this into an emissions inspection that will require older vehicles to meet new emissions testing. That would be a problem.

[93097004xx]

Originally Posted by drcoastline

I understand your point but I am on both sides of this fence regarding safety. I can see cars being required to pass a safety test that includes the exhaust system is safe as well as the vehicle to prevent such a tragedy. In the past in my state of New Jersey all vehicles were required to pass an annual inspection as a requirement for registration renewal. This required brakes, lights, tires, emissions, wipers, horn and windshield for cracks. Now it is a biannual emissions only inspection.



I think it is far more probable a life will be lost because the brakes failed, a turn signal doesn't work, hydroplaning because of bald tires or the like. They're are a lot of people driving cars that have no business being on the road.



I have no issue of vehicles being required to pass a safety inspection. That can include that the exhaust is safely exiting and that gasses do not enter the passenger compartment. What I fear is they will attempt to morph this into an emissions inspection that will require older vehicles to meet new emissions testing. That would be a problem.

It's slope we can't afford. Let's be honest half the air cooled porsches on the Pelican Parts forum would never pass emissions. Of those one half probably half of those are RoW cars that have been here for 30 + years. There are no company's even trying to produce emissions parts for these cars.

Effectively this would kill the air cooled hobby in most states. These engines spit fumes, gas, C.O. ect even when rebuilt. Air cooled engines were never meant to be environmentally friendly. That's why porsche gave up on them..

This is not a fight we want to take on. It would surely spell the end for many of our cars!

[drcoastline]

I agree it is a slippery slope that is why I have my reservations. To me a very similar argument to the second amendment.

That being said, I disagree our cars or most any car after 1974 wasn't built to meet an emissions test. They were for a certain time period. To try and make them comply with todays emissions regulations is impossible. Porsche did not give up on them so much due to emissions as they had come to a point that they couldn't developed any further for a whole host of reasons. Cost, horsepower and reliability. Emissions was also a factor.

Going back to the article, To me this girl didn't die because of "emissions" she died due to a faulty exhaust system and a cabin that allowed the emissions gasses into the passenger compartment. I envision the boyfriend being a backyard mechanic with a ricer. Doing what they do with modifications and such. I can see this car slammed to the ground, minus 50 negative camber, mismatched aero kit, the exhaust being patched together with exhaust tape, maybe no gaskets between connections and a coffee can stuck on the end. This girl died of affixation.

To be fair it could just as easily been a 1982 Ford F-150 farm truck with holes in the exhaust and the floor.

Emissions is a completely different issue from a safe exhaust system that doesn't leak.

[93097004xx]

Originally Posted by drcoastline

I agree it is a slippery slope that is why I have my reservations. To me a very similar argument to the second amendment.



That being said, I disagree our cars or most any car after 1974 wasn't built to meet an emissions test. They were for a certain time period. To try and make them comply with todays emissions regulations is impossible. Porsche did not give up on them so much due to emissions as they had come to a point that they couldn't developed any further for a whole host of reasons. Cost, horsepower and reliability. Emissions was also a factor.



Going back to the article, To me this girl didn't die because of "emissions" she died due to a faulty exhaust system and a cabin that allowed the emissions gasses into the passenger compartment. I envision the boyfriend being a backyard mechanic with a ricer. Doing what they do with modifications and such. I can see this car slammed to the ground, minus 50 negative camber, mismatched aero kit, the exhaust being patched together with exhaust tape, maybe no gaskets between connections and a coffee can stuck on the end. This girl died of affixation.



To be fair it could just as easily been a 1982 Ford F-150 farm truck with holes in the exhaust and the floor.



Emissions is a completely different issue from a safe exhaust system that doesn't leak.

Yes this happened in Europe recently. Same type Bureaucrats..

Out come..

It's now ILLEGAL TO OPERATE VINTAGE CARS in a lot of EUROPEAN CITIES. It doesn't matter if it's a $5000 Citroen or a $32,000,000 Ferrari. It's ILLEGAL.

Bureaucrats can't be reasoned with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[drcoastline]

Originally Posted by 93097004xx

Yes this happened in Europe recently. Same type Bureaucrats..

Out come..

It's now ILLEGAL TO OPERATE VINTAGE CARS in a lot of EUROPEAN CITIES. It doesn't matter if it's a $5000 Citroen or a $32,000,000 Ferrari. It's ILLEGAL.

Bureaucrats can't be reasoned with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now were on the same page.

[Hugh R]

CA does SMOG only, no safety checks, I see lots of cars with no tail or brake lights.

About 20 years ago a VP at my work put his twin baby daughters and him in his new car and a hose from the exhaust into the passenger cabin, and closed the garage door and started drinking heavily. A few hours later his wife found them, him passed out, but everyone was fine. Newer cars don't put out enough CO to kill you. Moral of the story, if you want to check out this way, use your 63 Impala.