Emissions testimg does not reduce traffic or measurable air pollution…It just lets you feel “you are doing your part” to reduce emissions. When you pass the test, as 96% of your fellow motorists do, you say “my car is not polluting, I passed the test!” So all that snog is being caused by those who didn’t pass the test, right? Wrong…What emissions testing DOES do is create a fat revenue stream and allows bureaucrats and government officials to claim they are “doing something” to clean up the results of burning 10 billion barrels (or whatever) of petroleum and millions of tons of coal everyday…
Anyone who says “my car is not polluting, I passed the test!” is obviously mistaken. It would be more accurate to say “My car just passed an emissions test, so it is polluting less than cars that don’t pass.”
Redefining the nature of the debate in simplistic terms to prove your point is a cynical tactic. Perhaps you would be more effective if you could back up statements like “Emissions testi[n]g does not reduce…measurable air pollution” with some real evidence. Where’s the data to support this extreme opinion?
Although it is an offense to remove emission equipment, many would do so if regular tests were not required. Never mind that removing them will not necessarily make the car run better or more economical.
So the tests are a “club/stick” to keep people from tampering with the controls and also keep their cars in good tune. Recent tests show, however, that older cars even when passing the test, performed poorer than when those cars were new.
If emissions testing were universal and standardized, and it actually measured emissions rather than just checking for stored codes, I might agree that it had a prophylactic affect, but the way it’s currently done I really don’t see that its impact on preventing tampering could have more than an immeasurable affect on emissions.
Emissions equipment being so integrated with performance and smooth reliable operation, I suggest that only and extremely tiny percentage of owners would mess with it. The total impact on emissions would probably be too small to calculate. I live in a county that does not require testing and I can’t think of anyone I know who has removed equipment or even neglected correcting a problem that lights a CEL. Many years ago perhaps, but the systems are way too sensitive to mess with on today’s cars.
Emissions testing does not reduce traffic. It does reduce pollution by keeping cars that produce too much pollution off the road. Please provide a reference for your assertion that measurable pollution is not reduced. I’m skeptical.
Caddyman and I have not always agreed, though to be specific we haven’t disagreed on mechanics and diagnostics, because on those issues he is out of my league.
But, on this, I agree. Both safety inspections and smog checks are pushed by people whose political views are such that they believe only government control of every detail of our lives can keep us dummies and fools from all killing ourselves.
My state once upon a time had safety inspection, which was administered by people from the repair businesses, who tweaked constantly for maximum repair costs, with no regard for safety. I bought a car, an old beater, and it had spacers in the front springs. It was allowed to have spacers as long as the height was correct. When I found out how badly it handled on ice, with Positraction, I sold it. They had changed the rules and now the height didn’t matter but it was not allowed to have spacers.
Once it became apparent that safety inspection was just another government grab for power, with no reduction in accidents, there was a rebellion and safety inspection was eliminated.
We had old farmers driving piles of junk,and they drove accordingly because they were sane. They drove slowly, and kept off busy highways with those piles of junk.
And, we had crazy people who killed themselves and others with brand new cars.
Texas, where I live now when I am in the States, has safety inspection, and the highest insurance rates I have encountered in my life. Crazy people drive crazy, and perfect cars won’t save them. Yes, a lot is drunk driving. And a lot is crazy driving.
But, people think, well, we are doing SOMETHING! Isn’t that what’s important?
In this case, I agree absolutely with Caddyman. Good job!!!
Both safety inspections and smog checks are pushed by people whose political views are such that they believe only government control of every detail of our lives can keep us dummies and fools from all killing ourselves.
Come on irlandes. Let’s be real about this.
Not everyone who believes in the effectiveness of emissions testing and safety inspections believes only government can control of our lives can keep us from killing ourselves. Just like I did with Caddyman, I refuse to let you define your opposition in the simplest terms possible to make them seem unreasonable. You know that is not true. It is an underhanded tactic to redefine the debate in terms that demean your opposition.
I am tired of arguing about this issue, so I don’t see the point in repeating my position. However, this tactic is beneath you. You are capable of debating this issue on its merits. You don’t need to stoop to this low level of discourse.
My political views are moderate enough that I can choose my position on this issue without thinking government should take over our lives in other areas. It isn’t as though driving is a right.
I also do not a agree that a burned out light bulb is automatically dangerous. In the early days of cars, they had like one tail and one brake light. If one burned out, the car was invisible. Today, cars are covered with light bulbs. It is hard to hide one if you try.
This is another example of keeping the citizens in control with an iron fist. If you put 10,000 lights on the back of a car, yes, I am exaggerating but the example is correct, a cop would count and if only 9,999 are working, he will write you a ticket. This is utter nonsense.
Even one bad headlight on a car with other lights in front is not that dangerous. Just another excuse to harass other humans. I just went out and checked and my Sienna has lights on all four corners the minute I turn on even the parking lights. If a headlight burns out, my car is still outlined very well.
In my case, I have a policy of changing out bulbs at a certain mileage, which is coming up. At present, most people let the cops tell them they have burned out bulbs. The only other choice is to keep fresh bulbs in your car. For mine, it looks like around 75,000 miles is when the first bulb goes, and after that it can happen any time.
In the early days of cars, they had like one tail and one brake light.
…and in the early days of cars, the chances of dying in a car were much higher than they are now. Maybe you think we should go back to driving without windshields and seat belts too?
My position is not extreme, it’s realistic…“Data” is hard to come by because those who could provide that data have a vested interest in continuing testing programs…My OPINION is based on the FACT that the failure rate is so low, the number of polluting cars is so few, these cars just don’t make any difference in overall air quality. Other sources of air pollution are so VAST that a tiny number of “dirty” cars just don’t make any difference. The COST of locating and repairing these cars is so high, it’s simply not worth the effort to do it…
As for safety inspections, those who drive vehicles in less than perfect condition SOMEHOW manage to “get a sticker” one way or the other…It is a rare event when a defective vehicle is found to have caused a traffic accident…Insurance investigators concur, and see no benefit in “safety inspections”…When inspection laws are introduced in state legislatures, the biggest proponents are ALWAYS auto-glass and auto-repair chains and tire retailers who claim the state will enjoy safer highways…Missing from the lobbying effort are the auto-insurance companies, nothing in it for them…
If you want to reduce MEASURABLE air pollution in urban areas, remove all the diesel-powered delivery trucks and construction equipment from urban areas. This includes the rapidly growing fleet of diesel powered light trucks that are privately owned. This change will be rewarded with a spectacular, measurable, improvement…Failing 3=4% of a selected group of cars once every two years will produce a reduction that is so small it can not be measured and therefore is not worth the effort to do it…The test Diesels are subjected to is just a dog & pony show, a simple opacity measurement of the exhaust cloud spewing from the exhaust pipe…The pass/fail point is usually set at 20% opacity. How clean is that?? It’s a joke…
Okay, Caddyman, I think I have found some common ground where we agree. I agree that diesel delivery trucks pollute more than cars.
Unfortunately, that is where our agreement ends:
-Simple opacity tests are being phased out, and differential absorption lidar is being phased in. Differential absorption lidar uses infrared and ultraviolet lasers to measure particular gasses and particulate matter. Basically, it sends two laser beams through the air, one at a wavelength that reacts to the target element being measured, and one at a wavelength that doesn’t react to the target element. Then it compares the wavelengths of both laser beams after they pass through the exhaust fumes.
-You would be right about diesel delivery trucks if this was 1995, and not 2010. Today’s diesel engines use cleaner fuel and have more emission equipment than those made in the past.
-I am glad to see you finally admitted that admissions testing does reduce emissions. We can debate until we are blue in the face about whether or not it is worth it, but that is a matter of opinion. I would rather see it be more effective than see it abandoned.
Some people see something they think is ineffective and they want to completely scrap it. I, on the other hand, think we should fix it to make it more effective.
I would like to see motor vehicles that are built to STAY CLEAN over their design life. Pick a number 12 years? 15? 20? After that, the registration fees start going UP, way up, unless you voluntarily get an annual emissions and safety inspection…But forcing 96% of the motoring public who drive clean cars to have them tested is BS… Test the ones that NEED testing!
Caddyman, this might interest you http://www.texasobserver.org/forrestforthetrees/how-tceq-abuses-science#History
I’m on the fence as to whether emissions and safety inspections are necessary. I’m not saying Caddyman is wrong, but we need some real source info here. It could be that in many states a safety inspection is a formality, to a degree. My brother lives in Jersey. I
crawled under his Nissan Quest soon after it had passed the bi-yearly safety check and was flabbergasted to see broken exhaust hangers and other under-car problems. In Pennsy, it’s a once a year inspection. You’ve gotta road test, go through the lights, seat belts, motor mounts, steering and suspension, remove at least 2 wheels and one caliper. (but most shops
require you to pull at least 3 wheels); inspect tires with vehicle up in the air, exhaust, body rot. That’s just part of it. Could it be that if all the states went to this type of check, it would make the roads safe–if current programs already don’t? Open question.
Without beating a dead horse I would like to echo Whitey’s request for Caddyman to be more specific about the “detailed analysis of traffic accident rates and causes [which] shows that states with no inspection laws suffer no increase in traffic accidents.”
Caddyman, can you tell us where to find this analysis?
As for emissions, the OBDII check is a bit of a joke in some respects. My Cirrus burns oil to a fair-thee-well, but flies right through the OBDII test as long as no check engine light is on. In Philly and Pittsburgh, though, where they do a tailpipe sniff on a dyno, it would fail. The '75 to 95 model years have to have all the OE emissions equipment on to pass. I really think this helps, but since I don’t have the hard statistics, I can admit this is only conjecture.
Whity’s point about the 3% that fail, if it is that, is good one, since that 3% translates to a huge number of cars.
I mostly agree with this. Where we live the emission tests consists of the test station people plugging their equipment into the OBD-II connector. What more can they know that the vehicle computer already knows.
On the other hand it is possible to get a 50 dollar code reader to shut off a check engine light for the emission test if the CEL was the only inspection point.
Our inspection has been eliminated for brand new cars and inspections have been cut back to every two years, not overly oppressive.
Regarding safety inspections, we don’t have them in our upper midwest state but a relative in another state that had them said that a 20 dollar bill left on the front seat would guarantee a pass at certain car repair places that were set up for inspections. That was a long time ago and I suspect it would take a 50 dollar bill now.
I started doing Colorado Safety Inspections in 1968…At that time an ?inspection? cost $1.50…Most were performed at Mom & Pop Service Stations. We did them because they brought in other, profitable business. But as far as improving highway safety, they were a joke. If you had a ?defective? vehicle, you could ALWAYS find someone to overlook the problem and give you a sticker, always…Some shops, on slow days, would manufacture defects so they could ?fix? them…?Bad shocks? were common as was headlight alignment and a host of other quick, profitable ?defects?..
A local TV station did an investigative report with a fleet of cars that were certified to be defect-free or had several defects that should have caused inspection failure. Hidden cameras recorded these ?inspections?. The results were predictable and the resulting TV exposure eventually caused the Safety Inspection to be shut down after several dramatic legislative hearings…The end of safety inspections happened around 1974…
But then a new threat to civilization was found! SMOG! Denver was choking on motor vehicle exhaust! Carbon Monoxide was reaching dangerous levels…The safety inspection program morphed into the Emissions Testing Program with the same cast of characters! Everyone bought a Sun EPA-75 exhaust gas analyzer and we were back in business! When $3.50 a pop did not produce enough participation, they raised the fee to $5.50…
This was a rough time in the Emissions Business…90 octane Regular Leaded Gasoline was still being sold. The 1975 model cars all were supposed to use the new, more expensive, 87 octane ?Unleaded Regular? fuel to protect their ?Catalytic Converters? ?The Motoring Public quickly decided they wanted nothing to do with it and converters and ?smog pumps? were removed on a wholesale basis. Parts stores openly sold ?test pipes? to replace removed converters. Unleaded nozzle restrictors were routinely reamed out so regular leaded nozzles would fit in the filler neck.
To achieve emissions compliance, the open carburetors were adjusted to reduce CO . If this adjustment resulted in ANY drivability problem, the car owner would open the idle mixture screws as soon as he got home from the test?
The driving force behind all this was the EPA?s fledgling Air Resources Laboratory in Ann-Arbor, Michigan. Facing failure, they redoubled their efforts. By 1981, feedback carburetors with sealed adjustments and oxygen sensors were on the scene. I call 1981 to 1989 ?The Dark Years? as carmakers scrambled to get their 1950?s engine designs to meet modern emissions standards. These were the worst cars ever built.
Moving right along, the boys in Ann-Arbor decided the old Sun EPA-75 machines just were not cutting the mustard and they devised the IM-240 test procedure which involved running the car on a dynamometer at various loads and speeds… There was a HUGE battle between the car makers and the EPA about replacing ?defective? emissions control parts for 5 years / 50,000 miles…Before Detroit would replace ANYTHING you had to fail an IM-240 test.
In an effort to preserve the Mom & Pop testing format in Colorado myself and an association of shop owners mounted an effort to block the new ?centralized? testing procedure favored by the EPA… A wild card, Professor Steadman of the University of Colorado had developed a completely different testing procedure that monitored a cars emissions level as it drove by a van parked by the side of the road! And he proved it worked very effectively at a FRACTION of the cost of the EPA?s IM-240 nightmare test…Since he was against the EPA?s centralized program, he became an ally of the decentralized Mom & Pop method of testing…
Along came a fellow by the name of Vernon Jordon, a golfing buddy of Bill Clintons who had formed a company called ?Envirotest? that installed and operated centralized emissions testing centers. The EPA said, ?if you don?t do it this way, we will cut off your federal highway funding. The Colorado Legislature caved in and Evergreen Emissions and Repair, a business that I owned, closed its doors, along with 1200 other Mom & Pop testing operations…California balked, and CARB (California Air Resources Board) developed their own Mom & Pop based testing procedures. So did Texas and several other states. No one lost their highway funding… But many big states went centralized and Envirotest got the lion?s share of that business.
In Colorado, the debut of IM-240 testing did not go well… Long lines formed at ?Testing Centers? , sometimes hours long…There were many ?False Failures?. Unskilled ?technicians? (minimum wage new hires) damaged many cars on the dynos. The media had a field day. The solution for these problems was to simply gut the test procedure so almost everyone passed, reduce the frequency of the tests to once every two years which eliminated the long lines and granted large groups of vehicles an exemption from testing?Steadman?s drive-by test was also implemented and if your cars passed one of those, you got an exemption from the IM-240 test! A key exemption was for newer cars. Before manufacturers have to replace defective parts, the car must FAIL a state sponsored emissions test. So if these cars are never tested until the emissions warranty ends, they never have to repair them under warranty! Not to be left out, the old cars got an exemption too!
As time went on and most of the old high-pollution cars were removed from the road, leaded gasoline removed from the market, replaced with squeaky-clean fuel-injected, computer-controlled cars with engines designed to run clean from the ground up, Denver?s air cleared as would be expected. The Testing Industry still takes credit for this improvement as if they were responsible for it?Today, with Carbon Monoxide no longer a problem, the big boogie man is particulates, largely caused by diesel-powered vehicles and equipment that are virtually unregulated at the local level…
Today, Emissions Testing is rapidly becoming a simple OBD-2 computer scan for ?trouble codes? and a visual check to see if the all-important and dreaded ?Check Engine Light? (CEL) is not illuminated and is otherwise functioning normally…As the dynamometers and gas analyzers wear out they are not being replaced. All that remains is ?That will be $25 please?. Ka-Ching.
I hope we’re not agreeing that cars don’t pollute much. Even with most cars passing emissions tests, there’s how many millions of cars on the road? They all put out so much pollution per mile. Millions and millions. It’s a significant amount, even compared to industrial pollution.