Re: SB 708

[Paul Witek <pwitek@domain.elided>]

Charlie spaketh thusly:
>
>This sounds as believeable as all those fake virus hoaxes.
>I haven't read SB 708 (and I'm not going to waste my time, just like
>I'm not going to delete the little teddybear icon!)
>But I'm sure someone on the digest is going to enlighten us and prove
>it a hoax.

It does sound crazy, but it's true.  

The text of the bill can be found at:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_708_bill_20030221_introduced.html

And reading through it, I just gotta wonder... why?  Has there been a rash of classic cars spewing massive quantities of smog in front of Senator Florez's home?

What I find even more troubling is that, according to this bill, exempt doesn't really mean exempt.   Even if your car *is* old enough to be exempt, it still "shall be subject to testing and to certification requirements as determined by the department, if... (the) department determines through remote sensing activities or other means that there is a substantial probability that the vehicle has a tampered emission control system or would fail for other cause a smog check test..."

Given that cars over the exempt age have *no* emission controls systems, they could easily decide that there is a substantial probability your car would fail, and therefore require you to get your car tested.

As it is, not being a resident of California, this bill doesn't directly affect me - but as someone else pointed out, the rest of the country usually ends up following California's lead eventually...

- Paul Witek
CBA (Currently Between Alfas)





_____________________________________________________________
Get Unlimited Internet Access for only $7.99/mo!  http://www.talentg.com/internet.html
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided