The discussions over Bill 48 continue to gather interest. As we all know, arguing on the Internet is about as useful as yelling at a donkey, trying to get it to listen to you.
There are so many things wrong with the way this entire joke - the proposal of Bill 48 in Quebec - is being handled that it's difficult to make sense of it all. People are arguing that the percentage of cars that will fail emission tests is 12% (a number with a number of exclusions and omissions) while the APA and I say that it will be, in fact and reality, less than 5%. Speculating brings us all joy and makes feel as though we have the truth, that we are fighting for a just cause and that we must endeavour on.
The real reality is that we will only really understand the impact of Bill 48, environmentally and financially speaking, in five or six years. By then, we will have dug a hole so deep that those in power will continue to dig, hoping to one day justify their claims. Instead of making mistakes, let's learn from others. Why don't we look around to see what is really going on?
California is a worldwide recognized leader when it comes to emissions and keeping them in check. Their climate is especially clement and this explains why the average age of a car there is over 12 years. Old cars pollute, right? In Canada, the average car is less than 8 years old. Think about that for a moment.
Let's get back to California. Between July and December of 2007, a very small number of OBD II equipped cars failed the smog test. Their test consists of a tailpipe check (2.73% failure) or an OBD II (6.64% failure) based inspection. I don't know about you but I'm none-too impressed.
The Air Resources Board says that even if both procedures were to be combined, failure rates would climb if only marginally. A second complete test would need to be performed and perhaps then, the number of failures would increase. There are countless variables that can affect results, hence why multiple tests could be done on the same car.
There are many more telling facts and figures in this publication about smog check tailpipe emissions testing in California and some such numbers demonstrate a huge percentage drop in failures between pre- and post-2000 model-year cars. Pre-2000 cars are up to 5 times more likely to fail. However, factor in how long it will take to implement Bill 48, whatever delays and technical issues may occur as well as the ravages of time to our cars and by 2015 (a year close to 2013 of my choosing), there will be very few pre-2000 left on the road.
Failure rates for model year 2008 and up are far less than 3%. By 2015, tests will be administered to cars from the 2007 model year and older. Talk about waste. Discuss.
And then, there's the infamous, secretive, underground notion of OBD III. I don't like it very much but once all the potential legal issues are settled, it will come. I'll tell you more soon.
BTW, when it does come, all forms of emission testing will be obsolete, pointless and wasteful.
There are so many things wrong with the way this entire joke - the proposal of Bill 48 in Quebec - is being handled that it's difficult to make sense of it all. People are arguing that the percentage of cars that will fail emission tests is 12% (a number with a number of exclusions and omissions) while the APA and I say that it will be, in fact and reality, less than 5%. Speculating brings us all joy and makes feel as though we have the truth, that we are fighting for a just cause and that we must endeavour on.
The real reality is that we will only really understand the impact of Bill 48, environmentally and financially speaking, in five or six years. By then, we will have dug a hole so deep that those in power will continue to dig, hoping to one day justify their claims. Instead of making mistakes, let's learn from others. Why don't we look around to see what is really going on?
California is a worldwide recognized leader when it comes to emissions and keeping them in check. Their climate is especially clement and this explains why the average age of a car there is over 12 years. Old cars pollute, right? In Canada, the average car is less than 8 years old. Think about that for a moment.
Let's get back to California. Between July and December of 2007, a very small number of OBD II equipped cars failed the smog test. Their test consists of a tailpipe check (2.73% failure) or an OBD II (6.64% failure) based inspection. I don't know about you but I'm none-too impressed.
The Air Resources Board says that even if both procedures were to be combined, failure rates would climb if only marginally. A second complete test would need to be performed and perhaps then, the number of failures would increase. There are countless variables that can affect results, hence why multiple tests could be done on the same car.
There are many more telling facts and figures in this publication about smog check tailpipe emissions testing in California and some such numbers demonstrate a huge percentage drop in failures between pre- and post-2000 model-year cars. Pre-2000 cars are up to 5 times more likely to fail. However, factor in how long it will take to implement Bill 48, whatever delays and technical issues may occur as well as the ravages of time to our cars and by 2015 (a year close to 2013 of my choosing), there will be very few pre-2000 left on the road.
Failure rates for model year 2008 and up are far less than 3%. By 2015, tests will be administered to cars from the 2007 model year and older. Talk about waste. Discuss.
And then, there's the infamous, secretive, underground notion of OBD III. I don't like it very much but once all the potential legal issues are settled, it will come. I'll tell you more soon.
BTW, when it does come, all forms of emission testing will be obsolete, pointless and wasteful.