Following the publication of an APA press release about Bill 48, we received an interesting comment from a reader. I thought a response was in order.
Here’s an excerpt of the comment, in answer to the article entitled “More experts on the topic of Bill 48 in Quebec” published earlier this week:
“In Ontario and British Columbia, the average number of cars that fail the test is around 12%, not 5%. What’s more, that number should be put into perspective: the inspection program has existed for 20 years in BC, so motorists are already maintaining their cars during the year in hopes of passing the test. But 12% of vehicles still fail, either because they haven’t been properly maintained or as a result of normal vehicle wear (age). Here in Quebec, we’re surrounded by provinces and States that have been running a mandatory inspection program for several years. Clunkers that don’t pass the test elsewhere wind up in Quebec. We get stuck with other people’s clunkers.
The AQLPA (a non-profit organization that promotes air quality) has launched several pilot projects in the past ten or more years. It has inspected 25,000 cars. The AQLPA’s volunteer participants showed that up to 30% of vehicles failed to pass the test. That’s hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants rejected into the atmosphere (and of dollars spent on health care) and thousands if not millions of motorist dollars wasted because of poor fuel efficiency.”
Here’s my reply:
Facts and data can be interpreted from every angle. Of these 25,000 cars that failed over more than 10 years, I would guess that a good portion of them did so in the first 2 to 4 years of the testing. In 2000 there were still many cars on the road equipped with carburetors from the 80s or unreliable and inefficient injection systems from the 90s. Those are the cars that failed and those are the ones they’re using today to promote the introduction of the inspection program. Between you and me, the cars we drove in the 80s aren’t around anymore and those from the 90s won’t be for very much longer, as we’re already in 2012.
The fact remains that modern cars are becoming cleaner and more sophisticated every year. The instruments used in service centres don’t perform on the same level as the automotive technologies developed in the last 5 or 6 years. Service centres won’t update their instruments at the same pace either, so they won’t be as sophisticated as the emission control systems of our vehicles and they’ll be outdated before they become profitable for that very service centre. And that opens the way to all kinds of abuse.
The adjustments you talk about, will they be free? After the repairs are completed, if they’re truly necessary and if they actually make a difference, how much money will the owner of the vehicle save? Will the car really be cleaner? And if owners can’t afford the repairs, they’ll still be allowed to drive their cars. So what will have been the point?
No one will benefit from these inspections. Not you, not me, and not the environment either.
The project is destined to fail one way or another. These days, the vast majority of cars are clean. In 3 years, nearly every last one of them will be as well. The fail rate will drop from 5% to 1 or 2%. The new program will become outdated and the service centres that will have invested in the necessary tools will end up struggling and in debt.
There’s a reason why Ontario’s Drive Clean program will be terminated within 5 or 6 years: it won’t be necessary anymore. Why embark on a venture that will cost millions but yield no tangible results when we could truly address the traffic issue by adding new lanes on the highways, for example?
And as for clunkers that don’t make the cut elsewhere and wind up in Quebec, they already have to be inspected by the SAAQ first. All the SAAQ has to do is add an emission control portion to its inspection process. It’s as simple as that.
Finally, you can start celebrating because the inspection program will probably go forward for all the wrong reasons. We consumers will pay for the vanity of organizations that say they serve the environment and base their claims exclusively on data that supports their point of view.
Here’s an excerpt of the comment, in answer to the article entitled “More experts on the topic of Bill 48 in Quebec” published earlier this week:
“In Ontario and British Columbia, the average number of cars that fail the test is around 12%, not 5%. What’s more, that number should be put into perspective: the inspection program has existed for 20 years in BC, so motorists are already maintaining their cars during the year in hopes of passing the test. But 12% of vehicles still fail, either because they haven’t been properly maintained or as a result of normal vehicle wear (age). Here in Quebec, we’re surrounded by provinces and States that have been running a mandatory inspection program for several years. Clunkers that don’t pass the test elsewhere wind up in Quebec. We get stuck with other people’s clunkers.
The AQLPA (a non-profit organization that promotes air quality) has launched several pilot projects in the past ten or more years. It has inspected 25,000 cars. The AQLPA’s volunteer participants showed that up to 30% of vehicles failed to pass the test. That’s hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants rejected into the atmosphere (and of dollars spent on health care) and thousands if not millions of motorist dollars wasted because of poor fuel efficiency.”
Here’s my reply:
Facts and data can be interpreted from every angle. Of these 25,000 cars that failed over more than 10 years, I would guess that a good portion of them did so in the first 2 to 4 years of the testing. In 2000 there were still many cars on the road equipped with carburetors from the 80s or unreliable and inefficient injection systems from the 90s. Those are the cars that failed and those are the ones they’re using today to promote the introduction of the inspection program. Between you and me, the cars we drove in the 80s aren’t around anymore and those from the 90s won’t be for very much longer, as we’re already in 2012.
The fact remains that modern cars are becoming cleaner and more sophisticated every year. The instruments used in service centres don’t perform on the same level as the automotive technologies developed in the last 5 or 6 years. Service centres won’t update their instruments at the same pace either, so they won’t be as sophisticated as the emission control systems of our vehicles and they’ll be outdated before they become profitable for that very service centre. And that opens the way to all kinds of abuse.
The adjustments you talk about, will they be free? After the repairs are completed, if they’re truly necessary and if they actually make a difference, how much money will the owner of the vehicle save? Will the car really be cleaner? And if owners can’t afford the repairs, they’ll still be allowed to drive their cars. So what will have been the point?
No one will benefit from these inspections. Not you, not me, and not the environment either.
The project is destined to fail one way or another. These days, the vast majority of cars are clean. In 3 years, nearly every last one of them will be as well. The fail rate will drop from 5% to 1 or 2%. The new program will become outdated and the service centres that will have invested in the necessary tools will end up struggling and in debt.
There’s a reason why Ontario’s Drive Clean program will be terminated within 5 or 6 years: it won’t be necessary anymore. Why embark on a venture that will cost millions but yield no tangible results when we could truly address the traffic issue by adding new lanes on the highways, for example?
And as for clunkers that don’t make the cut elsewhere and wind up in Quebec, they already have to be inspected by the SAAQ first. All the SAAQ has to do is add an emission control portion to its inspection process. It’s as simple as that.
Finally, you can start celebrating because the inspection program will probably go forward for all the wrong reasons. We consumers will pay for the vanity of organizations that say they serve the environment and base their claims exclusively on data that supports their point of view.