Posted by Thumper on May 5, 2009, 3:48 pm
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-smog-motorcycles5-2009may05,0,5361429.story
Thumper
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4054 (20090505) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4054 (20090505) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
Posted by Datesfat Chicks on May 5, 2009, 4:22 pm
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-smog-motorcycles5-2009may05,0,5361429.story
It isn't clear why you'd feel motorcycles are being picked on.
Specifically:
<BEGIN QUOTE>
But a 2008 study of aftermarket activity by the ARB found that 85% of bikes
280 cc and larger had modified exhausts. "Most" of those, said Cackette,
were illegal. Not all modified exhausts are illegal; some comply with the
emissions requirements that govern what makes and models can be sold in the
state. But many modified exhausts remove the bikes' catalytic converters,
causing them to emit twice the legal limit of hydrocarbons and oxides of
nitrogen.
<END QUOTE>
Why would you feel in general that motorcyclists have the right to break
emissions laws?
Datesfat
Posted by CS on May 5, 2009, 4:49 pm
>>
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-smog-motorcycles5-2009may05,0,5361429.story
>>
> It isn't clear why you'd feel motorcycles are being picked on.
> Specifically:
> <BEGIN QUOTE>
> But a 2008 study of aftermarket activity by the ARB found that 85% of
> bikes 280 cc and larger had modified exhausts. "Most" of those, said
> Cackette, were illegal. Not all modified exhausts are illegal; some
> comply with the emissions requirements that govern what makes and models
> can be sold in the state. But many modified exhausts remove the bikes'
> catalytic converters, causing them to emit twice the legal limit of
> hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen.
> <END QUOTE>
> Why would you feel in general that motorcyclists have the right to break
> emissions laws?
I don't think that's an issue.
It's a hassle having to schlep the car over to the smog test. It also makes
one nervous if the car is a few years old. What happens if some mysterious
doohickey fails? You might end up paying hundreds of dollars to fix it.
What happens if my bike doesn't pass? It doesn't have cats, but a smog
check isn't needed to see if they're still there, either. They'll put it on
a machine and test what comes out of the tailpipe. With 60k miles and
little apparent maintenance, it's very possible the heads and rings are worn
enough to exceed some of the limits.
If mine fails, I'd probably have to rebuild the engine, which I simply won't
do. Don't have the money, and if I did, it's not cost effective.
So then I'd have to sell the bike out of state or part it out.
And drive my SUV until I can afford another bike.
How is that helping the environment?
It's just another way for CA to milk money from productive people.
CS
Posted by CS on May 5, 2009, 4:35 pm
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-smog-motorcycles5-2009may05,0,5361429.story
Typical "it's for the children" crap.
If they really wanted to reduce smog, they'd try encouraging folks to
commute on bicycles by mandating bike lanes next to freeways, train tracks,
rivers, and so on.
Then again, if they were serious, they'd want folks on motorcycles, reducing
smog, fuel consumption, gridlock, accidents...
Oh well.
CS
Posted by MikeWhy on May 5, 2009, 5:01 pm
> Typical "it's for the children" crap.
> If they really wanted to reduce smog, they'd try encouraging folks to
> commute on bicycles by mandating bike lanes next to freeways, train
> tracks, rivers, and so on.
Along with a whole list of "encouraged" behaviors, it isn't their place to
do such things. If you want to put your finger on what's wrong with America,
start *THERE*.
XML Sitemap