vehicle emissions in general (too much of a drift for the VW thread)

[ergott]

I have to say that the biggest disappointment I have as a result of this is finding out that so few states in the US have emission checks as part of inspections.

My aim isn't to fault VW any less for what they did, but I am amazed at the amount of vehicles that pass me on my commutes that are spouting enough smog that I have to measure my breath for a couple hundred feet until it clears up. Sure it's better than a couple decades ago. I just can't imagine (even it if is in fact the case) that the TDI is worse. I get passed by 10 year old cars and just can't believe they are passing inspection unless they "know a guy who knows a guy that has a shop that will pass it".

Is the NOx odorless?

On the positive side, this is more the exception than the rule. Vehicles in general are much cleaner and I'm not phased by the majority that pass me each day. I'll feel better knowing my car will be brought up to standard even if that means a 10% drop in performance. If that is indeed the case, I'm still ahead of the game in my opinion.

[ergott]

Again, more interested in emission talk in general.

If you are in a state that doesn't check vehicle emissions, how do you feel about that?

[yngpunk]

Again, more interested in emission talk in general.

If you are in a state that doesn't check vehicle emissions, how do you feel about that?

States will claim otherwise, but I suspect the lack of emissions (via tail pipe) testing is due to cost savings. Heck NJ eliminated emissions testing for light duty diesel vehicles and extend the time frame between required OBD testing.

[Grant McLean]

I've often wondered how differently people might feel about emissions
if they were visible. So much of what we consider normal is "out of sight,
out of mind". Our garbage is collected, flushed, or disappeared. The
consequences of our choices are rarely fully costed.

I remember seeing this video when it came out a couple of years ago.
Makes you think;

http://youtu.be/DtqSIplGXOA

[Ralph]

Not meaning to sound political but....Florida did away with testing under Governor Jeb Bush......supposedly for two reasons.....the state said. To save about 50 million dollars a year on inspections,and at that time Florida already met Federal clean air standards. "No need to clean further" was implication.

[deechee]

It's pretty simple. North Americans don't want to pay for it. In Japan, the annual vehicle inspection costs encourage most people to buy a new car every few years. New cars avoid the rust riddled exhaust systems in most of Canada, and the newer cars usually adhere to stricter emission laws.

From a very old article in the nytimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/world/why-the-cars-in-japan-look-just-like-new.html):

Rather, experts say, there really are relatively few old cars in Japan, because of an automobile inspection system that is so onerous and expensive that many people prefer to trade in a perfectly good three- or five-year-old car rather than spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars for the inspection.

Quebec tried to impose a mandatory emissions test for 8 year old cars a few year back - but it was initially only needed to be done if a person was trying to resell it. That law never passed. Thankfully, the salt on our roads eats through most cars anyway that you rarely see cars more than 10-15 years old. Also, as I've read in many articles (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/06/quebecs-obsession-with-no-frills-cars/), Quebec is one of the only places in North America where the cheapest, tiny cars sell. I mean, where else can you get manual windows these days? The majority of cars here are small. We're cheap. No way an emissions law would pass. But at least we're not driving gas guzzlers. Too cheap to waste gas. Hydro? Well, that's another story...

[rugbysecondrow]

Not meaning to sound political but....Florida did away with testing under Governor Jeb Bush......supposedly for two reasons.....the state said. To save about 50 million dollars a year on inspections,and at that time Florida already met Federal clean air standards. "No need to clean further" was implication.

I wonder what the numbers are (pass / fail ). If they have a very low % of fail, and that number is decreasing with newer cars on the road and a weeding out of the older/pre regulation vehicles, then maybe it makes sense to spend money elsewhere.

If it costs tax payer money, tax payer time with limited impact, then why not?

[makoti]

We check in VA, but trucks seem to be exempt (at least I can only imagine they are, considering how often I see them poring black smoke into the air).

[rugbysecondrow]

It's pretty simple. North Americans don't want to pay for it. In Japan, the annual vehicle inspection costs encourage most people to buy a new car every few years. New cars avoid the rust riddled exhaust systems in most of Canada, and the newer cars usually adhere to stricter emission laws.

From a very old article in the nytimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/world/why-the-cars-in-japan-look-just-like-new.html):

Rather, experts say, there really are relatively few old cars in Japan, because of an automobile inspection system that is so onerous and expensive that many people prefer to trade in a perfectly good three- or five-year-old car rather than spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars for the inspection.

Quebec tried to impose a mandatory emissions test for 8 year old cars a few year back - but it was initially only needed to be done if a person was trying to resell it. That law never passed. Thankfully, the salt on our roads eats through most cars anyway that you rarely see cars more than 10-15 years old. Also, as I've read in many articles (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/06/quebecs-obsession-with-no-frills-cars/), Quebec is one of the only places in North America where the cheapest, tiny cars sell. I mean, where else can you get manual windows these days? The majority of cars here are small.


I have often thought that emissions controls impact those in poverty in an extreme way. It also seems like a racket with collusion between the state and the auto dealers.

1) Drives up auto sales
2) Financing companies benefit
3)insurance companies benefit
4) limits a used car market
5) when test finds an issue, you have to get service at a dealer or authorized location. The State cap on this work in Maryland was $500, spend that and you automatically pass emissions. Guess what, the two times I had to get work done, the bills came to around $514.


All of this means that those in poverty, those already struggling are hit the hardest by this process.

[pff]

If you are in a state that doesn't check vehicle emissions, how do you feel about that?

seems like the testing should be done at a federal level just to reduce costs. Why hire 50 different government agencies to do the same thing? States can still set different emissions standards, i.e. performance cutoffs on the federal test results.

But I don't think the problem with VW is (lack of) annual emissions checks, the problem exposed by this scandal is that all emissions checks kind of just take the car's word for it. That annual smog check doesn't involve measurement of what's coming out of the tailpipe; they just plug a computer in and see what the car itself says.

As far as more costly emissions checks falling to the consumer, I'm all for making cars more expensive to own and operate. They're an unsustainable luxury that Americans treat as a basic human right.

[rugbysecondrow]

As far as more costly emissions checks falling to the consumer, I'm all for making cars more expensive to own and operate. They're an unsustainable luxury that Americans treat as a basic human right.


How so?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[palincss]

I
My aim isn't to fault VW any less for what they did, but I am amazed at the amount of vehicles that pass me on my commutes that are spouting enough smog that I have to measure my breath for a couple hundred feet until it clears up. Sure it's better than a couple decades ago. I just can't imagine (even it if is in fact the case) that the TDI is worse. I get passed by 10 year old cars and just can't believe they are passing inspection unless they "know a guy who knows a guy that has a shop that will pass it".

Is the NOx odorless?


Emissions standards have gotten progressively stricter over the years, and even the worst of today's cars (excluding those that have been illegally modified) are better by far than the old ones. The "cheater" TDI is far better in terms of emissions than old cars. You should bear in mind, emissions inspections check that a car meets the standards for that make and model year. NOx is odorless.

[nooneline]

Not meaning to sound political but....Florida did away with testing under Governor Jeb Bush......supposedly for two reasons.....the state said. To save about 50 million dollars a year on inspections,and at that time Florida already met Federal clean air standards. "No need to clean further" was implication.

to paraphrase Ruth Bader Ginsburg, this is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

[rwsaunders]

Yearly emissions inspections required in 25 of 67 counties here in Pennsylvania....yearly safety inspections required in all counties. I don't know how the rationale of only testing emissions in the larger metro area makes sense, but I imagine that it was based on some behind the scenes deal cutting.

You recieve a pass/fail statement and they publish your test results in terms of CO (%) and HC (ppm). If you fail, repairs to the emissions system are subjected to retesting and there is a waiver formula in place, based on the cost of the repairs and the age of the vehicle.

[oldpotatoe]

seems like the testing should be done at a federal level just to reduce costs.

As far as more costly emissions checks falling to the consumer, I'm all for making cars more expensive to own and operate. They're an unsustainable luxury that Americans treat as a basic human right.


Another government program:rolleyes:

If you are going to change the car culture(you won't) you had better change the basic structure of the USA that was designed and built in the 50s by Eisenhower. Ain't gonna happen until fuel is scarce and then we'll have far more serious problems, like anarchy that'll make walking dead seem like an afternoon picnic.

[palincss]

Yearly emissions inspections required in 25 of 67 counties here in Pennsylvania....yearly safety inspections required in all counties. I don't know how the rationale of only testing emissions in the larger metro area makes sense, but I imagine that it was based on some behind the scenes deal cutting.

Emissions are a major issue in metropolitan areas, but not nearly so much in rural areas with low population density.

[rwsaunders]

Emissions are a major issue in metropolitan areas, but not nearly so much in rural areas with low population density.

I fully understand the density/volume issue, but it's not like emissions heads straight for the sky in a silo. As an example, three of the five counties that are contiguous to the county which includes Pittsburgh require testing; the county immediately North does not. This county happens to contain the largest growth in poulation in this area for the past 20 years...Butler County, the Cranberry area to be specific. Just test the whole state and establish a baseline.

[Schmed]

The problem I see with diesel emissions, is that they now require DEF fluid and DPF (filter) in the exhaust, plus EGR. That is robs the efficiency of the diesel engine, and makes them much more complicated and costly.

The old diesels used to put out more soot, but used less fuel. My truck gets about 3 mpg better without the EGR and probably another 1-2 mpg without the DEF.

So, which is worse - soot or higher CO2 emissions due to lesser mpg? I really don't know the answer, but many of the problems with modern diesels are emissions related (per the Kenworth dealer and Ram owner stories).

That's pushing people away from buying diesels and into gas-burning cars/trucks and therefore, lower fuel economy numbers. Unintended consequences?

[ptourkin]

I have often thought that emissions controls impact those in poverty in an extreme way. It also seems like a racket with collusion between the state and the auto dealers.

1) Drives up auto sales
2) Financing companies benefit
3)insurance companies benefit
4) limits a used car market
5) when test finds an issue, you have to get service at a dealer or authorized location. The State cap on this work in Maryland was $500, spend that and you automatically pass emissions. Guess what, the two times I had to get work done, the bills came to around $514.


All of this means that those in poverty, those already struggling are hit the hardest by this process.

Yes, but maybe not in the way you think: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pollution-poverty-people-color-asthma-inner-city/

This socioeconomic profile and long history of environmental hazards have left East St. Louis with what experts suspect is one of the highest asthma rates in the nation.

Seven million American children -- nearly one out of every ten -- have asthma, and the rate has been climbing for the past few decades, reaching epidemic proportions. For black children, it痴 even worse -- one out of every six -- and the reported rate has risen 50 percent between 2001 and 2010, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[rugbysecondrow]

Yes, but maybe not in the way you think: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pollution-poverty-people-color-asthma-inner-city/



This socioeconomic profile and long history of environmental hazards have left East St. Louis with what experts suspect is one of the highest asthma rates in the nation.



Seven million American children -- nearly one out of every ten -- have asthma, and the rate has been climbing for the past few decades, reaching epidemic proportions. For black children, it痴 even worse -- one out of every six -- and the reported rate has risen 50 percent between 2001 and 2010, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


This doesn't have much to do with automotive testing though. We have regulated standards for new vehicles coming to market, that has a significant impact, I suspect much more than testing.


The question really is, what is the purpose of testing? What are the benefits? Have the benefits out weighed the costs of the programs? Is it a political issue more than an environmental issue?

With failure rates averaging from 4-9%, it seems reasonable to questions whether the other 95% should go through this exercise and whether the government should find a program like this.

From Denver: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_17851736

New Mexico:
http://www.abqjournal.com/380116/news/what-are-the-emissions-failure-rates-for-cars-of-various-ages.html








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nooneline]

Another government program:rolleyes:

If you are going to change the car culture(you won't) you had better change the basic structure of the USA that was designed and built in the 50s by Eisenhower. Ain't gonna happen until fuel is scarce and then we'll have far more serious problems, like anarchy that'll make walking dead seem like an afternoon picnic.

Yeah, they tried to change it in Amsterdam, and we all know how well it worked there (http://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/when-it-comes-cycling-amsterdam-wasnt-always-amsterdam.html).

[David Kirk]

Emissions are a major issue in metropolitan areas, but not nearly so much in rural areas with low population density.

I get this and at the same time it reminds me of having a smoking section in a restaurant.......the idea that I'm not breathing the smoke if I'm not in the smoking section is silly.

It's a closed system and it just averages out.

FWIW Montana has no vehicle inspection whatsoever.....so safety, no emissions, nothing at all. So here take real pride in this for some odd reason.

dave

[palincss]

The question really is, what is the purpose of testing? What are the benefits? Have the benefits out weighed the costs of the programs? Is it a political issue more than an environmental issue?


To insure compliance, not only when the vehicle is newly manufactured, but also during its service life.

[palincss]

I get this and at the same time it reminds me of having a smoking section in a restaurant.......the idea that I'm not breathing the smoke if I'm not in the smoking section is silly.

It's a closed system and it just averages out.

FWIW Montana has no vehicle inspection whatsoever.....so safety, no emissions, nothing at all. So here take real pride in this for some odd reason.

dave

Does Montana even have a pollution problem? I mean, so large an area and so few people. If your "smoking section" was 10 miles long, would you notice a smoker at the opposite end? Would your breathing of second hand smoke ever rise above homeopathic concentrations?

[David Kirk]

Does Montana even have a pollution problem? I mean, so large an area and so few people. If your "smoking section" was 10 miles long, would you notice a smoker at the opposite end? Would your breathing of second hand smoke ever rise above homeopathic concentrations?

Yes - surprisingly it does. Most of the cities are in valleys and these valleys collect and hold stagnant air and the haze and smog in winter months is a real issue. Is it like LA smog on a bad day - hell no. But is it clear? No, far from it and it presents health issues for sensitive folks.

I can't help but thinking that it's a closed system and no matter how big the pool is pissing in it still makes it less healthy to swim in.

dave

[ergott]

Does Montana even have a pollution problem?

The world has a pollution problem. It might be more concentrated in urban areas, but it couldn't hurt for all cars to be held to the same standard. I can't see an argument for an exception.

If poverty is a concern keeping older cars in compliance, I'd rather see better public transportation being developed (and the infrastructure to support it), but I know that's pie in the sky.

[AngryScientist]

ergott touched on it.

IMO, public transportation is absolutely the answer to a LOT of problems.

most people i know who commute to work via car would LOVE to be able to jump on a train and zone out for an hour and get to work. electric motor driven trains are such a great solution as a people mover its fantastic.

as part of my commute now, i use one of NJ's "light rail" systems. brilliant!

it goes through some very densely populated urban areas, is dirt cheap to ride and obviously very environmentally friendly.

if we want to take a real stab at reducing emissions in this country, we should expand the rail system in areas of dense population, and keep expanding.

[rugbysecondrow]

To insure compliance, not only when the vehicle is newly manufactured, but also during its service life.

With such low failure rates, is compliance a good enough reason to create a $25 million + state program? With such low failure rates, is this the best process?

There is also the true expense of the program, the explicit cost, but lets not forget the implied cost. Time away from work, time waiting at the emissions station for a check (it took me nearly an hour last time I went plus 30 min of travel time, so 1.5 hours). Emissions spent driving to and from the station. With such a high explicit and implicit costs, I wonder what the actual value of the program is when they are only failing 6% of the cars.

[palincss]

IMO, public transportation is absolutely the answer to a LOT of problems.


But the viability of public transportation depends on density, and many places simply don't have it.

It was different back in the day of trolley and railroad suburbs, with concentrated population centers built along the route of trolley and railroad lines for the long distance haul and a walkable street network in a fairly compact area for the "last mile" part of the trip. I live in such a 19th century trolley suburb, and in my opinion this is about as good as urban planning has ever gotten.

But in a true rural area, or in auto-centric sprawl density is too low - too few people going to too many different places - for public transportation in the form of bus and train lines to be viable.

[palincss]

With such low failure rates, is compliance a good enough reason to create a $25 million + state program? With such low failure rates, is this the best process?

There is also the true expense of the program, the explicit cost, but lets not forget the implied cost. Time away from work, time waiting at the emissions station for a check (it took me nearly an hour last time I went plus 30 min of travel time, so 1.5 hours). Emissions spent driving to and from the station. With such a high explicit and implicit costs, I wonder what the actual value of the program is when they are only failing 6% of the cars.

You don't think clean air is worth an hour and a half once a year or once every two years? The value isn't in the 6% (or whatever) of the cars that fail, it's in the 94% of owners who stay honest and don't opt for more power and better fuel economy by taking the pollution controls off.

[ergott]

With such low failure rates, is compliance a good enough reason to create a $25 million + state program? With such low failure rates, is this the best process?

There is also the true expense of the program, the explicit cost, but lets not forget the implied cost. Time away from work, time waiting at the emissions station for a check (it took me nearly an hour last time I went plus 30 min of travel time, so 1.5 hours). Emissions spent driving to and from the station. With such a high explicit and implicit costs, I wonder what the actual value of the program is when they are only failing 6% of the cars.

I roll my inspection into a scheduled oil change. It's really not the difficult. In NY there are inspection centers everywhere. When NY recently cracked down on diesel trucks/buses I noticed a dramatic decrease in the number of trucks/busses that roll coal every time they come off the line from a red light etc.

[palincss]

The world has a pollution problem. It might be more concentrated in urban areas, but it couldn't hurt for all cars to be held to the same standard. I can't see an argument for an exception.


And yet you have rugbysecondrow, who if I recall correctly used to live in the fifth most densely populated state in the country questioning the value of emissions testing. It's going to be a really tough sell to persuade people in rural areas of its value.

[Ken Robb]

36 years as a Realtor. You would be amazed how few clients gave much consideration to living close to their places of employment and how that could affect their lives---and the lives of others.

[pbarry]

When living in CA, and still in my vintage Volvo years, I thought the annual emissions test was stupid since there was no emissions equipment on those cars except for the pcv valve. Low and behold, my 66 122s wagon failed miserably one year: Turned out it had a bad intake valve.

[dustyrider]

I remember hearing something on NPR awhile back about the huge cost of enforcement of emissions testing and how it is actually rather ineffective.

They're supposition was that a very few cars pollute and most of those cars are driven by knowing owners who bypass the expensive enforcement of inspections. The argument being that states/cities/counties should be installing sniffers at the point of origin. In other words you drive past a sniffer and it takes a picture of you, and your car, and you get a ticket for not meeting the ordinance. As opposed to everyone having to pay for a yearly check up.

I live in an area with no inspections at all. Never mind emissions testing.
I thought it quite strange when I first moved here because I had always lived in an area with some kind of inspection process.
Now that I've lived here for almost 2 decades, I can honestly say I see no need for mandatory inspections. The greatest polluters will most certainly circumvent the inspection process. Growing up in NE meant we all knew who to go to in order to get an inspection sticker. Even if you could see the road through the floor boards after a decade of winter salting, we knew a guy.

If you want to make an impact, be proactive rather than reactive. Basically, why do we need so many cars? Instead of how do we make all these cars cleaner?

[paredown]

There are some pretty interesting summary graphs here:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/publications/fact_book/page10.cfm

CO2 (and most emissions) have fallen dramatically--but cars are still responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions.

Interesting that the NOx emissions are falling--but the large diesel share is increasing....

This one is for VOCs--the main component of smog:

[rnhood]

Most states will keep their inspections because the infrastructure is in place and its easy income. They won't give it up. But I agree, the need for the process is debatable. I think the sniffer approach is better and quicker, and I understand some are looking into this methodology.

[nooneline]

There are some pretty interesting summary graphs here:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/publications/fact_book/page10.cfm

CO2 (and most emissions) have fallen dramatically--but cars are still responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions.

Interesting that the NOx emissions are falling--but the large diesel share is increasing....

This one is for VOCs--the main component of smog:

Yeah, be careful of single-component emissions data. Cars might not contribute much to Co2, but they are the main driver of the stuff that makes up smog*. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exacerbates heart problems, respiratory problems, asthma, lung cancer, causes birth defects, and may cause autism.

Many places in the USA have quite good air quality - average annual air quality - but the reality is that proximity to high-density traffic areas, and short-term spikes, are the things that drive the very real health consequences of vehicle emissions.

*EDIT: not according to these data... hmm... an environmental epidemiologists working with traffic data just told me this, but i'm not sure of the source or specifics.

[ergott]

I remember hearing something on NPR awhile back about the huge cost of enforcement of emissions testing and how it is actually rather ineffective.

They're supposition was that a very few cars pollute and most of those cars are driven by knowing owners who bypass the expensive enforcement of inspections.

My unscientific statistical analysis (my nose riding around town) tells me that older, neglected cars/trucks are more the culprit than people modding their cars for performance. Far more neglected vehicles out there.

[dustyrider]

My unscientific statistical analysis (my nose riding around town) tells me that older, neglected cars/trucks are more the culprit than people modding their cars for performance. Far more neglected vehicles out there.

Neglect falls into choice.

[rnhood]

CO2 (and most emissions) have fallen dramatically--but cars are still responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions.




I am struggling with this. Do you have a reputable link showing this? Its not what learned in school. Maybe the colleges have it all wrong.

[rugbysecondrow]

I roll my inspection into a scheduled oil change. It's really not the difficult. In NY there are inspection centers everywhere. When NY recently cracked down on diesel trucks/buses I noticed a dramatic decrease in the number of trucks/busses that roll coal every time they come off the line from a red light etc.

In Maryland I had to go to a State run facility, with State or contract State workers, with open hours 8:30-5PM and Saturday AM hours. No joke, I spend an hour idling (winter time), waiting for my turn.

We are a family who drove cars for their full life (200,000+). God forbid the check engine light was on (which often happened and the dealership would shrug and say they didn't know why). If the light was on, it was an automatic failure emissions failure, even though they didn't actually test the emissions. This meant that I had to take it to the dealer. If I spend over $450 on an emissions related item I could apply for a waiver. The dealer service costs seem to magically arrive just north of that $450 mark, with no real indication if the issue was resolved, if the check engine light will stay off (it didn't). I took my receipt back to the emission testing station, present the receipts, then get shuffled to another line where I fill out more waiver paperwork. I don't get retested to even see if I pass, I just got a waiver. No indication that my vehicle is actually better for the environment, but people got paid.

Essentially, I buy my way out of the failure with no real environmental impact.

It isn't just emissions testing, it is the "State Safety Inspections" which are a huge racket. The mechanics are doing the inspection, the people who benefit from the system, so of course you will have service issues to tend to, they have you by the short hairs.

What we now have is an issue. I get to decide how long, or how often to I keep failing and paying for this service vs. getting a new vehicle. I suspect I am not alone in prematurely getting rid of a vehicle and buying a new one.

So, if you have a 10 year old car, possible emissions issue, not sure if it will pass state inspection, it is very hard to sell on the used market. You can go to CarMax (shocker, they do big business in MD) and they will buy it and ship to auction, or I can buy a new car and barter my as trade bait, which then gets sent to auction.

In any event, all of this extra work, extra effort is just a bother for me, I am fortunate to have means. I cannot imagine what a family hovering around the poverty line would do. They get financing and buy a new car. The system at work.

Roll all of this up, and you have to question the effectiveness of the system. For all of the individual effort people, tax payers are going through, is there a real benefit? If there is, then I think we speak to that. If we are speaking to a failure rate of 6-8%, then is that worth it?

[rugbysecondrow]

36 years as a Realtor. You would be amazed how few clients gave much consideration to living close to their places of employment and how that could affect their lives---and the lives of others.

I believe this. As an Urban Planner, it was shocking the decisions people make.

The best way to curb commuting and car use is not by cars, but by controlling development. Cheaper land further out, lower MPG cars only encourages people to move even further out, thus negating the low MPG.

[AngryScientist]

thus negating the low MPG.

this is a huge point.

after all, who's doing better by the environment, the guy who lives 2 miles from his shop and drives a F250, or the guy with the 100 mile RT commute daily, smugly driving his Prius and telling everyone how great the fuel economy is.

[palincss]

If we are speaking to a failure rate of 6-8%, then is that worth it?

Source? Computed how? If you get your car repaired prior to getting it inspected because you don't want to have to go through the inspection twice does that count as part of the failure rate? Are you speaking of safety inspections as well as emissions inspections?

Every time somebody replaces a set of bald tires or worn out brakes because they're afraid they'll fail inspection or because they have failed inspection, inspection is worth it.

[oldpotatoe]

I remember hearing something on NPR awhile back about the huge cost of enforcement of emissions testing and how it is actually rather ineffective.

They're supposition was that a very few cars pollute and most of those cars are driven by knowing owners who bypass the expensive enforcement of inspections. The argument being that states/cities/counties should be installing sniffers at the point of origin. In other words you drive past a sniffer and it takes a picture of you, and your car, and you get a ticket for not meeting the ordinance. As opposed to everyone having to pay for a yearly check up.

I live in an area with no inspections at all. Never mind emissions testing.
I thought it quite strange when I first moved here because I had always lived in an area with some kind of inspection process.
Now that I've lived here for almost 2 decades, I can honestly say I see no need for mandatory inspections. The greatest polluters will most certainly circumvent the inspection process. Growing up in NE meant we all knew who to go to in order to get an inspection sticker. Even if you could see the road through the floor boards after a decade of winter salting, we knew a guy.

If you want to make an impact, be proactive rather than reactive. Basically, why do we need so many cars? Instead of how do we make all these cars cleaner?

Where in Colorado is there no emissions testing? It's a state wide program.

[dustyrider]

Where in Colorado is there no emissions testing? It's a state program.

Grand Junction Colorado and the neighboring towns. They don't even do safety inspections over here.

[ptourkin]

I believe this. As an Urban Planner, it was shocking the decisions people make.

The best way to curb commuting and car use is not by cars, but by controlling development. Cheaper land further out, lower MPG cars only encourages people to move even further out, thus negating the low MPG.

I am convinced of this. Planning will be a more effective and efficient solution than any technological breakthroughs that may come. It will also improve our physical and mental health, leading to other economic gains. The commuter lifestyle is costly in so many ways.

[pbarry]

Parts of Douglas, Weld and some other time front ranges counties as well have no testing.

[staggerwing]

The question really is, what is the purpose of testing? What are the benefits? Have the benefits out weighed the costs of the programs? Is it a political issue more than an environmental issue?

With failure rates averaging from 4-9%, it seems reasonable to questions whether the other 95% should go through this exercise and whether the government should find a program like this.

I grew up in the general the general aviation world, and my father was skilled mechanic (AP with Inspection Authorization certs). To paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis, there was a "whole lotta inspect'n goin on." (look here (http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Aircraft-Ownership/Aircraft-Inspections) if you want a short list of what is required). As per your line, 95% of the time, there were only minor problems. Now, how would you feel about less testing for aircraft, especially those used in a commercial activity.

It might be reasonable to consider a graduated testing schedule, where a vehicle might be tested at say the 3 and 5 year point, before having to go to an annualized testing routine. After seeing some of our local issues, I'm fully onboard with a annual safety inspection tied to tag renewal; bald tires, bailing wired hoods, hanging bumpers, and non-functional signals are a danger to more than the driver.

[zap]

edit

In Maryland I had to go to a State run facility, with State or contract State workers, with open hours 8:30-5PM and Saturday AM hours. No joke, I spend an hour idling (winter time), waiting for my turn.

Roll all of this up, and you have to question the effectiveness of the system. For all of the individual effort people, tax payers are going through, is there a real benefit? If there is, then I think we speak to that. If we are speaking to a failure rate of 6-8%, then is that worth it?

I get to go two times this month. Went earlier this year to have our 18 year old car tested.....sniffer since it's old.....passed with flying colours.

The thing is, I have absolutely no reason to drive where the testing centers are and every so often I get to sit in line. I don't idle, I turn off the engine.....damn the rules, why pollute more than necessary.

I'm not a fan of this program.

Regarding MD state inspection when selling a car, I'm fine with this program. If there is an issue, I get it fixed. Once it cost $30 bucks (bulb decided to go kaput) other time $299. Legit repairs and eases purchasers concerns somewhat. Never had a problem selling our cars in Maryland.

[rugbysecondrow]

Source? Computed how? If you get your car repaired prior to getting it inspected because you don't want to have to go through the inspection twice does that count as part of the failure rate? Are you speaking of safety inspections as well as emissions inspections?

Every time somebody replaces a set of bald tires or worn out brakes because they're afraid they'll fail inspection or because they have failed inspection, inspection is worth it.


I posted 2 links above. Maryland had a reported an averaged pass rate of 92%. This means they failed the full inspection, including a Check Engine light.

http://cnsmaryland.org/2013/05/16/japanese-cars-represent-best-worst-of-maryland-auto-emissions-tests/

[rugbysecondrow]

I don't think standards for emissions testing should be compared with those for flying objects.



I grew up in the general the general aviation world, and my father was skilled mechanic (AP with Inspection Authorization certs). To paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis, there was a "whole lotta inspect'n goin on." (look here (http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Aircraft-Ownership/Aircraft-Inspections) if you want a short list of what is required). As per your line, 95% of the time, there were only minor problems. Now, how would you feel about less testing for aircraft, especially those used in a commercial activity.

It might be reasonable to consider a graduated testing schedule, where a vehicle might be tested at say the 3 and 5 year point, before having to go to an annualized testing routine. After seeing some of our local issues, I'm fully onboard with a annual safety inspection tied to tag renewal; bald tires, bailing wired hoods, hanging bumpers, and non-functional signals are a danger to more than the driver.

[pff]

How so?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They cling to their cars like the NRA to firearms although they don't have an ancient constitutional amendment to misinterpret when they want to argue their case. If a politican were to suggest increasing the gas tax (for example, to reach parity with the UK) that would amount to political suicide. If you try to add a bike lane, car owners act like they're being violated. Even a car owner's right to park their behemoth vehicle (parking being one of the many expensive public harms caused by cars) is more important than a bicycle's right to pass by.

Don't get me wrong, I own a car, and I'm not campaigning to change the world, but only because I don't think it's as fun a way to fritter away my time as tooling around on my bike is.

[cmbicycles]

We check in VA, but trucks seem to be exempt (at least I can only imagine they are, considering how often I see them poring black smoke into the air).
Only northern VA has emissions inspection, we have no emission inspection in Richmond.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

[Bradford]

Parts of Douglas, Weld and some other time front ranges counties as well have no testing.

Ever drive by one of these white vans, usually on an on ramp? They are checking your emissions.

http://aircarecolorado.com/rapidscreen/how-i/

[dustyrider]

Ever drive by one of these white vans, usually on an on ramp? They are checking your emissions.

http://aircarecolorado.com/rapidscreen/how-i/

Yes I have, but only when I have to go to the front range. Over the years I've been by them in emission stripped '86 and '03 Subarus and never heard from anyone. Wonder what their doing with the records?

[pbarry]

Yes I have, but only when I have to go to the front range. Over the years I've been by them in emission stripped '86 and '03 Subarus and never heard from anyone. Wonder what their doing with the records?

Supposedly, if you pass one of these 3 or 4 times within 12 months and are within regs and the camera gets a good shot of your plate, then you get a free pass the next time a test is due. I've made the quota several times through the years, but no free cigar.

[oldpotatoe]

Supposedly, if you pass one of these 3 or 4 times within 12 months and are within regs and the camera gets a good shot of your plate, then you get a free pass the next time a test is due. I've made the quota several times through the years, but no free cigar.

Passed like 2 in the last 12 months, In my TDI..no nasty-grams from the State..maybe my TDI is OK, under real world driving. :o