Quote:
Like Dan SHOUTED ... uh, wait, it wasn't all caps, just all bold...
Oops, yeah. Sorry. Fixed that.Quote:
Well anyway, yeah, we do need laws to protect us from the stupid and the greedy, and others who would endanger the citizenry. Where I get upset is when the government becomes a nanny, doing things "for our own good" that are done so poorly as to be a bad joke, or even create a hazard.
Absolutely right. Guy Kawasaki (number-2 man at Apple Computer for awhile in the '80s and early '90s) put it very well in one of his books:
To make things happen, to make things work and keep working, it's not enough to pick the right thing to do. The right way of doing it also has to be picked. Similarly, doing the wrong thing, even if it's done the wrong way, won't move the ball forward. Many laws and regulations are a case of "right thing, wrong way".
Quote:
Government bureaucrats are not experts in the areas they write regulations for
Often that's the case, but just as often it's not. Many regulators are genuinely knowledgeable in the field they regulate, but they're unable to implement thoughtful, common-sense regulations by factors outside their control. Factors like regulatory procedures that specifically exclude common sense, or political pressure having nothing to do with what's being regulated, etc.Quote:
so we get idiocy like smog laws that require owners to find original parts for pollution control systems.
Yes, on the face of it, it's ridiculous that they check to make sure your carburetor has the right tag number on it. It shouldn't matter how emissions are controlled, just that they are controlled. And installing a '70 Dart carburetor on your '66, assuming the carburetor's in good shape, will make your '66 run cleaner than if it had a '66 carburetor (but you'll still flunk CA Smog!). So yes, there are definitely aspects of "right thing, wrong way" here. But, this one isn't quite as cut-and-dried as it might seem to be. Fact is, a vehicle's emissions performance certification is much, much more than any smog check that's ever been done in any state. It's a multiple-day, multiple-thousand-dollar process, and it really takes all that time and money to make sure that the car is clean. State emissions inspections only do a quicky spot check at a few different engine speeds and/or a few different simulated vehicle speeds, and the standards are considerably laxer than the Federal certification test. The only goal of the state tests is to identify the truly gross polluters. As such, the state tests—even the relatively strict ones—are really easy for any car in good condition to pass, and a pass doesn't mean the car is clean, just means it passes the test. A lot of dirty cars pass the test through a combination of lax test standards, shady smog techs and plain old lying/cheating/tampering.
So, there's a balancing act needed here. The "Anything that'll pass the sniffer is legal!" idea, unfortunately, just isn't workable. On the other hand, neither is the "OEM equipment only, no exceptions" policy.
Quote:
They were quick and cheap ways to meet standards written by ignorant lawmakers.
That might be a little overly simplistic and not entirely accurate. Auto exhaust emissions were an enormous mess when regulations first came in. Somebody had to start to clean up the mess somehow, somewhere. It so happened to be the US and Japan (independently of one another) that led the world on that front, and as a result we got to deal with the results of the clumsy early efforts. Yes, the early regulations were a mess. The science was brand new, and the bleeding edge of knowledge was just barely ahead of the regulations. Much easier transition for the Europeans, who made the quick and easy jump from uncontrolled cars that ran well but dirty to fuel injected cars that ran well and clean in the 1980s, or for the Mexicans, who went from leaded-fuel gross polluters to fuel injection and unleaded gasoline in 1991. But, all along, they were making and breathing air that we decided was unacceptably dirty in the late 1960s.Quote:
Much better technology exists today, and our new cars are much cleaner.
True. And while we old-car drivers benefit increasingly from new techology—why, just 15 years ago, the answer to a question about putting EFI on a slant-6 was a flat "no"—what we have to remember is that in terms of air pollution, the new/clean majority "subsidizes" the old/dirty minority. In other words, it is precisely because the majority of cars on the road have advanced emission controls that the minority without controls is tolerable. Anything that would tend to reduce this "subsidy", such as fitting a new/clean car with an old/dirty engine, would also tend to reduce the degree to which it's tolerable to drive an old car. Lesson: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, BECAUSE YOU MIGHT JUST GET IT!