California is soliciting 1978 and older car owners to complete a survey - should we as a hobby be concerned?

[demco32]

16 hours ago, ply33 said:

I know that my cars get quite a bit hotter when parked in the sun rather than in the garage. With a vented gas cap it would not surprise me if there is more evaporation and release of the lighter hydrocarbon fractions in the fuel when the fuel tank is hot. And unburned hydrocarbons are a primary cause of air pollution.

Ok I understand.

 

[Peter Gariepy]

32 minutes ago, Bills Auto Works said:

 Find out who your representatives locally, statewide & nationally are & contact all of their offices. Try to speak directly to them, but many times you will talk to their  assistants. Express your concerns & press them on how they would vote if legislation that will inevitably come from surveys like this were put together! Be firm, but respectful. Don't be afraid to tell them how you will vote in the future depending on their answers & that you will spread the word with all your friends in the hobby for or against!

We have a proactive process in place to do this — general elections.  Know the candidates and their positions to determine your vote. 
 

Voting out candidates after they pass legislation you disagree with is too late. 

 

 

 

 

[auburnseeker]

The problem is things like this get wrapped up in the omnibus spending bills or other huge bills and then get kind of slid through.  Though your candidate may have had the best of intentions they may have missed it.  How can they really know what's in those enormous things?  Sometimes they may even know but have to vote for because it is the least evil they will have to let past for fear of not getting anything passed that their consitituents want.  Unfortunately I feel us car guys.  Especially the most serious ones,  are in a very small minority. 

[CarNucopia]

The reason for my lack of faith in California’s idea of protecting us described in one image:

 

 

 

[auburnseeker]

I see that same warning every time I get in my tractor.  

[rocketraider]

I found a Prop 65 warning on a bag of kettle style potato chips, along with a "not for sale or use in California" disclaimer. Potato chips, mind you.

 

Given California's track record on overreaching regulation in most areas, yes, we as hobbyists should be concerned about this survey. Such a survey can only lead to more regulation, and I can about guarantee the ultimate goal is removal of these vehicles from use or ownership in California.

 

You have to read between the lines in things like this.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Prop 65 may well be a conspiracy orchestrated by real estate agents cashing in on the CA exodus.  🤔

 

Maybe contending with absurdities like Prop 65 make one numb to it all, but what an example of sideways government to make a common sense point. Why care if one is not a local?   CA "leads the way" for some sheeplike state governments unfortunately so it is concerning to watch.  

 

@CarNucopia you articilated in one creative post why concern is a healthy reaction to this survey.  Bravo!! 👍👍👍

[auburnseeker]

Problem with alot of the regulations coming down,  is it doesn't appear they are being voted for.  Department of energy just released a big list of items,  many household ones we use they are going to target.  These are people in appointed positions making policy.  The only way voting helps is if some one were to come in and remove the people in charge as they aren't elected positions.  

 

Thus the need to really stay on top of things that are even mentioned in passing at meetings of these people.  As some have said,  if they actually got to the point of drafting up a survey.  They have put alot of energy and thought (if you want to call it that) into it and are not likely to abandon it any time soon,  even if it gets moved to a back burner.   It's still festering there.

 

Once enacted alot of these regulations,  if fought in court,  will not only take years, but from what I understand,  you have to be the person directly affected/ restricted/ harmed to bring suit against the gov.   So an agency can't do it without representing someone basically arrested for going against the edict. 

 

They did it recently on restrictions placed on one of our top rights clearly written in the bill of rights as a group that was challenging the new law? handed down from the Governor after the supreme court sturck down a long standing law that was unconstitutional but took years to get overturned.  It was refused to be heard because it had not yet denied a specific person of that right.  So basically you would have to be arrested or something similar and be written as the plaintiff in the case.   Then it can work it's way through the courts which most likely at some point finally works it's way to the supreme court,  some year down the road,  all the while most likely being illegal or denied the entire time until it's finally decided even when ruled unconstitutional by lower courts.  Now that's with direct written rights.  Who is to say how it would pan out with cars, because driving is a privilege ,  not a right. 

[auburnseeker]

Yeah CA then NY, so anything in CA,  is of great concern to anyone in NY,  especially since NY city tends to dictate how all of NY state lives.   Easy to get people who live in a congested overbuilt city that don't own cars to dictate how people in rural areas that rely on cars and the freedom to move about,  to live.   

[Steve_Mack_CT]

@auburnseeker well over 20 years ago I had a sales job and upstate NY was in my territory.  Not a lot of love for how NYC drives the state, even then.  The relavant point here is simple, what works in dense urban areas is likely not what works in rural areas.  Another reason to be wary of things like this.