What was behind California's survey of older car owners?

[1935Packard]

A while back there was a thread on a survey California sent to some classic car owners about where and how their cars were stored, how often they drove them, etc., which some took as a sign that California might be looking to add more regulations on classic car ownership. (See thread below.)  

 

An article in the latest Hagerty Driver's Club magazine, a columnist has a different take.  According to the former and current people at the CARB that he spoke to, the point of the survey was to build the factual case to drop emissions testing for older cars.  Here's the article for those interested. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10 by 1935Packard (see edit history)

[30DodgePanel]

Playing the devils advocate as someone who's experienced a similar law....

 

Ever have that family member or friend that always asks for help or money only to burn you and cause more mistrust in the end?

 

There's a reason most of us have a ongoing lack of trust with our friend (insert your most recent deceitful government agency here______) and the acronym CARB almost implies they are coming for us, however, if we choose to take a completely defensive victim stance and they actually do mean well in the end how will we know for sure? 

 

Personally I would trust the survey, well... sort of, kind of.. maybe, maybe not... . Point being is most of us would like to be able to trust those agencies but they've made it notoriously difficult, and to continue to paint those that question authority as conspiracy theorists are equally detrimental to progress and dialog. What ever happended to open discussions free thought and speech anyway?

 

If recent government agencies track records had a more favorable outcome for it's citizenship, maybe folks would be more apt to accept it as a greater good?

I'm hopeful this "friend" will follow through on this extention of grace as folks fill out the survey because I do believe it's nothing to be alarmed about. 

 

Here in AZ a similar law was passed in 2005 that took several years for the EPA redtape to approve then was eventually settled that any vehicle under 1967 is exempt from emissions testing thanks to a similar approach by our state (implemented by a radical Governor who I did not side with ideologically by the way). Whether or not CA will follow through and can be trusted is yet to be seen. I'll not be holding my breath (especially with that state gov) but am hopeful for those fellow hobbyists. 

 

Most of you probably know where I stand when it comes to wack job governments like CA, but I would fill it out based on what I now know about the test questions and witnessing the benefits for collectors of a similar law in effect. Here is a summarization of the questionaire

 

- what county is the car mostly used in
- approximate odometer reading
- approximate miles put on in a year
- how frequently driven (the multiple choices went down from daily, weekly, to once a month, to a few times a year).
- where the car is kept - enclosed garage, car port, out in the open, etc.
- what is done with the gas tank if the car isn't going to be used in a while, with multiple choices from "nothing", to draining the gas tank, and various choices involving adding fuel stabilizer.
 

 

 

 

Edited January 10 by 30DodgePanel (see edit history)

[Littlestown Mike]

Even if the purpose of the survey was completely benign or even helpful to old car owners, there is always the possibility that someone not connected with that syrvey will stumble upon it and then use the results for evil purposes.  Sorry to be so cynincal--but I have learned some things over the past 75 years and " I am from the government and I am here to help you"is  phrase that I always greet with caution.

[Lee H]

50 minutes ago, Littlestown Mike said:

Even if the purpose of the survey was completely benign or even helpful to old car owners, there is always the possibility that someone not connected with that syrvey will stumble upon it and then use the results for evil purposes.  Sorry to be so cynincal--but I have learned some things over the past 75 years and " I am from the government and I am here to help you"is  phrase that I always greet with caution.

Agree. I started reading Car and Driver back in the early 70’s, back when David E. Davis was the closest thing to reading Ayn Rand in automotive journalism. Any new nanny government regulation was thoroughly derided. After he left, I continued my subscription, but the writing became more and more bland, and while Aaron Robinson may be a car guy, his editorials never gave me the impression of also being a libertarian, small government guy. As with anything these days, take with a large grain of salt.

[CarNucopia]

My take is Mr. Robinson unwittingly gives a great example of why people should be cynical about government. Testing of old cars has been in place for decades and they are just now starting to collect data to see if it's an effective use of resources? The fact that they have tested nearly a million old cars a year and still lack the metrics and insight to properly evolve the program is a measure of just how incompetent they are. 

Edited January 10 by CarNucopia (see edit history)

[plymouthcranbrook]

Here in beautiful Illinois no vehicle made before 1996 is tested in any manner.

[Jack Bennett]

If one needs a refresher on how “Kentucky windage” is applied, it isn’t necessary to look up a octogenarian, B-29 tail gunner, and ask about leading a WWII German fighter plane.

Simply ask any duck hunter and they will tell you that the surest way to miss every duck you fire at is to let it know you’re shooting at IT.

Commercialism is the same way, and information is a marketable product if it can be acquired in a timely and surreptitious manner.

I have no doubts that the survey has some valid, and perhaps very important goals in mind. But I am equally sure that, as with even answering a phishing phone call, just replying to the survey provides a wealth of information to whomever has access to it after it is submitted.

Sadly, being identified as the owner/collector/driver of a antique or classic car points a finger directly at you as being past middle age, probably retired, or near to it, having access to “spare space” i.e. a garage or warehouse, in which to keep/store your vehicle, and this all speaks of money.

The OP of the thread says that the survey was sent directly to the classic car owners. This openly announces that they have already searched the records at DMV, and have singled out their targeted audience. 
It appears that CARB is an agency which is funded, and functions, as a government entity within the State of California, and as such, have no need to ask private citizens for squat. They simply go to the “system”, find whatever information they seek, bend and distort it as felt necessary to fit their agenda, and introduce it as a statute, regulation or law…….done and done!

Washington State has a thing called Rapid Transit Authority (RTA), which is called a “fee”, rather than a “tax”, so it cannot be repealed by the voters, albeit this has been attempted (passed but denied) twice by Washington State voters. This fee adds a considerable amount to the cost of registering a vehicle in the state, and, admittedly, is to pay off a debt incurred to build a rapid transit rail network not expected to be completed for another 30 years.

We (Washingtonian’s) have no say in this matter, as we didn’t in the absurd vehicle emissions test which netted the government $30.00 every other year, from nearly every vehicle owner in the state. And the program continued to flourish in its state of total absurdity until it was made obviously apparent that the program was a rip-off since one of the test stations was located at the end of the McChord Air Field runway where hundreds of aircraft land and take off every day, and dump tons of exhaust emissions directly onto the test station. So, the little probe inserted into the tail pipe of your car/truck/motor home is actually sampling the emissions of a C-121 or C-17 cargo plane, and you will receive a “failed emissions test” and sent to a certified repair facility to have the car repaired.

Is it any surprise that the mandatory requirement to have your vehicle emission tested every other year was dropped with no reasons given?

Edited January 10 by Jack Bennett (see edit history)

[Grimy]

I'm in California, in the SF Bay Area which is also subject to the more dire mandates of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and I now have seven vehicles between 1918 and 1948 registered, and did NOT receive the questionnaire.  It would have been useful if the distribution of year models subject to the questionnaire had been specified.  I *suspect* that the vast majority were cars newer than 1970, even because that population represents the vast majority of pre-2000 vehicles registered, (as the article states) to consider reducing the onerous smog requirements on post-1975 automobiles.  Indeed, I sold my 1981 Mercedes 280SL (gray market) because of the biennial smog test which required complex detuning (temporarily--I think the statute of limitations has expired) that made the car run terribly. 

 

Back in 2009, I sent the following nastygram to the BAAQMD after receiving *four* letters inviting me to submit my collector cars for crushing.  No one ever responded to my letter, but the letters stopped--I don't know whether only I was exempted or whether my suggestion was implemented.  Bear in mind this was 15 years ago.  Also I suggest that we address complaints to ALL board members rather than a single director so that staff is required to provide a copy to each member.

 

Here's my letter:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:

 "Thank you for your four recent individual form letters inviting me to submit my 1925 (two separate cars), 1930, and 1934 Pierce-Arrow automobiles for crushing under the Air District’s Vehicle Buy Back Program.  Three of those automobiles are professionally restored, rare models of significant value, and are frequently exhibited at concours d’elegance;  the fourth is a ‘driver’ that had an amateur refurbishment 40 years ago.  These vehicles are four of eight pre-1950 vehicles which I own, restore, tour, and exhibit.  Three bear Historic Vehicle or Year-of-Manufacture license plates; the last has conventional registration.  Needless to say, I will not be taking advantage of your offer.

 

"Notwithstanding your standard disclaimer (“If your vehicle is a classic car or otherwise valuable to you, please disregard this letter”), I am concerned that sending such letters to owners of vehicles which are at least 40 years old, and certainly those which are 50 years old, constitutes an unconscionable waste of taxpayer-funded Air District resources, because vehicles of this age are virtually all maintained as collectible vehicles, even if they bear conventional vehicle registration.  Really, now, what are the chances that a >50-year old auto is used as regular daily transportation?

 

"I strongly recommend that you have your IT personnel adjust your computer program to exclude from your Buy Back Program mailings…(in descending order of priorities):

 

"1.    Vehicles over 40 model years old

 "2.  Vehicles over 50 model years old

" 3.  Vehicles with California Historic Vehicle or Year-of-Manufacture registration.

 

"I fear that you risk alienating the car collector community from BAAQMD programs with such letters sent to owners of vehicles in the above categories.

 

"Very truly yours,"

 

Edited January 10 by Grimy
added a few words for clarity; fixed paragraphing (I think) (see edit history)

[JACK M]

I can't figure just why most old (and newer) after market parts include a statement that the CARB has decided that said parts are known to cause cancer.

Cmon, a brass fitting or an aftermarket wheel is known to cause cancer? Gimme a break.

Must be alot of cancer victims in CA. and they don't even know it.

[Grimy]

1 minute ago, JACK M said:

I can't figure just why most old (and newer) after market parts include a statement that the CARB has decided that said parts are known to cause cancer.

Cmon, a brass fitting or an aftermarket wheel is known to cause cancer? Gimme a break.

Must be alot of cancer victims in CA. and they don't even know it.

Jack, I think it's chrome or polished cadmium plating that triggers Prop 65 on the nail clippers 🙂 .  As often mentioned, owner's manuals used to tell us how to adjust the valves, but today they tell us not to drink the battery acid.  IMHO, that pendulum has swung too far to one side.

[Leif in Calif]

1 hour ago, JACK M said:

I can't figure just why most old (and newer) after market parts include a statement that the CARB has decided that said parts are known to cause cancer.

Cmon, a brass fitting or an aftermarket wheel is known to cause cancer? Gimme a break.

Must be alot of cancer victims in CA. and they don't even know it.

It isn't cancer victims we have a lot of....it's lawyers! 

[zepher]

1 hour ago, JACK M said:

I can't figure just why most old (and newer) after market parts include a statement that the CARB has decided that said parts are known to cause cancer.

Cmon, a brass fitting or an aftermarket wheel is known to cause cancer? Gimme a break.

Must be alot of cancer victims in CA. and they don't even know it.

The worst cancer we have in California is the group of current govt officials.

One of many reasons I will no longer be a California resident by this summer.

[Peter Gariepy]

 

[Grimy]

Someone in the earlier thread said that California has MUCH cleaner air in urban areas than it has decades, due in part if not primarily to reduction of tailpipe emissions.  I'd like to reinforce that:  Bay Area air is HUGELY cleaner today (state population >39 million) than it was in 1980 (state population 22 million).  Mother Nature didn't do that.  The question is, at whose expense and how much?  So far, I've been able to deal with the 10% ethanol in the fuel by installing supplemental electric pumps on some cars; the ethanol doesn't seem to affect the 1918 Pierce pressurized fuel system at all.  Thus far at least, remedial measures are not that troublesome.

 

As I think I've mentioned before, in 18 years of ownership I've had to replace the fuel filler hose (a complicated one that requires moving the bed back 18 inches) FOUR times on my 1995 Mazda B-2300 pickup DD because that hose is not available in ethanol-resistant form.

[Su8overdrive]

In their us/them zeal, it seems none of the above reactionaries grasp what 1935Packard explained; Aaron Robinson's column about CARB's effort being on their behalf.     Bureaucracies being just that,  such letters as Grimy received asking if he'd be interested in crushing his Pierce-Arrows are inevitable.   So let's park the black helicopters, tinfoil hats, and Ayn Rand, give our computers a rest, and use the winter doldrums as opportunity to go out to the garage and finesse our survivors.

Edited January 11 by Su8overdrive (see edit history)

[Grimy]

@Su8overdrive What I tried to do in that letter to BAAQMD was to accomplish what *we* wanted by appealing to *their* values, namely (1) objecting to the postage, printing, and computer time cost of sending letters that would be tossed and (2) saying that they are offending people who they should try to keep from antagonizing--rather than rant about overreach which would cause them to shitcan the letter without action.  That is, focus on their values.  To have written a rant would have been unproductive.

 

If you are counting me as a reactionary you are sadly mistaken--not that I really give a fig what you think of me.

[Guest]

There are a couple of issues here. First, the survey is directly seeking vehicle data which isn't available elsewhere. Not estimates, modeling data (educated guesses), etc. Specifically, the mileage/frequency of operation questions and fuel fill-up questions. Actual vehicle mileage is not routinely captured by the State of California for non-Smog Check vehicles (pre-1976), except at the time of title transfers, and then it's optional. Fuel fill-up and vehicle storage questions help determine evaporative emission rates and can also provide insight/verification as to vehicle usage, such as daily driver versus pleasure driving.  Geographic location questions are to exclude vehicles in counties that do not require the biennial smog checks. Yes, the biennial checks are not required in some rural counties.

 

The second, and probably the bigger and driving issue (no pun intended) is the cost of keeping the testing equipment certified and requiring test shops to have the equipment on hand for an ever-shrinking pool of vehicles. In general, pre-OBD II vehicle smog testing in California requires a dynamometer, a bulky and expensive piece of equipment to buy or lease and maintain. In addition, there are other shop test equipment requirements that aren't needed for the OBD II vehcles. When dyno testing requirements were put in place decades ago, nearly all vehicles used the dyno as part of the test routine. Now, most vehicles (OBD II, the majority of the vehicle fleet) do not require the dyno.

 

There is certainly a case to be made to exempt pre-OBD II vehicles from biennial smog checks, provided the data shows that the cost effectiveness for the emission reduction (bang for the buck) isn't there. Dynos would no longer be needed, along with some lesser equipment and equipment evaluation/certification duties for ARB and the Bureau of Automotive Repair. Life would be simpler and less costly for the agencies, shop owners, smog techs, and affected vehicle owners.

 

As the owner of a 1986 Oldsmobile, I can report firsthand that it is absolutely getting harder to find a smog test shop that can test my car. Many shops have given up their dynos and simply do not test pre-OBD II vehicles, including nearly all new-car dealers.

 

A previous comment referred to California not meeting Federal air quality goals as a reason for keeping the smog check requirements the same, but if California can show that the cost-effectiveness for reducing air pollutants from certain sources is excessively high, waivers may be granted. This may be the approach that ARB is pursuing. That and probably pressure from smog check shop owners to reduce what they have to do.

 

 

 

 

[Grimy]

@Writer Jon thank you very much for the comprehensive explanation.  I agree that the survey does not appear to be threatening our interests--actually, to the contrary.

 

I'm in the SF Bay Area, one of the areas of high pollution concern.  Although my DD 1995 Mazda pickup, a badge-engineered Ranger, has OBD II (it's a late '95, built in August) it is a "suspected high polluter" just by its make and year, and thus subject to dyno testing and must have its biennial smog tests at a "STAR" shop, meaning one licensed to accomplish smog repair.  Its performance on smog tests has always been stellar.  Further, its evaporative emissions system is not linked to the OBD II and thus is subjected to a separate gas filler sniffer test.

 

I agree that the diminishing census of pre-OBD II vehicles is making it more reasonable for exempting them on the basis of cost-effectiveness for both shops and owners.  That will be a hard sell to many in California.

 

My former 1981 Mercedes 280SL, a gray market car, had been DOT-ized, EPA-ized, and Californicated at great expense by the prior owner, a Bechtel engineer, when he brought it into CA in 1983.  I had the certification document of the performance standards to which it was modified upon import, but CARB tightened (raised) the standards when the car was 14 years old after I bought it--an example of ex post facto if I ever saw one, but not the first because I remember having to modify my 1950 Pontiac to swallow road draft tube emissions in the early 1960s.

Edited January 11 by Grimy
added omitted word (see edit history)

[Su8overdrive]

Jon, cogent expansion, thank you, sir.  Grimy, i'd be irate to get such a lame letter as they sent you, but remember, 'twasn't personal; you just popped up amongst the myriad DMV registrations with a car "of a certain age."

I owe you an apology for not singling out you, and of course, the thoughtful author of this post, 1935Packard, when i alluded to reactionaries.   Meanwhile, i meant to say i like your crisp response to the DMV minion, and would like to use it as template when and if they ask if i'd like to surrender my 78-year-old rolling alter ego.    Happy New Year, sports fans.

[Jack Bennett]

There is quite a lengthy, and fairly well detailed article regarding this in the latest issue of the Hagerty Drivers Club magazine, for those who may be interested.