by "MarquetteLa" (marquettela)
Published 12/28/2017 at 17:52
by "MarquetteLa" (marquettela)
Published 12/28/2017 at 17:52
No Tags
STARS: 0
Here’s the actual article if you’re interested. Pre-1996 vehicles will no longer be required to get emissions tests in Maryland, which seems pretty reasonable to me.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/28/2017 at 18:07, STARS: 2
Ehh whatever it’s not like this person is making some ridiculously hot take here, even if it is misinformed.
Maryland requires safety inspections when titling vehicles, but they don’t have to be re-inspected to maintain registration. So that’s lax-ish compared to other states with periodic safety inspections.
The likely reason for the elimination of pre-1996 vehicle testing is probably that the state doesn’t want to pay to operate & maintain tailpipe sniffers to test the shrinking number of pre-1996 cars on the road, since all 1996 and newer vehicles are tested with an OBD2 scan.
"jasmits" (jasmits)
12/28/2017 at 18:10, STARS: 2
The scale of pollution created by unregulated industry is astronomical compared with vehicle emissions. I’m aware that every little bit makes a difference and that individuals driving less in less polluting vehicles can add up to an appreciable difference but the energy spent making people feel guilty about going to the store or driving an SUV would be much better spent finding ways to regulate enormously wasteful industries.
Furthermore, if not testing older vehicles means they stay on the road longer it creates a net benefit for the environment as by far the biggest impact a vehicle has on the environment is from its manufacture.
"MarquetteLa" (marquettela)
12/28/2017 at 18:10, STARS: 0
My main point of contention is his claim that state emissions testing is what caught Volkswagen’s emissions cheats....when the cheats were explicitly designed to fool those emissions tests.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/28/2017 at 18:17, STARS: 0
Well technically he only said emissions testing, not state emissions testing, and Dieselgate was discovered by other forms of emissions testing.
Also the VW cheats were designed to fool EPA emissions testing on a dyno, not state emissions tests which are usually nothing more than an OBD scan. That OBD scan is not reporting any emissions data, only that the car’s computer thinks the various parts of the car that affect emissions are working correctly.
"MarquetteLa" (marquettela)
12/28/2017 at 18:27, STARS: 0
The article he’s commenting on is about state emissions testing being rolled back and he chose to bring up Dieselgate as an example of why state emissions tests are good.
All three of my cars (1988, 2002, 2006) have been dyno-emissions tested in Colorado.
"themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles" (themanwithsauce)
12/28/2017 at 18:58, STARS: 0
I loved the line in the article about the expected effects - 24,000 drivers will be affected. If there were only 24,000 vehicles supposedly eligible to be tested then yeah, by all means get rid of it. Seems pretty inconsequential and lets you focus resources on other aspects.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/28/2017 at 19:00, STARS: 0
I agree that state emissions testing is not what caught Dieselgate. Just pointing out that technically the exact words he said, without context, are not incorrect.
The Dieselgate cheat programming was designed to beat EPA emissions testing.
Colorado is the only state with tailpipe sniffer dyno tests on OBD2 equipped cars. Even California went to OBD2 scans back in 2010 . VW wasn’t like, “oh no, we need our cars to pass Colorado emissions!” They were trying to get their cars certified by the EPA for sale in the USA.
Maryland was one of a few states with tailpipe sniffers for pre-1996 vehicles and they’re now exempting those vehicles rather than continuing to operate the sniffers.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/28/2017 at 19:08, STARS: 1
Um, yeah, about that .
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/28/2017 at 19:11, STARS: 0
What the article doesn’t quite go into detail about is that Maryland for a long time has been doing OBD scans for 1996-up vehicles while pre-1996 vehicles get a tailpipe sniff test. There are 2 changes going into effect:
People who buy a new car can now wait 3 years before their first OBD scan emissions check instead of 2 years.
People with pre-1996 vehicles are exempt from emissions testing.
Basically the state wants to get rid of the tailpipe sniffers and they can’t OBD scan the pre-1996 cars. That 24,000 is probably the number of pre-1996 cars registered in Maryland, but honestly that feels kinda low.
"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
12/28/2017 at 20:55, STARS: 0
You know what’s included in “transportation”? Buses, trains, ships, tractor-trailers, etc.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/28/2017 at 21:17, STARS: 1
Yeah, about that .
"jasmits" (jasmits)
12/28/2017 at 22:27, STARS: 0
The US isn’t the big problem here. Also shipping(as in, boats) creates an enormous portion of the world’s pollutants and that isn’t being claimed by any one country.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/28/2017 at 23:08, STARS: 0
Even by your graph, 21% vs 14% on a global scale is not “astronomical in comparison.” Besides, regulating vehicle emissions vs. regulating industry is not an either/or choice. They are not incompatible things which require choosing only one of them at the expense of the other.
As for the actual Maryland emissions testing policy change, there’s absolutely no reason it’s being done that has anything to do with a desired impact on pollution. Unlike many states that allow privately owned businesses to perform emissions testing, vehicles registered in Maryland may only be emissions tested at state-owned testing stations.
These stations perform OBD scanning and only OBD scanning on 1996-up vehicles. They have tailpipe sniffers for 1995 and older vehicles. They are phasing out the tailpipe sniffers, rather than continue to spend the money to operate and maintain them for a shrinking number of 1995 and older vehicles still in use.
That’s it. There’s no over-arching environmental regulatory theory being implemented here.