Ontario has a general election...let's talk about emissions.

"thebigbossyboss" (thebigbossyboss) 05/27/2014 at 18:11 • Filed to: Emissions

0

31

Let's talk about the parties position on the most important issue in the world: Emissions testing!

Ontario is notorious for it's drive clean program, where in every two years we all give our mechanics $30 and pray that the God's of emissions testing smile favorably on us.

Here are the three main parties positions and my verdict on those positions:

Progressive Conservative's: Scrap it! (Approved)

Libs: Keep it! (Fail)

New Democrats: Don't know! (Decide already!)

I had cool little images for my opinions, but then kija so here is random car porn break...and the article continues below...

Here is an excerpt from an article about how not effective it is.

"Drive Clean, which is supposed to be a revenue-neutral program, collected $30-million in fees in 2011-2012, while spending only $19-million on its application. During that time period, only a fraction of tested vehicles actually failed the emissions test; just 0.9% of 2005 Dodge Caravans failed in the last nine months of 2012, for example, according to an !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , as well as just 0.6% of 2005 Honda CRVs and 0.6% of 2005 Toyota Corollas."

Here is the article:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Here is the global news investigation, which includes a really neat interactive graph where you can check the fail rate of different cars.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I am guessing Oppo is leaning towards the PC position on THIS (you hear me, I said this!!) issue. In fact the province of British Columbia is phasing out it's emission program by the end of 2014.

Let's see what BC's program has to say for itself. This graph is taken straight from aircare's website and is pretty indicative that the returns are getting smaller and smaller. The new cars FAILING today are doing nearly 4x better than pre 1972 passing cars were.

Personally, my check engine light is on, and my emissions are due to be tested soon. Hopefully, my light goes off before I get tested or its an automatic fail. The Cavalier has a failure rate of 2%.

For Sweden > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 18:15

1

I hear one of the party leaders runs marathons. Should I vote for her party because of that?

Bandit > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 18:16

0

Well, it's a good thing I live in free America (I'm glaring at you California) because there is no way my Trans Am could pass any serious inspection.

thebigbossyboss > For Sweden 05/27/2014 at 18:19

0

NO. I already said in the post THIS was the most important piece of the election....are you even literate?? Geeez.

For Sweden > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 18:22

0

What if she wears Chuck Taylors?

Goggles Pizzano > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 18:23

0

One thing the graph doesn't show is how far fewer vehicles older than 15 years old are on the road. When an owner is faced with a $1500-2000 repair and can just as easily go lease a new vehicle for $200/month and pocket a 200 scrap fee, it's pretty clear cars are quickly becoming more disposable than ever.

Here it wasn't a matter of the liberals being out-voted, but more the lefties seeing logic.

I suspect yours will be gone soon too.

Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 18:24

0

As someone from BC, I had no idea BC even had this. Get an OBII tester and clear the codes before the test!

Manuél Ferrari > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 18:25

0

Can we talk about 997.2 GT3 RS's too?

Sorry got distracted by the car porn...

thebigbossyboss > Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif 05/27/2014 at 18:28

0

It only applied to the Lower Mainland, not places in the middle of nowhere like Sparwood (ha!). I have some months left so we will see if it goes off by itself as it has the past 3 times.

thebigbossyboss > For Sweden 05/27/2014 at 18:30

0

Only if she wears them on her hands and feet so she can't sign anymore laws.

thebigbossyboss > Manuél Ferrari 05/27/2014 at 18:30

1

Feel free!

Zipppy, Mazdurp builder, Probeski owner and former ricerboy > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 18:31

0

My mother's 2007 Odyssey had its first Driveclean check this winter, and it passed with flying colours, not really a problem, since all service was done at the dealer.

If I view this with a technician's perspective, it's a source of income in a way, but requiring it may be a bit of a pain in the butt.

I've been diagnosing CEL codes on my own time for the past 6 months, and usually the light will stay on if a code isn't cleared, most codes have to do with the EVAP system. You can buy a cheap ELM327 code reader and connect it to an Android device, or maybe a laptop with Bluetooth to find and clear codes.

Zipppy, Mazdurp builder, Probeski owner and former ricerboy > Bandit 05/27/2014 at 18:33

1

They're setting up smog checkpoints around the state, and I've been hearing it's bad in the LA area.

DasWauto > Bandit 05/27/2014 at 18:34

0

Emissions testing only applies to vehicles 1987 or newer here in Ontario. You'd be good. It's also easy enough to get a car classified as a hot-rod (modified) when doing the test which raises the limits and eases any worry of failing the test (emissions limits on older cars are pretty high compared to newer cars anyway, iirc).

Manuél Ferrari > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 18:36

1

Hmm let's see how to keep it on topic.

I think governments should subsidize the cost of GT3 RS car purchases. Reason is that they are pretty light and put out less emissions than other cars with comparable power. And they can be daily driven and tracked. It's better for the environment if we all own one GT3 RS and nothing else than owning a track-only car that puts out a ton of emissions.

Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 18:44

0

Ya that must be it! No one know what a muffler even is here. Close enough!

thebigbossyboss > Manuél Ferrari 05/27/2014 at 18:51

2

Rusto for premier!

Manuél Ferrari > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 18:52

0

I will gladly move to Canadaland if you make me Premier!!

BJ > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 19:18

1

I am for emissions testing. Explanation coming later if I don't doze off during the hockey game...

thebigbossyboss > BJ 05/27/2014 at 20:25

0

I am eager to hear your side.

The Compromiser > Manuél Ferrari 05/27/2014 at 22:07

1

sorry, but you know nothing of Canada. The current correct making fun of our country's name is Canuckistan. Thanks for playing. ;)

Manuél Ferrari > The Compromiser 05/27/2014 at 22:08

0

:)

The Compromiser > For Sweden 05/27/2014 at 22:09

0

no. You must vote for her because she is a Lesbian. And looks like a satanic librarian school teacher.

The Compromiser > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 22:26

0

I remember when this came out. I drove truck. A guy had a 5 ton gmc topkick that spewed forth blackness and filth when it was running. It passed. It got the best reading out of all of the trucks in the fleet. Ever since then I realized it was bull shit. That and the fact that my brother in law lives within 35 minutes of my house and is exempt. Fuck him.

They used to test my mazda 3 or 4 times because it barely registered.

Unfortunately voting PC is a bad idea. Hudak is creepy. That mole makes it look like he has a microphone on his right side. I go all Austin Powers when I see him. And they really don't have any detail to what they are claiming that I've heard . Just Mike the knife without any direction.

thebigbossyboss > The Compromiser 05/27/2014 at 23:05

0

There was someone caught a while ago who at dmv who was changing peoples registration temporarily to Renfrew and back so they could skip e tests.

BJ > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 23:23

0

Disclaimer: I know virtually nothing about the Ontario emissions testing laws, except to say that I'm aware that they exist. You should know that I'm a bit of a socialist, a bit of an utopian, and a bit fed up with all the jerks out there who play fast and loose with the rules, who figure they can do whatever the hell they want to with no repercussions, and then bitch and moan when the law catches up with them.

tl;dr - This got really, really long; I guess I had something to get off my chest. The short version is this: Emission testing is part of a system that protects all members of society by setting rules that ensure mutual benefit and by encouraging individuals to make good decisions that they may not have made on their own.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The Long Version

I think that emissions testing are a good idea, in theory: ensure that all roadworthy vehicles are producing pollutants and noxious emissions within specification for their age and for the technology that was current at the time of their manufacture. The knowledge that a car must be tested regularly should encourage the owner to maintain correctly and in a timely manner, in order to avoid costly and inconvenient return visits to the garage.

Of course, good ideas are rarely executed correctly, especially where the government is involved. Sometimes laws are clumsy and ill conceived and get passed simply to prove that The Government Is Doing Something TM . Other times, they are overreaching and dangerous: Your government is Thinking About the Children TM and so should you be.

In all seriousness, do 2 year-old cars need to be emissions tested? Probably not. Even after 5 years, most modern vehicles will be in good enough condition to pass emissions tests without any trouble at all. Unless a vehicle has been crashed and rebuilt, or has had powertrain modifications (performance or otherwise), it should be fine for many years and many thousands of kilometres.

At the same time, there's little harm in doing emission testing. The cost to the owner is insignificant relative to the operating costs, and any extra money collected by the government can be put to good use in many different ways: improved policing, safer streets and sidewalks, public transit funding, subsidies for driver education courses, education, debt reduction, and so on.

All of this, however, is beside the point.

My personal opinion is that emissions testing should be just one small part of a package of government mandated safety programs, alongside driver education, safety inspections, and other road safety measures for all. We all know that, despite our good intentions, we don't take care of our cars the way we should and in failing to do so, we put everyone with whom we share the road in danger.

As individuals, we don't always make the right decisions. Sometimes we simply don't take the time to do so. But as a society, we can choose to abide by rules that ensure our mutual security and benefit. As a society, we should look to our government to help us, to protect us, and to ensure our continued health.

Of course these measures add some complexity to the system. They also put some burden on individual owners. These costs are something that we should be willing to assume in exchange for a system that helps protect us both from ourselves and from others.

Just as - in theory - you can't legally operate a car without paying for your insurance, or registration, or safe tires, you shouldn't be able to legally operate a car that hasn't been inspected for safety and emissions. These rules exist to protect others, and to protect yourself, and are part of a modern society that wants to ensure the well-being of all of its members.

BJ > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 23:26

0

Also, I want to point out that whatever your stance on emissions testing, a promise of abolition is no reason to vote PC.

The Compromiser > thebigbossyboss 05/27/2014 at 23:32

0

that's not cool. I think they need to reform it. Make it a more select group of vehicles, part of registration and that's it, or something of that nature. All malaise era cars would be good. Or make it a citation issue. If you have black shit coming out of your tailpipe, go get a validation. If you pass, you get a sticker for your plate so they don't bother you as much.

thebigbossyboss > The Compromiser 05/28/2014 at 09:31

0

Yeah, having it at discretion of the officer wouldn't be terrible. I heard about the girl at the dmv from a former buddy who used to work there. I know she got terminated, I am not sure if there was legal trouble for her or not. Probably.

thebigbossyboss > BJ 05/28/2014 at 09:49

0

Thanks for taking the time to write this!

To your points firstly I know this issue isn't something to base your vote on, I was trying for sarcasm when I said "the most important issue in the world". Ontario faces many great challenges ahead...this isn't one of them.

"Good ideas are rarely executed directly when government is involved." Agree entirely.

"We all know that, despite our good intentions, we don't take care of our cars the way we should and in failing to do so, we put everyone with whom we share the road in danger."

Agreed with that. That is why I don't have a problem with things like BC's or Quebec's winter tires law or safety inspections to sell vehicles. Now...is the car producing one more gram of Co2 per km driven (or whatever...I know next to nothing about particulates) putting you in as much danger as someone who is driving on 3 bald summer tires? I think it's pretty clear the danger to your health is a lot smaller. For starters you won't suffer potential injuries from colliding with it.

I approve of emissions controls put on vehicles at time of manufacture, but in my mind emissions testing "protection" has been usurped by increasingly strict federal emissions controls (which I favour). I went to Beijing once (a city with just about no emissions controls), I wouldn't ever want to live there.

As per my graph, I see the marginal utility of the program decreasing, to the point of pretty marginal returns. My argument wasn't whether government in general is good or bad, it's whether this program provides value for money in protecting us from noxious car emissions, and given all the federal controls on the subject these days...it doesn't seem to in my opinion.

The Compromiser > thebigbossyboss 05/28/2014 at 10:12

0

Don't get me wrong. I would totally take advantage, but I am very social on the sharing of the pain.

BJ > thebigbossyboss 05/28/2014 at 21:05

0

"As per my graph, I see the marginal utility of the program decreasing, to the point of pretty marginal returns. My argument wasn't whether government in general is good or bad, it's whether this program provides value for money in protecting us from noxious car emissions, and given all the federal controls on the subject these days...it doesn't seem to in my opinion."

You're right in that the returns are probably diminishing, especially when we're looking at individual vehicles. And you're right in that the new regulations make sure that gasoline and diesel motors are ever cleaner and efficient. Comparatively speaking, there seems to be no further point in the emissions testing.

I don't think, however, that we can dismiss the cumulative effect of this pollution. More cars are put on the road every year and therefore more pollution ends up in our air. Over the years, that pollution adds up.

Every year those cars become more used, slightly less efficient, and slightly less clean, to the point that they exceed the normal deviation for emissions. If we're not testing these cars, in 10 or 15 years they'll become the nasty polluting brutes on the left-hand side of your chart and we're back to square 1. That would be unfortunate.

Maybe what we need is to find a middle ground - something our elected politicians fail to do all the time, so don't hold your breath. Let's keep doing emissions testing, but not automatically every two years on new vehicles that will (almost) never need it. Let them get a few years and a few miles under their tires first.

But failing this bit of common sense, I'd say we're still better off with emissions testing than without.