Hi all

Recently i visited a friend in Los Angeles (venice/sta monica area) and for about a week i used a
bicycle as my primary means of transport to explore the local area. One thing i found was that the
air was much better to breath than here in melbourne. This was apparently because each car is
required to take a smog test each year and must have a very high standard of emission cleanness in
order to pass. It really made it pleasant for cycling as you did not have the fumes which our cars
have due to oil burning or poorly tuned or overtuned engines. You did not feel the need to go to the
front at lights. (despite their very strict emissions they still have terrible smog due to the sheer
number of cars-probably as many as all aus, within one windless basin-but i was not in the smog
areas luckily) Anyway, my point is that having stricter emissions controls on cars made things MUCH
more pleasant for cycling-any cyclist who wants to make their trip more enjoyable should write to
their mp and request anual smog checks for cars in aus. Its about time we had this.

andy

should write to their mp and request anual smog checks for cars in aus. Its
: about time we had this.
:
: andy
:

In NSW there was talk of this a few years back. I don't know what happened but there are problems.
Maybe there was successful lobbying by the mechanics over the tooling required. I know they bitched
about tooling when they brought in that braking analyser. This is not really an excuse because RTA
checking stations could do it and maybe limit it to once each 5 years.

You have to remember that it would render a lot of older cars non-compliant. This would create an
unfair burden on people that could not afford modern cars. You could suggest a national old car
buy-back? Don't know if that one would win votes.

Pete

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:35:04 GMT, "John Doe" <no_pdrinan_spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>: should write to their mp and request anual smog checks for cars in aus. Its about time we
>: had this.

-snip-

>You have to remember that it would render a lot of older cars non-compliant. This would create an
>unfair burden on people that could not afford modern cars. You could suggest a national old car
>buy-back? Don't know if that one would win votes.

I thought NSW did have an old car buy back..

Anyway, remember that emissions generated during the production of a mdoern, fuel efficient car can
easily outweigh those generated from the tailpipe of an old car.. That steel doesn't mine or refine
itself, all those rare minerals requied for fuel cells or other gadgetry, those minute technical
specifications that need to be painstakingly designed and expensively retooled to implement, and
lots more emissions that I haven't read up on yet, all need to be accounted for..

While the new cars are probably imported from overseas, or worse still, South Australia *laughs*, it
doesn't mean much as far as local pollution is concerned, but we're certainly not helping global
pollution by constantly buying entire new cars.. Wouldn't a new engine, new muffler, replacing a few
other components, and maybe a new coat of paint for good measure, do the trick? It would certainly
save on the pollution generated mining and producing the new frame and all the other stuff there's
no need to replace..

PC

i saw lots of old cars in la-mainly classics-several old aircooled vws-they sounded really really
well tuned and smooth because i believe that they can pass if kept in tip top state-you can have
different objectives for older cars-it just means people have to look after them-but why
shouldn't they???

"John Doe" <no_pdrinan_spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IM4cb.119793$bo1.62483@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> : should write to their mp and request anual smog checks for cars in aus.
> Its
> : about time we had this.
> :
> : andy
> :
>
>
> In NSW there was talk of this a few years back. I don't know what
happened
> but there are problems. Maybe there was successful lobbying by the mechanics over the tooling
> required. I know they bitched about tooling
when
> they brought in that braking analyser. This is not really an excuse
because
> RTA checking stations could do it and maybe limit it to once each 5 years.
>
> You have to remember that it would render a lot of older cars
non-compliant.
> This would create an unfair burden on people that could not afford modern cars. You could suggest
> a national old car buy-back? Don't know if that one would win votes.
>
> Pete

"PC" wrote
> Anyway, remember that emissions generated during the production of a mdoern, fuel efficient car
> can easily outweigh those generated from the tailpipe of an old car.. That steel doesn't mine or
> refine itself,

A couple of years ago I saw some stats that suggested that manufacturing a new car generates about
the same amount of pollutants as will come out of the tailpipe in nine or ten years.

I would love the gov't to make me an offer on my 1980 1800cc Ford Courier ute. But would any of you
taxpayers want to contribute to it?
:-)

There was a proposal to the Fed parliament about 5 or so years ago that the gov't pay $1000 each to
buy back every car at age 20. I'd be happy to get that for my ute, but my dad would be very upset if
they offered him that for his 1927 Model T, or his 1929 Plymouth, or even his 1943 Ford Jeep.

Theo

"John Doe" <no_pdrinan_spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IM4cb.119793$bo1.62483@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> : should write to their mp and request anual smog checks for cars in aus.
> Its
> : about time we had this.
> :
> : andy
> :
>
>
> In NSW there was talk of this a few years back. I don't know what
happened
> but there are problems. Maybe there was successful lobbying by the mechanics over the tooling
> required. I know they bitched about tooling
when
> they brought in that braking analyser. This is not really an excuse
because
> RTA checking stations could do it and maybe limit it to once each 5 years.
>
> You have to remember that it would render a lot of older cars
non-compliant.
> This would create an unfair burden on people that could not afford modern cars. You could suggest
> a national old car buy-back? Don't know if that one would win votes.

its always this battler thing that people go on about with this-if these cars are well tuned it
makes a huge difference-just because someone is poor doesn't give them the right to pollute the
environment and make life crap for cyclists- it really makes such a diff to the pleasure of
cycling (and was the exact opposite to what i was expecting in la-also i got a sunburnt head
because nobody wears helmets there...) Anyway-off to draft that letter-who to send it to???local
mp? transport minister?

andy

That steel doesn't mine or refine
: itself, all those rare minerals requied for fuel cells or other gadgetry,

Not to mention a good beverage holder.

its always this battler thing that people go on about with this-if these
: cars are well tuned it makes a huge difference-just because someone is poor doesn't give them the
: right to pollute the environment and make life crap for cyclists-

I don't see what cyclists have to do with it. Pollution makes life crap for everyone - cyclists,
motorists pedetrians alike. That said. You have to be socially responsible. Sometimes ideas look
good on the surface but making cars only available to the rich just reinforces the poverty cycle.
You cannot blame one part of the population for this. If we had a cheap, reliable, and convenient
public transport system then yes... take the cars off those that cannot afford to have them
maintained. Unfortunately it seems that buses and trains don't win votes... sadly roads do.

Pete

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:24:03 GMT, "John Doe" <no_pdrinan_spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>: its always this battler thing that people go on about with this-if these cars are well tuned it
>: makes a huge difference-just because someone is poor doesn't give them the right to pollute the
>: environment and make life crap for cyclists-

>I don't see what cyclists have to do with it. Pollution makes life crap for everyone - cyclists,
>motorists pedetrians alike. That said. You have to be socially responsible. Sometimes ideas look
>good on the surface but making cars only available to the rich just reinforces the poverty cycle.
>You cannot blame one part of the population for this. If we had a cheap, reliable, and convenient
>public transport system then yes... take the cars off those that cannot afford to have them
>maintained. Unfortunately it seems that buses and trains don't win votes... sadly roads do.

That's a bit of a furphy - especially given recent publicity about the fact that people care more
about public transport than they do about child abuse..

--
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...5E1702,00.html The community rates child
abuse really low, it rates it after problems with public transport and council rates.
--

Problem is that pollies need to manage a project closely and get it right from the start for a
PT project to win votes. It requires effort. Meanwhile, there are enough brains around the
roads department to build successful freeways and tollways without said politician having to
make much effort.

Oh, one other thing - pollies may not feel like making an effort to improve PT, but any talk about
cutting services is a political, well, to borrow from YM, a bed of nails. One vote gained, ten lost.
Just look at the debacle that Costa is stirring up in NSW with his idiotic suggestions. It's a shame
that the election is 3 1/2 years off.

PC

I wonder how many car owners actually weigh up the true expense of owning a car, new or old, and decide that the added financial burden would outstrip the convenience of owning a car. This would have to include a commitment to regular maintenance of an older vehicle.

I see far to many old bombs on the road. No brakes, no lights, smokey exhaust. This is socially irresponsible. I think the fact that you see so many older cars in tip top shape in the United States not only points to their strict laws regarding maintenance but is also indicative of their passion for their motor cars. The Aussie public just do not have that sort of passion for their cars. Even though we feel that owning a car is our right and is the norm. So often the bomb is just regarded as a necessity.

I believe that a lot of people only own cars because it's "the norm". No thought actually goes into it. Especially with ease of finance, the hard sell from car companies, and the oversupply of new vehicles on the market.

That's a bit of a furphy - especially given recent publicity about the
: fact that people care more about public transport than they do about child abuse..

This maybe a little misleading though. So where do they rate roads and traffic - was that included?
I think you have to look at it from the individuals POV. They are probably not giving much weight to
child abuse because it does not affect them directly and only affects a small percentage of the
population. There are sympathetic people out there as you seem to be one (which is a good thing) but
most people are only interested in their lot in life.

Governments are not doing their poling correctly (Especially in Sydney - with the constant splurge
on freeways and link roads) if it is true that people would prefer a good public transport system
over using their car to get around.

: Problem is that pollies need to manage a project closely and get it right from the start for a PT
: project to win votes. It requires effort.

Not really... The sort of PT investment we need will take longer than a term of government. Most
voters can only see what happened in the last couple of months.

Meanwhile, there are enough brains around the roads
: department to build successful freeways and tollways without said politician having to make
: much effort.

Apart from funding.

: One vote gained, ten lost. Just look at the debacle that Costa is stirring up in NSW with his
: idiotic suggestions.
:
:

You would find that most of the NSW population don't care about PT.. In fact he is probably gaining
votes because most of NSW don't use PT and don't want to. When people cost using a car they often
only include the cost of fuel. Costa himself is using the figures that only a small percentage use
PT but everyone is paying. Even with those idiotic comments I still fail to hear the media ask the
obvious questions about road users being advantaged by PT users. It keeps them off the roads. The
government has to build less roads if it has a cheap PT system. Hell I reckon PT should be free. You
would see a sharp drop in the use of cars... Followed by a sharp drop in the use of Petrol...
Followed by a sharp drop in petrol tax revenue... They wouldn't want that now. They would have to
find another way to raise revenue and that is never popular. People get used to paying a type of
tax. They never like new taxes whether or not its replacing a different one.

:It's a shame that the election is 3 1/2 years off.

Costa is not going to make a difference to the election but he will piss off most of us PT users. I
don't own a car personally. I ride and catch PT 90% of the time. I love PT and wish that it was
better to get people off the roads.

so many older cars in tip top shape in the United States not only points
: to their strict laws regarding maintenance but is also indicative of their passion for their
: motor cars.

You obviously have not spent much time in the US. They may not blow as much smoke but their cars are
much much bigger. Our largest passenger car would be classed as a compact in their eyes. One of my
colleagues that lives in Chicago told me that you just get used to it. As I only travel over their
several times a year I still shake my head at the monsters.

Pete

In article <g2wcb.122156$bo1.51451@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, no_pdrinan_spam@hotmail.com says...
> : Problem is that pollies need to manage a project closely and get it right from the start for a
> : PT project to win votes. It requires effort.
>
> Not really... The sort of PT investment we need will take longer than a term of government. Most
> voters can only see what happened in the last couple of months.

I think that's an easy excuse to dish out, and doesn't really give respect to voters. Take Kennett
as an example. During his initial election campaign he said under his g'ment things were going to
get bad in the short term, but to stick with him and in the long run they'd be better. He's still
there. Just goes to show people are smarter than you think.

I think that's an easy excuse to dish out, and doesn't really give
: respect to voters.

No... I don't give much respect to most voters. Having "most voters" win elections. Some voters are
very astute and can see long term advantage. However a lot are won or lost in campaigns at the end
of the day. Weather

month plays a part.

This is my opinion BTW but I still respect yours.

Take Kennett as an example. During his initial
: election campaign he said under his g'ment things were going to get bad in the short term, but to
: stick with him and in the long run they'd be

: better. He's still there.

No he is not. We are talking about past victorian premier Jeff Kennet? Just goes to show people are
smarter than

: you think.

IMHO No there not. Not in general. There was probably many reasons why he stayed in power. You
cannot say to me that Howard is still in power because he took some tough decisions on tax and
waterfront reform. You cannot say Kennet did not give sweeteners to the voters to get him over the
line at the end of the day.

In that its all about a juggling act. They have to sweeten but they also must deliver quality.

I cannot agree with your POV at this point. I know I sound cynical but with reason.

Anyway... Keep cycling.

Pete

<Andy White> wrote in message news:MPG.19dd2ed332c0464298971f@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> In article <g2wcb.122156$bo1.51451@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> no_pdrinan_spam@hotmail.com says...
> > : Problem is that pollies need to manage a project closely and get it right from the start for a
> > : PT project to win votes. It requires effort.
> >
> > Not really... The sort of PT investment we need will take longer than a
term
> > of government. Most voters can only see what happened in the last
couple of
> > months.
>
> I think that's an easy excuse to dish out, and doesn't really give respect to voters. Take Kennett
> as an example. During his initial election campaign he said under his g'ment things were going to
> get bad in the short term, but to stick with him and in the long run they'd be better. He's still
> there. Just goes to show people are smarter than you think.

???

He was kicked out two terms ago on a protest vote.

Tim