Smog check Bill in SoCal - PLEASE READ/WRITE

[RJVB]

I think I'm not getting something - whatever it is that the outcome of the test is used for?

Bob: I think you missed an important argument: owners with a fleet of bikes typically ride only one at a time (and also increase the registration stats without increasing bikes-on-the roads stats) .

 

[guzzibob]

If your vehicle cannot pass the test, then you can't register it until it can.

 

[RJVB]

Which doesn't appear to be a problem for vehicles that are registered already, or does it? The test criteria date back to 2000 too?

 

[Lupo]

Rene,
What is ironic here is we (in the USA) always seem to compare our governmental restrictions to France or Germany. Check this friend....The vehicle has to be checked for exhaust % emissions every 2 years to be registered for highway use or your out of luck, park it. Governments seem to fuck us regardless off where we are Maybe it's time to change that?

 

[RJVB]

Who wants to ride on highways anyways?

I'm quite sure we're headed that way here in France too, and test criteria won't include emissions only. If some of our Brit friends chime in, they'll probably tell you that they already have to keep their original parts to take the bike back to stock for the periodic technical control. Of course here a vehicle cannot be submitted to requirements stricter than those in effect at the time it was marketed (or rather, a Euro-2 vehicle sold legally even when Euro-3 was already available on most will still never be subject to Euro-3 criteria ).

Thing is, we do have responsibilities to take for our environment and its future, we elect governments to take care of the things we can't get ourselves to take care of on our own ... and I just sincerely don't know how you'd justify to Joe F. Citizen that none of the "annoying" rules need to apply to motorcycles. Especially since probably most people will realise that those tests are not much more than a formality as long as a vehicle is maintained properly and not modified in ways incompatible with its homologation!

 

[guzzibob]

It appers to me that you did not fully understand my argument to the legislator posted above. The point is, motorcycles are a completely insignificant part of the emissions equation. So this is an intrusion on our freedom and added expense without any valid reason or significant benefit. That is why the only areas in the country that in the past bothered to do this are ditching it. And we here in the states have historically valued personal freedom rather more highly relative to other values than do the Europeans. Although it would appear that in some circles here that is changing, unfortunately. Oh, and I most assuredly did NOT vote for the guys pushing this stuff through.

 

[RJVB]

I read your argument, as my 1st post in this thread surely shows.

There are a number of things here that I can't agree with out of principle, but I'm not going to rise to the bait.

 

[guzzibob]

I know you read it (per my edit, maybe you read my last post before the edit), just don't believe you understand it. Certainly we disagree.

 

[GTM®]

More info:

HI,
Please check out this proposed change to the California Smog Law, below is the title page only. If this passes, then all "street licensed" motorcycles 280cc or more, model year 2000+ will be required to have a smog check similar to cars and trucks.
Here's the big news, this includes "dual sport" bikes that are street licensed. So, if you converted your dirtbike to a dualsport before they made that illegal, you will likely lose your street plate when the smog checks start in 2012.
The attached pdf flyer from ABATE is a good fact sheet with numbers and email addresses to contact to voice your opposition.

BILL NUMBER: SB 435 AMENDED

BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 13, 2009

INTRODUCED BY Senator Pavley

FEBRUARY 26, 2009

An act to amend Section 44011 Sections 44010.5, 44011, and 44012 of, and to add Section 44012.5 to, the Health and Safety Code, and to amend Section 4000.1 of the Vehicle Code, relating to air pollution.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 435, as amended, Pavley. Smog check program: motorcycles.

Existing
(1) Existing law establishes a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program (smog check), administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs, that provides for the inspection of motor vehicles upon registration, biennially upon renewal of registration, upon transfer of ownership, and in certain other circumstances. Existing law exempts from biennial inspection all motorcycles until the department implements test procedures applicable to motorcycles. Violations of smog check requirements are a crime.

This bill would require the department to include Class III model-year 2000 and newer motorcycles in the smog check program beginning January 1, 2012. Because violations of smog checks for motorcycles would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make various conforming, clarifying, and technical changes to the smog check program.

(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority.
Appropriation: no.
Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

 

[StormShearon]

If the bill goes into effect in 2012, then should'nt it only cover vehicles made after that date and not be retro-active? Sounds like another money grab that is not about doing good - just stealing money from the public to be used poorly by the government.

 

[SgtCrump]

RJVB wrote:

... and I just sincerely don't know how you'd justify to Joe F. Citizen that none of the "annoying" rules need to apply to motorcycles.

That would be easy.......make it apply to lawn mowers and other gas powered home equipment!!!

 

[RJVB]

Oh, I'd actually vote in favour of that ... the rare times I get to sit in a garden I prefer to hear only the birds 'n bees and the bubbles in my beer

 

[mwest]

Petitioning is all fine and good but every CA resident here should really write his/her state rep and senator. As was pointed out, the sponsor of the bill is not likely to change their mind, but there are people that want your vote and don't necessarily care about the issue at all.

If they are not persuaded by you, then it will be easier to be persuaded by the sponsor or more likely the special interests that are promoting the bill. Co sponsor is the California Emissions testing industry. Ya think they may have something to gain from this?

And if you're not registered to vote don't bother because no politician cares what you think.

There will be hearing on this bill on 4/27. Getting your input in at least a week before that is advised.

Here is a link to senate info on the bill. The committe summary is interesting.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_435&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

 

[guzzibob]

mwest wrote:

Petitioning is all fine and good but every CA resident here should really write his/her state rep and senator. As was pointed out, the sponsor of the bill is not likely to change their mind, but there are people that want your vote and don't necessarily care about the issue at all.


There will be hearing on this bill on 4/27. Getting your input in at least a week before that is advised.

Here is a link to senate info on the bill. The committe summary is interesting.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_435&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

Mark, nice to see you are not a slave to the environmental Nazis. What aspect of committee summary do you find interesting? Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place.

"Hearing" on the bill. Do you know what/where that is, what that means? Already reported out of transportation bill 7-3 in favor.

This is now the third area in which motorcylists are being completely screwed over in recent months:
1)ATV's by Consumer Product Safety Commision banning of ATV sales meant for under 16 cause lead content-well, duh, it uses gasoline which still has a tiny amount of lead in it. Really, that was it.
2)Off roaders, millions more acres denied to all forms of off roaders by bogus "wilderness designation because the definition of "roadless" used considers paved only, so no matter how long these areas have had commonly used dirt roads & trails. And while we're at it, this bill rushed through using extraordinary means to prevent the usual debate & timing, despite the same people having whined about how the other side used the same tactics on them when they were in office. Political hypocricy at it's finest.
3)The above smog test.

 

[220]

ahh i aploud all your guys hard work but it mite be to late i think we where way over due 4 a make them all walk the plank say 30 years ago ,,all my fights gone the white flags up it could of been stop back then .now am a afraid when it comes its going to be ugly complete melt down...lets face it were the last of our kind ,,,i hope technical kicks in and save these poor bugarts i mean who going to change my dipper in the old punk rocker homes:laugh:

 

[mwest]

guzzibob wrote:


Mark, nice to see you are not a slave to the environmental Nazis. What aspect of committee summary do you find interesting? Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place.

"Hearing" on the bill. Do you know what/where that is, what that means? Already reported out of transportation bill 7-3 in favor.

.[/quote]

The committee summary is interesting because it talks about the details they considered in committee prior to their vote; that motorcycles create x times more pollution per mile than cars. that modified motorcycles can increase pollution by x, etc. These are the facts the lawmakers will hear before making their decision along with opposing viewpoints I assume. If you want to convince someone the bill is bad, it's best to know the other sides arguments.

Since it's a senate bill, the hearing would be in the state senate building. I believe they are open hearings so anyone can attend assuming space is available. The hearing is a discussion/debate in the full senate similar to what happened in committee but with time for lawmakers to express their views, witnesses to testify, etc.

 

[guzzibob]

Here's the latest, from AMA "News & Notes," for July '09, just received by e-mail:

California motorcycle smog test proposal modified by state senate. Thanks to the efforts of thousands of AMA members and other concerned motorcyclists, the sponsor of a proposed California law to require motorcycles to undergo periodic exhaust emissions testing has backed away from the idea. The measure, Senate Bill 435, which was introduced this year by state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Santa Monica), would have required all model year 2000-and-newer on-road motorcycles with engine displacements of more than 280cc to be tested every two years and will now likely authorize law enforcement to ticket those riders who have removed their catalytic converters. California's motorcycle engine emission standards are already the strictest in the nation and, because of their relatively low yearly mileage totals when compared to other vehicles, the state's motorcycles have the lowest total emissions of any motor vehicle category in California. Riders also expressed their concern that the bill could require motorcyclists to always have a stock exhaust system, whereas automobile owners are allowed to install aftermarket systems, which can be less costly. The emissions testing provision was dropped out of the bill and it cleared the Senate on June 1. The measure is now in the Assembly for consideration, where it could face further amendments.
Source: AmericanMotorcyclist.com/news/story.asp?id=947

So if your concern is actually having to get your bike through smog checks, fine. If you want to ditch the catalytic converter portion of your exhaust system (muffler on Norge, & Breva I think, collector for Griso, right?) & replace with an aftermarket device without converter, LEO can right you a ticket. Also not so good for aftermarket makers. Though, might improve the market for the pricey but very nice Agostini muffler for Norge that includes a catcon that is also removeable.

 

[GTM®]

More... Time to write the governator next.

Mandatory Smog Checks in California Nixed
Publish date: Jun 2, 2009
By:  Dennis Johnson


The AP is reporting that a California state senator who authored a bill requiring mandatory motorcycle smog testing has dropped the provision from the legislation.

Instead, Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) altered SB 435 to authorize law enforcement officers to fine motorcyclists who remove smog equipment from their motorcycles. The change came after it became clear that the bill did not have enough votes to survive a state Senate vote. The amended bill eventually passed 22-17.

The bill now goes to the Assembly and if passed will go to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In its original form, the bill applied to motorcycles built in 2000 and later, with a displacement of 280ccs or higher. Pavley has said that motorcycle owners enjoy an "unfair loophole" because many of them modify their bikes by removing smog control equipment. Opponents labeled the bill as ineffective and intrusive, saying that motorcycles get better gas mileage than cars.

 

[Lupo]

And they probably thought about the money to start an inspection program. They can actually increase revenue by writing tickets Brokeanomics