smog checks for bikes

[rumbler]

The whole smag racket is a scam, it's all about the state making money selling smog credits so buyers can pollute OUR air.

The gooberment determines how much smog a vehicle produces in its lifetime. If that vehicle is taken off the road before it's projectied lifetime, the amount of smog it would have produced is available for purchase in the form of "smog credits". A business or gov't agency can purchase these credits and emit that much smog into the air.

How does this make OUR air cleaner??? Do you really support this?

 

[jbt56]

You have to remember, agencies such as the EPA and CARB exist only to keep themselves alive. If they adopted something as simple as sticking a probe up a tailpipe, they'd have to eliminate 3/4 of their staff. That would, of course, reduce their budget, which NO government agency will ever let happen. The EPA is a classic "It seemed like a good idea at the time" scenarios, but now the enviro-loonies pretty much control everything, and it's too late (and too many are brainwashed by their idiot utterances) to get rid of them.

But, hey, that's what you voted for, state and federal.:|

BTW, the bill in question here was, as metro pointed out, heavily modified to where it simply reinforces existing emissions laws- with it, it's illegal-er to remove emissions equipment.

 

[Thateguhate]

Gonna have to lose the exhaust and power commander for this one I guess lol. fawk, first the car and now my bike.

I don't even wanna know what may be next.

 

[bluenoser]

I'd rather CA worry itself about safety inspections than smog

 

[Jimbo007]

I'm glad I've been saving my stock toaster-oven exhaust for the Duc in my garage for seven years. Bastard weighs a ton and I've moved three times, but it's finally going to pay off.

 

[STIdevildog]

I'd rather CA worry itself about safety inspections than smog

Smog is lucrative because they collect taxes from the smog stations. They also make part makers get carb approved so we can legally use the part. This cost them money. They do the same thing in regards to handguns and rifles and it is on the verge of rediculous.

Ideas that make the road safer means less money for the state. If you take junk cars off the road there goes the registration fees. More strict driving test means less cars and less registration fees, smog fees, gas tax etc.

 

[High-Side]

I'm glad I left my R1150RT stock instead of buying a Remus can - although it sounds more like a muffled fart than a motorcycle.

 

[Skidmarx]

I'm reposting a comment I made to a SB435 thread last year. This is not an issue of "fairness". The argument that cars are smogged so motorcycles should be smogged is completely stupid. This is an environmental issue and should be based on data.

Below is a link to CARBs own data comparing different sources of air pollution. I've basically summarized it, but if you want to check it our please do.

madmadmadmadmadmadmad

If you want to look at CARB's own data, click on the link below. Look at the statistics for PM2.5 and PM10. Those are the particles that bury into peoples lungs and do damage.

Look at the amount that is contributed from motorcycles in tons per day (.49 and .33) and the stuff the comes from cars in tons per day (16.9 and 9.20). Cars produces 3448% more PM2.5 and 2788% more PM10 than motorcycles.

Heavy diesel trucks produce 43 and 37 PM2.5 and PM10 respectively. That's 8776% and 11212% more than motorcycles every day.

If you want to believe the hype, go for it. The government is overblowing the data to make a case. Does that sound hard to believe? Ever happen before? Nah, they'd never do that...would they?

People will buy it...sad.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ems...07&F_AREA=CA#7

Below is a link to the EPA's website that defines all the types of air pollution listed on the CARB air inventory above:
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sixpoll.html

At best, you could argue that motorcycles produce a lot of carbon dioxide as compared to cars...but its still 500% less. Instead of making people smog their bikes, we should be encouraging more people to ride scooters and motorcycles.

So where does ABATE stand on this? How can the gov get away with this? Their own data and the EPA suggests that motorcycles aren't much of a contributing factor.

As for fairness, when I drove a diesel car I never had to get it smogged. Is that still the case today?

BTW, all data in "tons per day"
__________________

 

[Marlowe]

PM is just particulates.

How about NOx?

(I don't disagree with your conclusion, but you are cherry-picking data here.)

 

[Skidmarx]

PM is just particulates.

How about NOx?

(I don't disagree with your conclusion, but you are cherry-picking data here.)

Cherry-picking implies and intention to misrepresent data. That is not the case. Particulates are what cause respiratory distress and asthma. They present the greatest health risk to humans.

The point is that motorcycles, as a percentage of vehicles on the road and miles driven, are so small, that they represent and insignificant contribution to air pollution.

This is not a complicated concept.

And that data is not cherry-picked. It is a fact, if you eliminated all motorcycles from the road...not smog them, eliminate them...it would have a zero impact on the environment or on people's health. There just aren't enough of them, driven enough miles, to make a difference.

You want to make a HUGE difference? Smog diesel trucks! That would make a massive difference. I'm not saying that we should actually do that. It would, however, have a major impact on air quality.

 

[Marlowe]

Cherry-picking implies and intention to misrepresent data. That is not the case. Particulates are what cause respiratory distress and asthma. They present the greatest health risk to humans.

No, cherry-picking includes picking only the data that supports your conclusion. Nitrous oxide is an air pollutant, and it does chew up quite a bit of ozone. If I die from skin cancer, rather than asthma, I'm just as dead.

It *DOES* matter, and that's why we measure it.

The point is that motorcycles, as a percentage of vehicles on the road and miles driven, are so small, that they represent and insignificant contribution to air pollution.

I already said I didn't necessarily disagree with your conclusion.

And that data is not cherry-picked. It is a fact, if you eliminated all motorcycles from the road...not smog them, eliminate them...it would have a zero impact on the environment or on people's health. There just aren't enough of them, driven enough miles, to make a difference.

Irrelevant.

 

[Skidmarx]

No, cherry-picking includes picking only the data that supports your conclusion. Nitrous oxide is an air pollutant, and it does chew up quite a bit of ozone. If I die from skin cancer, rather than asthma, I'm just as dead.

It *DOES* matter, and that's why we measure it.



I already said I didn't necessarily disagree with your conclusion.



Irrelevant.

Dude you can believe what you want. If you want to believe that motorcycles are a major hazard to your health you're right...but it has nothing to do with skin cancer. The risk of driving in any vehicle is much greater than the risk of getting skin cancer from the air pollution of a motorcycle.

Irrelevant? Wow, that is an effective argument. All I had was data from CARB.:

I stand corrected

 

[Marlowe]

Dude you can believe what you want. If you want to believe that motorcycles are a major hazard to your health you're right...but it has nothing to do with skin cancer. The risk of driving in any vehicle is much greater than the risk of getting skin cancer from the air pollution of a motorcycle.

Who's arguing for the abolishment of vehicles here?

Nice straw-man.

Irrelevant? Wow, that is an effective argument. All I had was data from CARB.:

I stand corrected

Again, we're not arguing for the elimination of vehicles (some or all types here), so your straw-man argument was irrelevant.

Sorry I didn't make the argument you were prepared to have.

 

[Skidmarx]

Who's arguing for the abolishment of vehicles here?

Nice straw-man.



Again, we're not arguing for the elimination of vehicles (some or all types here), so your straw-man argument was irrelevant.

Sorry I didn't make the argument you were prepared to have.

I'm going to try this one more time. Please try to follow me:

1) CARB's mandate is to keep California's air clean...hence its name
2) It is supporitng a bill, SB 435 that would require motorcycles to be smogged.
3) Based on CARB's own data, smogging motorcycles will not improve the air quality because motorcycle's are not a big enough contributor to air pollution.

There is no cherry-picking. There is no straw-man. This is another example of a government entity overreaching and trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It sounds good politically but it doesn't fit the data.

I'm not post whoring. I'm not talking to Marlowe. He can believe what he wants. I assume others will read this thread. If this bill gets support in Sacramento, people that see through this bullshit might want to contact their local state rep about this issue. That's why I'm posting this info.

There are still people that believe that climate change is fake. They won't be convinced otherwise. Others might be convinced that the air pollution from motorcycles will give them skin cancer. Fine.

But if you see through this shit, when the time comes, think about expressing your concerns to your local legislator.

Now I'm going to thread jack someone's post into a debate over blinker fluid...

Blinker fluid attempted thread jacking only partially successful: http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336634&page=2

 

[corrupt]

Why haven't we installed catalytic converters on top of all these volcanoes yet, damn it. We're so negligent.

 

[Skidmarx]

Why haven't we installed catalytic converters on top of all these volcanoes yet, damn it. We're so negligent.

Shhh! CARB is listening!

 

[jbt56]

I'm going to try this one more time. Please try to follow me:

1) CARB's (original) mandate is to keep California's air clean...hence its name
Its current business is keeping its employees employed, period.
2) It is supporitng a bill, SB 435 that would require motorcycles to be smogged.
This bill has been modified to eliminate moto inspections. it now makes it more illegal to modify/remove emissions equipment.
3) Based on CARB's own data, smogging any vehicle will not improve the air quality because vehicles are not a big enough contributor to air pollution.

There is no cherry-picking. There is no straw-man. This is another example of a government entity overreaching and trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It sounds good politically but it doesn't fit the data.
They have to do this to keep themselves employed. There is no other valid reason.

I'm not post whoring. I'm not talking to Marlowe. He can believe what he wants. I assume others will read this thread. If this bill gets support in Sacramento, people that see through this bullshit might want to contact their local state rep about this issue. That's why I'm posting this info.

There are still people that believe that climate change is fake.
Yes, about 75% of the world's population, including about that number of climatologists. They won't be convinced otherwise. Others might be convinced that the air pollution from motorcycles will give them skin cancer. Fine.

But if you see through this shit, when the time comes, think about expressing your concerns to your local legislator.

Now I'm going to thread jack someone's post into a debate over blinker fluid...

Blinker fluid attempted thread jacking only partially successful: http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336634&page=2

Fixed for you. :|

 

[OldFatGuy]

You want to make a HUGE difference? Smog diesel trucks! That would make a massive difference. I'm not saying that we should actually do that. It would, however, have a major impact on air quality.

You know that big diesel trucks already have to be "smogged" (tested for exhaust opacity, actually), right? And smaller ones now have to be smog checked too.

 

[SLu]

There are still people that believe that climate change is fake.
Yes, about 75% of the world's population, including about that number of climatologists. They won't be convinced otherwise. Others might be convinced that the air pollution from motorcycles will give them skin cancer. Fine.

I don't know about global climate change, but I've lived in LA. Smog is real and it sucks.

 

[Skidmarx]

You know that big diesel trucks already have to be "smogged" (tested for exhaust opacity, actually), right? And smaller ones now have to be smog checked too.

Actually, I didn't know that.

According to the CARB data, trucks constitute a major source of pollution. What's the deal with the modifications (quite expensive) that are supposed to reduce that pollution? Do they amount to adding catalytic converters?