Subject:
|
Re: Car pollution[ was: Re: Conversation w/ a LEGO Rep]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 05:02:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2001 times
|
| |
|
|
Found this unsent message - forgive me if I already sent it...
Simon Robinson wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> > Not like you seem to think. First, catalytic convertors have been
> > required for over 20 years (is that what you mean by a few?).
>
> OK. I'm impressed. By a 'few' I meant that the requirement was introduced
> sometime during the 1990s - but I'm not sure when. Does sound like
> you are way ahead of Europe in that respect. Don't think most of us
> had even heard of catalytic converters 20 years ago. And I have
> to admit I think they only appeared here that soon because the European
> Community forced it on us. At the time we had a Conservative
> Government and in the UK the Conservatives don't particularly care
> about environmental issues - so most of the environmental legislation
> at that time came from Europe.
I agree, I don't blame the legislation of this type on the conservatives,
either! I also don't attribute the passing of such laws to people concerned
about the environment - there is a lot of money to be made by a politician
using that as his guise. In the case of emissions test laws, these laws do
much more good for the automobile producing corporations than the
environment (by increasing the prices and sales of new cars by increasing
the cost of used cars).
> > Second many
> > states have emissions tests that are quite strict, and have had those for
> > years. Finally, we have had a luxury tax and a gas guzzler tax that • applies
> > to luxury cars with V8 or bigger cars, or even cars that are • unnecessarily
> > expensive, even if they do OK environmentally. The fact that we aren't
> > taxed as harshly as you in all walks of life makes it possible for a high
> > percentage of the people here to afford to drive, even with all these • auto
> > taxes, whereas your people can't afford a vehicle after paying their
> > numerous (and high) taxes.
>
> That's not really true. The vast majority of households here have a car -
> can't remember the exact figures but I think it's something like 18ish
> million cars out of a population approaching 60 million.
I don't know the car per capita ratio for the US, but two cars (or more)
per family is not uncommon (IOW, one car per worker or better).
> So what is the typical miles per gallon you get? And how far does a
> typical US car owner drive per year? (For UK: between 10000 and 12000 • miles).
>
> > There are politicains who are going way too far (in most American's
> > opinions) regarding raising the cost of driving and owning vehicles. • Such
> > as, if your car doesn't pass the emission test, it becomes state • property -
> > do they do that anywhere else?
>
> Hmmm - is that if it doesn't pass when you actually take it in
> to the garage for a scheduled
> check (in which case it would be very unreasonable), or if you get stopped
> by
> the police driving a badly polluting car?
That is a good question. I do not know much about this law, which was
only active in one state when I read about it (three years ago). Other
states were considering, and I would guess some more have passed it.
In the US, a lot of people own cars which they don't necessarily use
(such as collectible or historical vehicles). Also, many vehicles never get
licensed or registered as they aren't used on public roads (such as farm
vehicles). The states do not "earn" tax money on these vehicles, obviously.
So, the state I refer to (which, IIRC, is New Jersey) first passed the
emissions test law and later passed a "seizure" law. In the case that your
vehicle does not pass the emission inspection, the license is not renewed
and it becomes the owner's responsibility to dispose of the vehicle. If the
state somehow finds that you have an unlicensed vehicle on your property,
under the seizure law, they are allowed to take it away. To Americans, who
are not fond of the state snooping around their personal property or
stealing their personal property, this type of law is not very popular, as
you could guess.
> In the UK, if a car fails its MOT for any reason (including emissions test)
> then it won't get an MOT certificate until you've had the problem fixed
> and the car has been retested. Without an MOT certificate you can't
> drive the car. There's no question of your car being taken away
> though.
This is normal in most states in the US. Without proper registration, it
becomes illegal to drive a vehicle (and there is a fine if you are caught).
To get the proper registration, you have to pass that state's test (safety
inspection - most include an emissions test these days) every year or two.
If it fails, most states allow you to maintain possession of the vehicle,
but
that is changing.
> The closest we've come to what you've described is that some
> parts of the country have recently become a lot stricter about car
> tax. (An annual tax of about $200 per car). If your car is not
> displaying a tax certificate, it may now get towed away. You'll
> be given a period of time in which to pay the tax and get your
> car back - if you don't pay in that time, the car will get scrapped.
> It's still only an experiment - but I expect it will become permanent.
Many states in the US have the same policy - its called personal property
tax and applies to homes and vehicles. As well as passing the safety and
emissions test, paying the tax is required to have the car licensed. In
(New Jersey) if you fail to pay the tax, that state can seize the unlicensed
vehicle.
> The car tax incidentally serves as an extra 'safety' check. You can't
> actually pay the tax and get your certificate unless at the time you
> pay it, you produce an up-to-date MOT certificate and insurance
> certificate.
Thats how it works here as well. In addition to that, in most (if not
all) US states, you must show proof of insurance (or a bank statement with a
1 followed by several 0's) for the vehicle before it will be licensed. Is
insurance required as well in the UK? It sounds like the UK is copying some
of the US' more profitable tax laws (or economic policies, if you prefer
being straightforward about these things).
> Simon
> http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
276 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
