We will tell You what you can and cannot do

bobzilla said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

When I read how much some love more and more intrusive regulation, I often think about Orwell.  

Amen. 

I can see that, and actually agree. But that's not related to this. This was an inflammatory article, misrepresenting the facts, posted just to be inflammatory, and see it it could bust an argument. A few folks fell for it, but it has been mostly civil, cause anyone familiar with antique tags, pretty much understood that. 

Ranger50 said:

j_tso said:

wspohn said:'They', the government can do exactly that - the minute you take a car off your property onto a public street you comply with the law or get the car seized and probably you charged.  Not sure there is anywhere that you can drive with no insurance. Saying that the government can't tell you what you can do with your cars is stupidity. Keep them on your property and do what you want but take them on the public roads and you do what they require.

Exactly what I said on the first page. The city/state/fed builds the road so they can say what is allowed on it.

Race tracks may not emission rules but even they have vehicle requirements.

Disagree. If people could actually knew what their government is doing in plain sight, most bills would never pass. If the news is reporting some idiot celeb slept with some other idiot celeb while "married" to yet another idiot celeb, the media skirts its  responsibility to report "important" news.

Even the elected "officials" don't want to let you know what is going on in any official capacity. I know, I've tried to get simple answers and get a plain form letter back.

Your points are completely correct. Unfortunately, are not related to anything the folks you quoted have said. 

Im not trying to be political at all. Just ignore the person in the photo if they rustle up your jimmies.  realize that a us president said this quote. 
 

In reply to TJL (Forum Supporter)

Define irony.

Some more background / history on Nevada.

None of this is meant to be political; it's simply meant to give you an understanding of the hows and whys.

Nevada traditionally is a very conservative live and let live state. Rural Nevada tends to be populated by people who don't like other people. The only reason why there are other people there, is because they are other people who don't like other people. 

For years power centered around Northern Nevada but as Las Vegas grew power shifted to Southern Nevada. The people moving to Las Vegas, and to some degree Reno, typically came from states that more legislatively constricted (California & New York) and as such Nevada become more tolerant of more legislation.

Next the landscape of Nevada

Only 2 of the 17 counties in Nevada require smog; those being Clark (Las Vegas) and Washoe (Reno).  Nevada has a large amount of federally owned land and is fairly reliant on federal dollars.

The Las Vegas valley has bowl shaped topography, as well as a diamond shape with mountains on the three sides (the passes are at the points) and this results in pollution being trapped in the valley. This results in high pollution days; Nevada basically started the smog checks (some 35-40 years ago) because the feds threatened to withhold dollars.

The Nevada Legislature and how we got here

The Legislature meets every other year and passes a 2 year budget. For years the cars built before 1968 (I think) were exempt; this was never updated so the legislature passed the classic plate laws.  Fast forward to now and the problem is a Las Vegas problem; the legislature is now dominated by Las Vegas area representatives, who as I've pointed out, tend to come from areas where more legislation is the answer.

The reality

The reality is that we are talking about a maximum of 1500-2000 cars that are not running properly and using the classic plate as a way to get past smog. Even if you took these cars off the road, there would be no measurable difference in air quality. 

The problem is mostly a PR problem; if nothing is done the state risks losing the federal dollars it needs to make road repairs........and so the change in the current legislation.

The simpler task would be to crack down on the abusers but the state lacks the resources to do that. The revised legislation, ironic as it may seem, is the most expedient way to solve all the issues. It keeps the feds at bay and puts the onus on owners to ensure they vehicle is compliant.

Also note; while I'm not in favor of the revision I do understand it. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

I happen to love my inalienable rights.

Me too.

But driving a vehicle on public property doesn't qualify as an inalienable right.

In reply to Tom1200 :

The legislation is needed TO crack down on the abusers, no?  It sounds like there was no mileage restriction on the special registration, which is a loophole the size of a planet as far as circumventing the intent of the specialty registration.

Without properly encoding the intent into law, what do you charge them with?

In reply to Tom1200 :

The article I linked to on the first page mentioned classic registrations went from 5k to 30k since 2011. Granted, there could be rich guys moving their car collections over, but I'm thinking it's more than a couple thousand.

I came here looking for information.  I stay because of the inflammatory remarks.

TJL (Forum Supporter) said:

Im not trying to be political at all. Just ignore the person in the photo if they rustle up your jimmies.  realize that a us president said this quote. 
 

 

 

When I see that photo I think of the TV Show Death Valley Days and their sponsor, 40 Mule Team Borax.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

What is obtrusive?  There is a special kind of registration that allows one to circumvent certain regulations.  People were using that as a loophole to avoid inspections on clapped out garbage.  Loophole is now closed.

The way the article is written, all "classic" cars require that special registration.  I highly doubt that is the case.

While I won't go so far as OP to think this is na infringement on rights or anything like that, I could be persuaded to say the whole inspection process is obtrusive.

Studies have struggled to find a link between safety inspections and reduced accidente. Even emissions testing has reached or is probably close to reaching the point of diminishing returns. Washington did away with emissions testing saying the technology in cars will continue to drive emissions down and a study I read said emissions testing was reaching the point of diminishing benefits and now the main driver in reduced emissions is just lower emissions in newer cars.

I used to be an inspector in TX and I can tell you the safety stuff is out of date and useless and plenty of unsafe cars, don't quite meet the requirements to fail. The most common reason I've seen cars fail is tint, which in most cases has nothing to do with safety.

A good case could be made that inspections are just a tax disguised as something else, and once people got used to it, let's add another one, like the use tax (taxing based on mileage) they where talking about, which everyone with an ICE already pays through gas tax.

Tom1200 said:

Also note; while I'm not in favor of the revision I do understand it. 

That is so important. There's always a reason, and if you understand the reason you can evaluate it. Knee-jerk reactions along the lines of "I don't wanna" (the fundamental argument of so many protests) aren't properly considered. Once you understand the reason, and the route being taken to address this reason, you can make an intelligent and informed decision.

But that's more work than social media fueled outrage, which is our default setting these days.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

That quote reminds me of a Musk quote. It was something along the lines of "engineers optimize things that shouldn't exist."

As someone mentioned earlier their was a planet sized loophole in the original legislation, and the question became how do we close it. The question should have started as, should this exist, does fixing it do anything to reach our goals?

j_tso said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

The article I linked to on the first page mentioned classic registrations went from 5k to 30k since 2011. Granted, there could be rich guys moving their car collections over, but I'm thinking it's more than a couple thousand.

Note 1500-2000 were those not running properly; which is a different issue from those abusing the mileage 

As for the mileage we have smaller commutes here; typically 15-20 miles per day round trip, so many of these people may well be under the mileage cap.  

The question should have started as, should this exist, does fixing it do anything to reach our goals?

For those of us with the word "analyst" in their job titles; this should be the default position on most issues.........especially the goals part.

In reply to Duke :

I kind of disagree about your interpretation of inalienable rights especially since you said "public" roads.  Private is a different matter.  
 

I do really appreciate Tom's brief auto history of Nevada and relevant details.

On a personal note, I have a problem with imposing restrictions on everyone because of the actions of a few bad actors.  It seems to be the default all too often today.  Some people insist on taking away everyone's rights because of the deviant few.  
 

I have core beliefs of personal responsibility and maximum freedom.  Punishing everyone throws a lot of both out the window.  I will always resist that and speak out against it.  

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

At issue is that there is a large proportion of society that have no personal responsibility.  Or feel it's ok for them to infringe on others responsibility in society. 

Hence the need for laws.

docwyte said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

At issue is that there is a large proportion of society that have no personal responsibility.  Or feel it's ok for them to infringe on others responsibility in society. 

Hence the need for laws.

The people that "have no personal responsibility" are the same people that will habitually ignore/break the laws.

Hence the need for law enforcement.

In reply to docwyte :

I agree with you, but I coke to a different conclusion. I think as a whole the country has moved to a lack of personal responsibility and now many regulations/laws/legislation is on the side of moving the consequences of one's bad decisions to other people.

That's why I generally oppose additional taxes and regulation, because I think normally it's reinforcing the lack of personal responsibility.

In reply to Opti :

So the follow up question is:  What's a better way of doing it then?

In reply to docwyte :

I'm trying not to get too political, but if you want more freedom and the personal responsibility it requires. Enforce it more. Your position in the vast majority of cases is directly related to the decisions you've made, now make better ones.

In this specific case, get rid of inspections and registration all together, I belive they do nothing to make the roads safer, or reduce pollution (now, I do think they had a place in the past) and there is research to support that. Why close a loophole or chase enforcement of something that doesn't help and is just a hidden tax. It's not like the tax dollars are even being used effectively, how bad are our roads?

The sweet teat of the government hog is irrisisable to the states. It's the reason we lost Montana-bahn.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

TJL (Forum Supporter) said:

Im not trying to be political at all. Just ignore the person in the photo if they rustle up your jimmies.  realize that a us president said this quote. 
 

 

 

When I see that photo I think of the TV Show Death Valley Days and their sponsor, 40 Mule Team Borax.

Holy berking hell.  Just how old are you?!

Opti said:

In reply to docwyte :

I'm trying not to get too political, but if you want more freedom and the personal responsibility it requires. Enforce it more. Your position in the vast majority of cases is directly related to the decisions you've made, now make better ones.

In this specific case, get rid of inspections and registration all together, I belive they do nothing to make the roads safer, or reduce pollution (now, I do think they had a place in the past) and there is research to support that. Why close a loophole or chase enforcement of something that doesn't help and is just a hidden tax. It's not like the tax dollars are even being used effectively, how bad are our roads?

Two small things- 

I read this and think of the douche who rolled coal on my family while traveling to a camping trip this summer minding our own business.  
 

I also read this and thought of my friend who insists on running 100LL in his Norton when we ride. It immediately irritates me physically. Like running nose and burning nostrils etc. 

Im not big on the govt running all aspect of our lives- but what's funny about those I think I disagree with, is that they say we need more enforcement, but fewer rules. Which is- more government. I don't want it to be, but it's political philosophy - do my rights supersede yours. Individual vs collective. Etc. 

In reply to Teh E36 M3 :

I'm not 100 percent sure what your getting at, but less rules more enforcement, doesn't have to mean more government. It could easily mean less government.

Side note. Your buddy and his 100LL is an easy fix, quit riding with him. If you've told him it physically bothers you, and he thinks it's more important to run leaded 96 octane gas in something that probably doesn't need it, well he's a douche.

Yes people's rights supercede other people's rights all the time, and you can sign away pretty much any of your rights in a contract.