Fellow fiends:
-As long as the clunker for cash programs are voluntary, I can't see how
we can scream if some jerk wants to crush his sunbeam. Its *his* car.
I have no plans to become a guardian of other people's property, nor do I
plan on cutting off the rear of my E-type coupe so I can have a faux
roadster.
-I do not advocate the clubbing of baby seals.
-I *do* advocate strong inspection and emission laws (stronger than I see
in place in my home state, anyway. I can't speak for what happens elsewhere.)
There is no guarantee that because a car is still running after 15 or more
years it must be because it is well maintained. Here in the rust belt
I have seen cars on the freeway with *no* fenders: a high speed left turn
and the spare tire would slide out! These cars are accidents waiting to
happen. I just love nite-time driving and the chance encounter with a
rusty pick up truck with *NO* rear lights.
-I would not resist voluntary junkers for cash programs, other than on the
grounds that they may constitute pollution rights give-a-ways to the local
factory. On the other hand, I would strongly
resist MANDATORY CAR SURRENDERING BASED SOLELY UPON YEAR OF MANUFACTURE.
Strong inspection and emission laws may well force some cars off the road
(by denying legal registration; can't deny the illegal sort). Again, I
shed no tears for the loss of those dangerous cars: be they Atalanta coupes
or 1980 Novas (forget the 75 Olds for the time being). Fix 'em up and
then get your plates.
-Another bizarre irony regarding Michigan law: after 10 years you no longer
have to meet even our state's amazingly lax emission requirements. Hence:
the state provides *NO* motive to maintain your car up to even a minimum
safety or emission standard after that time. Neither does the insurance
industry.
Thanks to those posting info on organizations working on these issues.
Will "You can't hug a tree with nuclear arms" Zehring
|