[TR] emission standards?

[Joe Curry]

Of Course, You are talking about California where nothing is to be
unexpected.

 

The literal Latin translation of ex post facto is "After the Fact", which
means in legal terms that no laws can be written to make something illegal
after the fact.   It is mostly applied to personal crimes but I would be
willing to bet that a good lawyer can put up a good argument that it also
applies to automobiles.

 

That said, politicians like to hear themselves talk and often select older
cars as a good way to cut down on pollution.  Their main points are very
hollow when you get down to brass tacks because most of the older cars fall
into two categories, Junkers and collectors.  The junkers are the ones
emitting a lot of pollution but will ultimately obsolete themselves by
completely falling apart.

 

The collectors will be properly maintained (for the most part) and not be a
significant contributor to pollution even though they may not meet modern
pollution standards because they are not driven all that much.

 

Joe

 

-----Original Message-----
From: triumphs-bounces at autox.team.net
[mailto:triumphs-bounces at autox.team.net] On Behalf Of Randall
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:15 PM
To: 'list Triumph'
Subject: Re: [TR] emission standards?

 

> I am thinking that anyone who fears that our cars will be legislated out

> of existence is being overly paranoid.  If there were no emissions

> standards in existence when the cars were built, the politicians cannot

> come up with new emissions standards for them.

 

I'll disagree with that, Joe.  When I bought my 59 TR3A here in California,

the law at that time required that it pass smog inspection before it could

be registered (even though CA had no smog standards in 59).  The law has

since changed, but AFAIK it was never found to be illegal or improper, only

ineffective.

 

Oddly enough, my TR3A failed the first time, literally because the exhaust

was too clean!  Being somewhat paranoid about the test, I had tuned it as

clean as I knew how; which the automated test station interpreted as a leak

in the exhaust.  Afterwards, I reset it "by the book" and it passed with

flying colors.  Obviously, the standards that were applied were many times

higher than new cars were expected to meet, even then (1984).

 

>  It is an example of an "ex

> post facto" law which in our country is illegal.

 

I'm no lawyer, but I believe "ex post facto" refers to punishing someone for

doing something that was not illegal at the time they did it.  There is no

legal principle that says they cannot pass a new law, making a future action

(eg operating a polluting car) illegal that was not illegal before.

 

That is particularly clear here in CA, where they are in the middle of

requiring that heavy trucks and ships be retrofitted with emissions

equipment (much like they did cars back in the 60s).

http://tinyurl.com/bhp9t9

 

> I am no lawyer but I certainly don't think that most of us have anything

> to worry about.

 

I wish I could agree <G>

 

Randall