> >I would think that a "restored car" by definition couldn't be a junker
> >and therefore wouldn't be affected.
> I'm skeptical too, Mark. It's hard for me to believe that anyone would pass
> a law that outlaws restored classic cars.
Where are you guys getting this interpretation? The reason auto restorers
are up in arms over the so-called junker laws is because one main effect is
to drastically decrease the availability of parts and further projects. Nobody
is worried about the State coming to take our finished projects away. Well,
at least until the next round of emissions pogroms and moving target
inspections.
Use of the term "junker" to refer to legislation encouraging older
car scrapping is intentional. The net effect is to keep people thinking
about Cletus driving his oil-burning piece-o-shit down the road, making
everybody choke. And wasting their time in non sequitur arguments about
what constitutes a junker.
> This reminds me of the scare
> tactics that keep going around about new EPA regs that will outlaw backyard
> barbecues. Utter nonsense yet they keep being passed off as fact.
"Utter nonsense?" Sure, there are plenty of zealots looking for cheap
political shots yammering about any possible negative legislation. But
political scare tactics simply overemphasize some amount of truth. Once
upon a time the EPA started looking at 2-stroke engines with a jaundiced
eye, and some folks chuckled and tittered as they fired up their string
trimmers and outboards. Now that California is applying emissions legislation
to lawn & garden equipment, they aren't tittering any longer. The fact that
outdoor grill emissions are being studied at all is reason enough to keep
your eyes open.
Ron "Catalytic Convertor On My Woodstove" Rader
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:09:10 EDT