I think I'd get somewhat more than "mouthy" if some legally brain dead dolt
was toasting my brake linings on the dyno, as I'm sure that the law was
written as to absolve the state from any liability resulting from the
actions of someone who should have been removed from the gene pool at birth.
gk
________________________________________________________________________
Gary E. Klim - Somewhere In Connecticut mailto:garyklim@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/garyklim/ mailto:gklim@harman.com
________________________________________________________________________
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet4.buffnet.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet4.buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Luslugger
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 1998 11:11 PM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: Re: DML: Junker Law was: 99 Dakota R/T
>
>
> I agree with you that failure to have insurance or maintain your vehicle
> will cause yourself and public problems. The Vehicle exhaust test in
> Louisville Ky called the VET can change the standards to fail
> about 20% of
> the people. This is an administrative change and does not
> require any test
> or standards. The VET here also does a tailpipe emmision on
> motorcycles.
> The are no federal emission standards for motorcycles per the American
> Motorcycle Association. The VET here puts the vehicle owner in
> a box and
> says don't move. A VET employee gets in your DAK and revs it up on a
> chassis dyno. Among other things, some owners have complained that the
> attendants have left the emergency brakes on. Getting mouthy gets the
> police involved.
> So here is what has happened . We have evolved to smaller better
> preforming engines that were designed by the manufactures to eliminate
> most of the pollutants we had in the 60's. There was off shore competion
> that pushed that trend. Something like 90 % of the previous
> emissons have
> been eliminated. We are now talking about reducing green house gasses
> ;translated to mean co2 or complete combustion
>
> ----------
> > From: Mike Crumley <mcrumley@airmail.net>
> > To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> > Subject: RE: DML: Junker Law was: 99 Dakota R/T
> > Date: Friday, July 31, 1998 11:39 AM
> >
> > At 01:57 PM 7/30/98 , you wrote:
> >
> > >Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think pollution was the point, Mike.
> >
> > I think pollution was the point. The post I responded to was complaining
> > about all the people lined up to pay their $60 fine for having cars that
> > polluted. Apparently, in the mind of the poster, this is a bad thing
> > because most of these people looked like they couldn't afford it. I
> guess,
> > by that same logic, they should not have to buy insurance either. And if
> > they cause a wreck and damage property they shouldn't have to pay for it
> > since that money is needed for other things. (This kind of thinking
> usually
> > comes to a screeching halt the day you get hit by someone with no
> > insurance). I just don't think that being low on funds should give you a
> > free pass to pollute. Neither do I think that we should oppose laws
> setting
> > emission standards just because we are not all as rich as Bill Gates.
> Hey,
> > I dread the day that that "mant req" light comes on as much as the next
> > guy. I'd much rather spend the money on ME ME ME. Unfortunately, that's
> > just the kind of thinking that has helped get us in the mess we are in
> today.
> >
> > >Meanwhile, although it has
> > >gotten much better, corporate America still gets away with murder in
> > >some cases as far as the environment goes.
> >
> > Corporate America owns the government through our system of legalized
> > bribery that is campaign finance. When the companies that are doing the
> > polluting pay millions of dollars to the politicians then get invited
> into
> > congressional conference committee meetings to re wright the laws on
> > pollution, the corporations are the only ones who are getting things
> "much
> > better". If you really want to do something about the
> environment, forget
> > about cars (even junkers) and clamp down on corporations (good luck on
> that).
> >
> > >But the answer is not snowballing
> > >emissions regulations aimed at killing large displacement V8's - and
> > >that's precisely where we are heading.
> >
> > Sorry, dude, but your theory about "emissions regulations aimed at
> killing
> > large displacement V8's" is a little too paranoid for my taste. The end
> > result might make it harder for big V8's to meet the regs, but I doubt
> that
> > the people making the regs are sitting around a table going "What can we
> do
> > to kill off big V8's today?" On the other hand, did you ever see the
> movie
> > "Strange Days"? "The issue isn't whether you're paranoid. The issue is
> > whether you're paranoid *enough*" At any rate, never fear. Corporate
> > America comes to the rescue again.(see above) After all, the automotive
> > industry did pay off the politicians into exempting SUVs from the CAFE
> > standards so that the could produce those high profit margin vehicles in
> > whatever numbers they could sell. And how many of them have dinky little
> > four cylinder engines under the hood? (Japanese "SUVs" don't count.) As
> > long as there is profit to be made, big V8's will be among us. Of course
> > that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
> >
> > Sorry folks. I know this was long with little if any Dak content. But at
> > least it's more entertaining than posts with three screens full of
> previous
> > posts and two screens full of headers (aren't those fun to scroll
> through)
> > only to find a response of "I'm in" at the bottom.
> >
> >
> > Mike (Go Cowboys) Crumley
> >
> >
> > --
> > I can please only one person per day.
> > Today is not your day.
> > Tomorrow isn't looking so good either.
> >
> > Mike Crumley mcrumley@airmail.net
> > 97 Dakota RC 3.9L V6 3.55 Auto Rhino Liner
> > Bug Shield Mud Flaps DDBC
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:09:17 EDT