The California State Senate is considering a bill to require biennial smog inspections for motorcycles made from 2000 forward. This could be a major impediment to modifying your bike's exhaust and fuel delivery. I am attaching a letter I sent to my state senator today. I found the address on a site I found on Google pretty easily and I encourage all California motorcyclists to write a similar letter to their state senator.
Pass the word to any California motorcyclist you can.
Rickrides.
Hon. Roy Ashburn
5001 California Avenue, Ste. 105
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Re: SB 435
Dear Senator Ashburn:
It is my understanding that Sen. Pavley has introduced a bill in the State Senate requiring biennial smog checks on motorcycles. A summary of this proposed bill is as follows:
SB 435, as introduced, Pavley. Smog check program: motorcycles. Existing law establishes a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program (smog check), administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs, that provides for the inspection of motor vehicles upon registration, biennially upon renewal of registration, upon transfer of ownership, and in certain other circumstances. Existing law exempts from biennial inspection all motorcycles until the department implements test procedures applicable to motorcycles. Violations of smog check requirements are a crime. This bill would require the department to include model-year 2000 and newer motorcycles in the smog check program beginning January 1, 2012.
It is my belief that SB435 should be defeated for several reasons:
1) Motorcycles represent a very small percentage of vehicles on the roads of California. Requiring a biennial smog certification process on such a small source of pollution is an unreasonable burden on those taxpayers that choose to ride motorcycles. It would seem that far greater gains in the battle against air pollution could be made by regulating diesel big rigs and trains than in attacking a very small and, therefore, politically less powerful, group of voters.
2) Most motorcycles are used for pleasure purposes and, therefore, cover relatively few miles per year. Therefore, a biennial inspection program is, again, not really going to have a measureable impact on pollution. On the other hand, the proposed inspection program will present a significant cost to motorcyclists disproportionate to the amount of pollution generated by motorcycles.
3) The bill will create a burden on smog inspection stations to obtain the equipment necessary to perform smog checks on motorcycles. The cost of such equipment is disproportionate to the number of motorcycles and, therefore, many shops will not obtain the equipment necessary to inspect motorcycle emissions. Therefore, motorcyclists will have to bear the further personal cost of finding such a station and travelling to a station that probably will not be convenient. For example, I live in Big Bear City and it is not likely that there will be a smog inspection station anywhere convenient for me or others who, like me, live in a remote location.
4) The bill appears to be just another liberal effort to impose ridiculous limits on people’s enjoyment of motor vehicles as a hobby. Unlike the average car or truck owner, most motorcyclists maintain their motorcycles to a high degree of tune to insure the best performance. Therefore, it is likely that most motorcycles do not pollute beyond factory specifications. This bill probably will preclude motorcyclists from modifying their motorcycles, much as current laws preclude modifications to cars. This would be an extreme impediment to most motorcyclists’ enjoyment of the hobby and sport aspects of motorcycling, thus sacrificing California motorcyclist’s personal freedom for an almost imperceptible decrease in air pollution—assuming this bill would actually result in such a reduction.
5) The fact that I live in Big Bear City, where it is impossible to ride for much of the year due to weather, as I’m sure is true for others living in California’s mountains, means it would be difficult, if not dangerous, to have to ride my motorcycle down the hill to an inspection station if an inspection was due during the winter months.
Senator, all motorcyclists will appreciate your opposition to SB 435. All of us wish for better air quality. However, forcing a small minority of vehicle owners to obtain smog inspections is not the most cost-effective way to obtain cleaner air when gross polluters are practically ignored.
Thank you your consideration.
Pass the word to any California motorcyclist you can.
Rickrides.
Hon. Roy Ashburn
5001 California Avenue, Ste. 105
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Re: SB 435
Dear Senator Ashburn:
It is my understanding that Sen. Pavley has introduced a bill in the State Senate requiring biennial smog checks on motorcycles. A summary of this proposed bill is as follows:
SB 435, as introduced, Pavley. Smog check program: motorcycles. Existing law establishes a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program (smog check), administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs, that provides for the inspection of motor vehicles upon registration, biennially upon renewal of registration, upon transfer of ownership, and in certain other circumstances. Existing law exempts from biennial inspection all motorcycles until the department implements test procedures applicable to motorcycles. Violations of smog check requirements are a crime. This bill would require the department to include model-year 2000 and newer motorcycles in the smog check program beginning January 1, 2012.
It is my belief that SB435 should be defeated for several reasons:
1) Motorcycles represent a very small percentage of vehicles on the roads of California. Requiring a biennial smog certification process on such a small source of pollution is an unreasonable burden on those taxpayers that choose to ride motorcycles. It would seem that far greater gains in the battle against air pollution could be made by regulating diesel big rigs and trains than in attacking a very small and, therefore, politically less powerful, group of voters.
2) Most motorcycles are used for pleasure purposes and, therefore, cover relatively few miles per year. Therefore, a biennial inspection program is, again, not really going to have a measureable impact on pollution. On the other hand, the proposed inspection program will present a significant cost to motorcyclists disproportionate to the amount of pollution generated by motorcycles.
3) The bill will create a burden on smog inspection stations to obtain the equipment necessary to perform smog checks on motorcycles. The cost of such equipment is disproportionate to the number of motorcycles and, therefore, many shops will not obtain the equipment necessary to inspect motorcycle emissions. Therefore, motorcyclists will have to bear the further personal cost of finding such a station and travelling to a station that probably will not be convenient. For example, I live in Big Bear City and it is not likely that there will be a smog inspection station anywhere convenient for me or others who, like me, live in a remote location.
4) The bill appears to be just another liberal effort to impose ridiculous limits on people’s enjoyment of motor vehicles as a hobby. Unlike the average car or truck owner, most motorcyclists maintain their motorcycles to a high degree of tune to insure the best performance. Therefore, it is likely that most motorcycles do not pollute beyond factory specifications. This bill probably will preclude motorcyclists from modifying their motorcycles, much as current laws preclude modifications to cars. This would be an extreme impediment to most motorcyclists’ enjoyment of the hobby and sport aspects of motorcycling, thus sacrificing California motorcyclist’s personal freedom for an almost imperceptible decrease in air pollution—assuming this bill would actually result in such a reduction.
5) The fact that I live in Big Bear City, where it is impossible to ride for much of the year due to weather, as I’m sure is true for others living in California’s mountains, means it would be difficult, if not dangerous, to have to ride my motorcycle down the hill to an inspection station if an inspection was due during the winter months.
Senator, all motorcyclists will appreciate your opposition to SB 435. All of us wish for better air quality. However, forcing a small minority of vehicle owners to obtain smog inspections is not the most cost-effective way to obtain cleaner air when gross polluters are practically ignored.
Thank you your consideration.
And old 2 smokes would be exempt!
