Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
613 Posts
Yeah, next we'll all need devices attached to our muzzles to limit our CO2, since it's a greenhouse gas, causing the polar bears to drown...

tk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,585 Posts
Kind of a shame, but it is going to happen eventually. It sucks that is will make modifying the exauhst/fuel system more difficult, but these are already illegal anyway and it doesn't seem to stop anyone. There are ways to make your bike pass the test, even if it really shouldn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,498 Posts
It sucks, but if all else fails, eveyone should buy full systems and keep their stock equipment. Unless u are doing radical internal work to your bike, most of everything would be easily reswapable and remapable... Not saying that it wouldn't be really inconvenient, but for most ppl, it would be doable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,041 Posts
The only thing that really burns me about this is that it is retro active back to 2000
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Well, at least with tech like a Power Commander, one could seriously lean-out their injection mapping for the duration of the test, then tweak back to performance mapping the moment the test is over.

Moreover, anyone who understands FI bikes gets this. Methinks the whole idea is simply a desperate attempt at finding another taxation revenue stream to fill you state's bottomless coffers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,830 Posts
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.
I like the letter but lose the word liberal here. You are trying to persuade a bunch of politicians who are largely pretty liberal. Calling them that isn't going to win you any points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
Welcome to the Socialist Republic of California. Only reason why this is brought up because the state is in dire need of some money. Need to cut some entitlement programs instead of taxing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
Just think, the east coast modders will now have somewhere to send the dented stock exhausts they immediately remove!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
You really can't do anything here in California without big brother over your shoulder. Motorcycles, guns, cars....basically if its not given to you by the state, you can't have it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
I watched the hearing of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee when Pavely introduced this piece of work. It should be mandatory viewing for people to watch the dynamics of our legislators at work. It's living proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. These Pukin' Dogs can't get enough of the regulation that they love to pass on to this state's citizenry. They have utter disdain for anyone that attempts to speak against these regulatory shenanigans and it's painfully obvious to watch their reaction and replies during the process.

It was said by the proponents at the table that 2 states in this country have tried this program. 1 gave it up completely because it didn't work and the 2nd, supposedly Phoenix, AZ was planning on abandoning their program because it was costing more than it was worth. The Liberal Democrats on this committee where still licking their chops, regardless of this information, stating that they wish to be the leaders in this type of program with high hopes of this spreading across the country in the name of global warming and greenhouse gas reduction.

Boils down to these mental midgets wanting credit for saving the world through regulation and taxation regardless of it's impact. It's a warm and fuzzy subject right now this saving of the world. One of the dissenters, a Republican I believe...Huff, had some very common sense statements and questions about the bill and it's fiscal impacts on the struggling industry. He stated he had 3 bikes at home, all 3 a different style of ride...adventure, cruiser, and sport and that he would have to consider that as a casual rider as most people are, whether it was really worth owning 3 bikes if he would have to start jumping through hoops having to hassle with the certification process and the fees associated and that many will likely feel the same way. I tend to agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Hey RickRides, would you have any objection to me basically copying most of your letter (making it applicable to my situation in Sacramento) to hand deliver to my senator? I work as a tour guide at the capitol. I've been following this bill and have been trying to come up with some worthy arguments against it. Your letter is much better than what I would have come up with.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top