🚀 go-pugleaf

twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong) writes:
> But as for the rest of the stories, I have a
> number of friends who have gone through the Air Care tests already at
> various sites and they have all reported the people they have hired to
> do the tests are first of all not mechanics (had to ask what kind of
> engine you have. So I guess you can lie?? Among other parts of the cars
> they didn't know a thing about), are young whipper-snippers-gum-chewing-
> just-out-of-high-school not trained individuals who just want to get the
> tests done as fast as they can and not really worrying about how they
> are treating the car.

When I went for my test they claimed that, because of holes in my exhaust
system, they could not get the samples they needed to make a proper
analysis.  They said I would have to get my exhaust fixed and come back.
I stated that I did not believe them because both parts of my exhaust had
been replaced in the last year - I did not hear any holes, did they see
any?  The guy responded, "No, but there could be some further under I
can't see - I don't want to look and get my pants dirty".  He was wearing
old jeans.  (It turns out there was a rusty third section I did not know
about.)

I don't know if this has been brought up in this discussion (David
Vanderbyl sort of did), but another issue is the size of the vehicle.
If a CO2 output based pollution tax is employed, my Tercel, even poorly
tuned, will still be taxed less than a brand new Lincoln Leviathan.  That
is how it should be, the use of smaller vehicles should be promoted, and
well tuned smaller vehicles at that.  A CO2 output based pollution tax
facilitates this.

Ken Buckland
kenb@ee.ubc.ca