27
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world

Jay Leno’s star power wasn’t enough to persuade a California legislative committee to pass a measure to allow owners of classic cars like him to be exempted from the state’s rigorous smog-check requirements.

Imagine being rich and famous and this is your political cause. What an effing creep.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In Leno's defense, smog checks for older cars can be absolute nonsense in CA.

I have an older car caught up in that nonsense. The header pipes cracked and replacement parts didn't exist so I had a shop build some. They did amazing work and function perfectly; it's just pipe about a foot long.

Anyway, the smog test shop sees that and fails visual inspection. That super sucks. There are no CARB exempt headers, and OEM is't available. I spent $$$ to put the old, leaking pipes back on, and send it back to the shop. Visual passes, smog passes. Next stop to the mechanic to swap headers back again.

At the moment there is a lot more to smog testing an older car than a tube up the tailpipe and actual emission data which is the whole point of having this program in the first place.

Leno likes cars, keeps his in great condition, and may simply need replacement parts manufactured that no longer exist.

Edit: that said, I hoped the Leno law would fail. I looked up registration for my older car as a "classic". Yikes that's pricy! And has all kinds of strings attached like special registration and have to be garaged. This would be devastating to the classic car community.

[-] miked@piefed.social 5 points 1 month ago

After reading your edit I looked at the bill summary and yea, I don't care that it got killed. It only seems to help large collectors, not the person with one or two cars.

It would be nice if the 1975 smog exemption rule could roll each year.

[-] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 month ago

Or unpopular opinion: Fuck classic smogmobiles. If you want to go show it off put it on a trailer pulled by an EV. Why create pollution for fun?

[-] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

Better yet convert it to an EV.

[-] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 5 points 1 month ago

Actually that is becoming more popular. I just saw one last month that gutted a V8 engine to hide an electric motor. Looks like an ICE from the outside. It was pretty neat!

It's the battery packs that hold these conversations back. Older car suspensions just weren't built for that kind of weight.

[-] P00ptart@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Yeah but for a classic car you only drive on weekends, it doesn't need to go 500 miles on a charge.

[-] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

That’s the rub, many of these things are doing 1-2000 miles a year some less. Their emissions are peanuts compared to daily commuters. The same argument for small batteries is also the argument for letting them be in the first place (with strict mileage limits IMO).

Also EVs are heavy but the body and chassis are really light and often aluminum or composite. Old cars are often pretty heavy, but it’s because they’re made of thick steel with much thicker body panels (18 or even 16 gauges modern 22 gauge steel body panels). Adding batteries and keeping the weight balance even with small batteries is really tough).

[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Virtually every kind of "fun" creates pollution. Even going for a run you pollute. What about doing a road trip in a modern car is "better" than putting around town in an old one when both activities pollute a similar amount?

The real questions worth asking are:

  1. Are these classic cars a threat to public health? (Presumably no, their numbers are small and ever dwindling)
  2. Should the law apply to all cars and when/how is it fair to make a carve out? (The answer is subjective and political and I have a feeling this is the one that actually struck a nerve with you).

Also worth noting is that EVs are hardly a panacea. Modern ICEs are "good enough" that a lot of the immediate health concerns now come from particulates from brake and tire dust, noise pollution (which EVs contribute to nearly as much as ICEs at speed), sedentarism, accidents, and hostile urban design. The real fight is in getting most passenger cars eliminated from cities altogether and rehabilitating suburbs to be livable without car dependency, not in bickering about powertrains.

[-] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 weeks ago

What about doing a road trip in a modern car is "better" than putting around town in an old one when both activities pollute a similar amount?

There's no difference, both should be banned 👍.

this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2025
27 points (93.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

13271 readers
10 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS