I hear that.. and agree it's not a conspiracy. For it to be a
conspiracy it needs to have malignant intent if I remember what
qualifies as a conspiracy. I believe this is well intentioned and will
serve to meet their goals which is to try to clean up CA air. And it's
not unreasonable to expect people to maintain their cars, and it's
great when their laws both make sense and achieve their goals.  But
the trouble is that it does not make this much sense across all of the
regulations.  I think part of the problem is that the pollution that
CA has to work against isn't all it's own.. but it's residents feel
the bite from both sides(the pollution and the regulations).  And as
silly as it may sound to be upset that they are passing laws to
enforce proper maintenance of vehicles, it is a burden that folks
aren't used to, so you can't be surprised that they will encounter all
kinds of conspiracy theories... the selling of new cars is a required
result of most of the legislation that is being passed. I don't think
it's not a bad thing intrinsically either(although that's a debatable
issue too), but don't dismiss its presence in the equation just
because the legislation seems to make sense... that could be a
dangerous habit to form.

Jim Akiba

On 3/3/08, John Runberg <jrunberg@mac.com> wrote:
> I get a real kick out of people saying this is a conspiracy to get
>  everyone to buy a new car. Read that on a bunch of other blogs today.
>  Maybe that's an outcome, but to me it sounds like CA  just wants cars
>  to work correctly (within prescribed tolerances).  If it fails a
>  pressure test  it's because gas fumes can get out -- when  they were
>  clearly designed to be retained - right? So the real deal is that CA
>  is asking people to maintain their cars?! Doesn't sounds like a lot
>  to expect.
>
>  What amazes me is that friends in CA say that no safety inspection is
>  required -- just pass emissions and you're fine. In VA they'll fail
>  you for torn boots or worn bushings or a pit in the windshield.
>
>
>  john
>