Comments on: THOU SHALT NOT POLLUTE

By: Gordon

Gordon — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:15:59 +0000

Naznarreb asked for a web site about the testers. Go to Google and look up Envirotest Systems Corp

You’ll get a ton of stuff.

By: Naznarreb

Naznarreb — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:57:32 +0000

It seems I would stand corrected on some things. Does anyone have a web site or the name of the company that makes them? I still have a lot of question about exactly how they work and how much money it might cost to implement the program.

EDITOR NOTE–Fox 12 did a report last night (my Mac won’t play it) showing some of the devices. They quoted DEG people saying of the GUARDIAN, “He’s right, but we will need to change the existing law.”
Even had the GUARDIAN on camera pitching the idea.

By: Clancy

Clancy — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:56:31 +0000

Another GIT(good in theory) What about cars and trucks from out of this area or out of state? It would be difficult convincing someone from Maine they broke a law they did not know existed except only in Ada County.

EDITOR NOTE–Clancy, you are correct. Not even worth sending them a post card. The ones you want are the daily commuters. If they just pass through, they are no threat to our air again. The German cops never sent me a remote photo speeding ticket after finding out where I lived last summer.

By: Wonk Vader

Wonk Vader — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:45:38 +0000

Roadside sniffers sound good in theory, but how would you actually administer it?

It blows me away people in Canyon County won’t pay a measly $15 each to test their cars. I like Banker’s idea about requiring testing at a certain population level.

EDITOR NOTE–The GUARDIAN LAW simply ignores what any other county does or does not do. We would send them a notice to comply and take their license plates if the don’t do it…just as we do with Adans.

By: bikeboy

bikeboy — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:56:32 +0000

I’m in favor of “sniffer gun technology” – and I’m taking it on your word that the technology exists and is accurate/reliable – for the visitors AND the Ada homeboys.

The current emissions-testing law is a joke.

I’m no expert – and an expert can correct me if I’m wrong – but here’s why I see it as a joke:
1) By their own count, over 90% of vehicles pass the test on the first go ’round. (Which means 90 percent of vehicle owners are paying a $15 or $20 regressive “tax” strictly so they can catch the few bad apples.)
2) The worst-polluting vehicles – old ones, diesels, etc., etc., have exemptions built in, right up front.
3) Most amazingly, if the vehicle doesn’t pass, and it would cost more than $200 to bring it into compliance, you get a pass! Drive on! After all, poor folks can’t afford to drive clean cars!

I’d volunteer for “sniffer” duty. When I’m bicycling about our fair burg, frequently a vehicle goes by that is definitely spewin’ the pollution. Usually I can tell before they go by, because you can hear that the engine is missing on 2 or 3 of the cylinders. And after it goes by, the air is so thick with vaporized hydrocarbons that it would probably ignite if somebody struck a spark! It’s sickening – literally – to breathe that stuff. Of course, those vehicles are most likely exempt – like the redneck diesel rigs that stink to High Heaven.

By: Boise Banker

Boise Banker — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:34:57 +0000

I like the idea of making everyone go through emmissions tests no matter where one lives but I also know that is not practicle. What could work is saying that anyone within a metropolitan area with more than 100k people in it must have emmissions testing. The determination for a metro area could be a 15 mile radius of the city you live in. This would hit everyone from Boise to Star and on towards Caldwell. It should leave some of the very small communities like Parma or Marsing out but still hit the vast majority of the area. It very well could hit Pocatello or Idaho Falls. They are very close to that kind of threshhold. That way all of Idaho could be a more “green” state. If even just by a little.

Or we could be Denmark and charge a 150% sales tax on all vehicles. That might deter people from using cars all together. I’d love to see someone from Middleton commute to Micron on a 10 speed. Or a contractor haul 8000 pounds of lumber in a pedal cart.

By: RiverCity

RiverCity — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:22:03 +0000

Great idea! Those sniffers already exist. They were going to implement them a few years back but never ended up doing. I know the Emissions Testers in those red and yellow vans opposed the sniffers because they threatened their jobs. My opinion is that it’s a convenience for motorists and many lose jobs due to technology and other factors; why should these guys be exempt. Besides, sitting in a van, watching TV, eating donuts and being cranky to people who are required to give you business should not be a job.

By: pennipea

pennipea — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:04:35 +0000

I believe that the emmission test should be mandatory state wide or not at all.

By: Mike Murphy, (Hack, Wheez) Bull Moose Tenor

Mike Murphy, (Hack, Wheez) Bull Moose Tenor — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:34:39 +0000

You are absolutely correct. The technologies exist whereas the political will does not. A sad state of affairs.

While growth and change are inevitable, our accelerating slide into unhealthy mediocrity need not be; But it appears… Will be.

Welcome to Boise-Angeles!

Oh… And by the way… Stealing IS okay in Ada County apparently, so-long-as it’s under the guise of quasi-governmental entities.

; )

By: Gordon

Gordon — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:26:22 +0000

Amen!
And use the sniffer for Adans, too — it’s much more effective than the once-a-year tests, for at least two reasons:
1. I talked with workers at several breath-test stations, and all said that of the hundreds of vehicles they check each year, they reject maybe two or three … sometimes none. So thousands of Adans are spending time and bucks for no good reason (and my wife’s car “flunked” because of code number something or other. The guy looked it up, and it meant one taillight not working! Damn, I bet that made it really spit out the smog … so he couldn’t OK the car ’til we stuck a new bulb in the light and drove back there to get it tested again and approved. Extra trip; extra traffic; extra pollution. Beneficial?
2. My car could pass the test today, then have something go wrong with the exhaust system tomorrow that would cause it to spew nasty gases for a whole year before it would get caught. A sniffer would nail it the next time it drove by.