California: Motorcycle Smog Checks...Coming Soon to a Shop Near You

[desmoquattro]

A bill making its way through the CA legislature would remove the motorcycle exemption to the state's smog check laws, requiring bikes from model year 2000 and newer to be smog tested every two years.

CARB seems to be reaching past the low-hanging fruit here. Adding a smog requirement to bikes would provide a very small net reduction in pollution, according to CARB's own numbers. And I suspect that number would be even smaller, given that many shops will sign of on bikes, then put the aftermarket systems back on those bikes for their customers. And the cost to the individual will be very high, especially for those with older bikes.

Arizona currently has two counties with smog checks for bikes, and they're canceling both programs because they aren't effective. In California, catalytic converters have been required as standard equipment on production motorcycles since around 2003-2004...but this test covers bikes that are 10 years old now, and will be 12-13 years old when the requirements take effect. The details of the test haven't been formulated yet: they may be as simple as a visual inspection to make sure that the bike is fitted with a catalytic converter, o it may be the more extensive tailpipe-type test performed on cars.

I'm wondering what this bill's chances are? The current governor would might veto it, but I would almost guarantee that the next governor will sign it. At the very least, there needs to be a constructive conversation around ways to work on the pollution issue without imposing significant costs on riders.

[Spidey]

Random thoughts:

Lets distinguish what makes sense versus what is politically palatable.  No Democrat in CA (which is the vast majority of the legislature) is going to vote against a bill to smog motorcycles regardless of whether the bill makes sense or not.  Because the soundbite "they voted against smog checks for motorcycles" is really bad. 

"It not fair."  The argument that it is unfair to have a retroactive law is a better one and more palatable to voters.  They should make the exemption from current model year.  Then politicians can say that they voted for smog regulation that was fair.

"It'll cost riders $."  I wouldn't think the argument that it's going to cost individuals thousands of dollars to evade the law wouldn't get much traction.  Who cares?  Now, the fact that it may cost people thousands of dollars to return '00 and later models to production touches on the fairness argument above.

"It's too costly."  The fact that it will be costly isn't going anywhere.  The costs will be borne by the consumers, not the state.  And smog checkers will make more $.  As far as the cost to the govt to administrate such a program, CARB (and CA) have shown that when it comes to environmental regs, they are not particularly cost sensitive.  That is, they're willing to spend a lot of $ for only time gains.

"The State should spend the money elsewhere."  A better "cost" argument is that the cost of adminstrating and enforcing such a program is better spent elsewhere.  But that argument only has traction is you/we can offer and alternative.  Where is it better spent?  Find some other place where the $ can go and show that it will have more of an impact that motorcycle smog checks.

"Don't punish people for being green."  Another good argument is that the law is unduly punitive, and will discourage motorcycling, which itself is more environmental friendly than car use (I'm not sure this is true, but that's how to spin it).  The spin: you're punishing people who are being green.   

[desmoquattro]

Random thoughts:

Thanks for the thoughts, Spidey. I was thinking along exactly the same lines. Our next governor will likely be a Democrat, and that's what I was alluding to.

I'm usually the first in line when it comes to greening our state/city/neighborhood. But the terms of these laws seem onerous to riders who choose to bring their bikes into compliance, and would probably give the CHP carte blanche to write loads of turn-signal-type citations, especially on older bikes. There has to be a better way.

Besides...my Monster's catalytic converter was stolen/pilfered/sold during our recent storage unit fiasco.

[enzo]

Crap.  First drugs, then pedophilia, and now yet another way to break the law.

[sfarchie]

If my Vespa fitted with a Leo Vince pipe is subjected to this check, then this will be one VERY unhappy scooterist.

[Michael Moore]

Damn. And here I thought I was safe from all manner of regulatory BS and newfangled theft control systems by having an antique bike. Damn.

[ducati_tim]

Damn. And here I thought I was safe from all manner of regulatory BS and newfangled theft control systems by having an antique bike. Damn.

Yep...

Enzo, DO NOT CORE THOSE PIPES. We can use them for smog testing. Perhaps we should get a loaner collection of stock parts together for smog, fix it tickets, etc.  [moto]

[desmoquattro]

Yep...

Enzo, DO NOT CORE THOSE PIPES. We can use them for smog testing. Perhaps we should get a loaner collection of stock parts together for smog, fix it tickets, etc.  [moto]

That's actually a really good idea. Keep a virtual inventory on the DMF.

I HAVE
Stock exhaust from a 2001 900 Supersport
Stock cans from a 2005 Monster S4R
Stock tail parts from a 2005 Monster S4R

I NEED
The cow udder from a 2005 Monster S4R

[Princess]

Please please please tell all your friends not to support the totalitarian bill "Smog Checks for Motorcycles." Just another useless bill that allows even more government into our already porous lives. I stand by what the great General of the First Continental Army said...

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."