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.
I had a car caught up in this in Colorado and had to get rid of it. Specifically, I had to remove a bunch of obsolete air pump equipment and update the fueling system with a much more modern electronically controlled system. The car was measurably better than it’s original standards but failed the visual check because it was missing the old, polluting, inefficient and unavailable parts.
If the car still meets the emissions of it’s day, put a mileage limit on it and let it go. If there are too many on the road then implement a nontransferrable lottery system to get classic plates for them. The amount of pollution these few tens of thousands of vehicles put out being used a couple of times a month is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else that continues to get a pass.
Why not start banning camp fires? What about old boats? Stationary power units? These all seem to get a pass and probably dwarf the emissions of classic cars being used occasionally.
Storing cars is also devastating for the environment and society. We have as much land and resources devoted to housing cars as we do to housing people. I’ve seen so many houses that have garages as big as their house + a paved driveway + each city needs 3 publicly funded parking spots per car.
We need less cars. There simply isn’t a future were we beat climate change without getting the majority of people to take trains, buses, and bikes
I don’t disagree that public transport, bikeable cities and mixed use development is the only way we beat climate change. However, people using space to store a classic car is not different than dedicating space to any other hobby. Not everything needs to be purely utilitarianism.
There are some condo buildings in our area that have a mixed use workshop space in the lower level.
That way your space for living is sized just for living, and if you have an engine to repair or boards to plane you do all that in the workshop shared space (which is huge).
Its better use of space.
And before people say what about everyone wanting to do things at once? I have lived at several condos with different amenities buildings like a pool or games room or gym, and you may have a peak day once but rest of year it sits empty.
The space I dedicate to storing all my instruments is nearly nothing since they all hang on walls. I can’t, however, store my BRZ on my wall when I’m not using it. My mother’s entire knitting and weaving room at her place takes up less space than a car, too. My desk is pretty massive, but my entire office(which has more instruments in it and a rowing machine) is still smaller than a very small garage.
The other person was talking about cars in general, and they’re right. Storing classic cars definitely takes up a lot less room than that, of course.
Yes, the point is we use space in the quantity we can afford and for the things we care about. Knitting may require less space but if I want a metal shop or an art studio or a classic card, so what? Is it immoral to use more space for something than absolutely needed to survive? Are you suggesting we outlaw garages in city centers with the intention to dedicate that square footage to living space?
It’s not a bad idea theoretically but it gets a bit sticky because it would not be a leap to determine that a couple doesn’t need a 3000sf apartment even if they can afford it, or a green space insufficiently reduces living space square footage cost.
Um, yea honestly removing parking garages has been a huge boon to many city centers. Cars also take up a lot of street parking space that could be used for a lot of other things, too, including just expanding sidewalks(I mean goddamn 5’ minimums with stuff periodically in the way is just ridiculously tight.
A proper metal shop is fine, but it would need to be in a space that could accomodate it with all the necessary fire safety. I’d say for the sake of giving you a stronger argument we’ll go with a woodshop. I’d also love one, but it would also be fine if the facilities were available publicly in some fashion. Some buildings would, of course, still have garages or sheds in their backyards and that would simply be something you’d need to luck out on but shouldn’t be expected as available to every home. Many people simply get a shop space away from their house they can go to to do the work.
The reality of it is that if you want space you don’t get to declare that you’re entitled to it wherever you want to live. Space use and density in a neighbourhood are incredibly important to making sure that people can thrive and if those are compromised for inefficient uses such as everyone getting a mid-sized garage space it starts to break down.
I live in a mid-density neighbourhood and everything I love about it is because it’s not bloated by sideyards and garages. So yea, my car is in the elements and I cut wood on my front porch but that’s just how it goes. If I want a table saw that bad I’ll just get a folding one, move my car back a little bit(and probably cover it with a blanket) and work in my little parking spot that I pay extra for.
I definitely don’t think garages should be required or even normalized in high density neighborhoods. But I also don’t think they should be outlawed if someone wants to use their own space to store a classic car.
Ok so where did you get that we were saying that garages should be outlawed entirely? We’re just saying that too much space is dedicated, in general, to storing cars. Each person who’s “just one guy who wants a garage” adds up, and it’s not just classic car owners.
Now, a couple people with a garage won’t kill anyone but garages are absolutely normalized in low-density, single-family home suburbs and those places are huge tax drains for the cities they attach themselves to. They demand the same services and maintenance attention as urban areas but can’t afford it so they rip tax money away from elsewhere to subsidize their lifestyle. “No man is an island” means you gotta consider how your life impacts others and that we all gotta live together.
All gas powered products should go to the way side at a minimum. Exceptions just because it’s old gets you those cars that belch out awful clouds onto sidewalks which fuckin sucks .
Car hobbies are different than other hobbies, they’re far more often affecting others
So do camp fires, gas stoves, candles, light aviation, pleasure boats, etc. I can respect your position as consistent if you feel that nothing should ever be burned unless accidental or absolutely required to save human life, and we can agree to disagree. It is my opinion that smoke from wood fires is a greater irritant than the passing of a classic car on a Sunday morning.
Camp fires, gas stoves and candles don’t pollute nearly as much as cars do. By all means, fuck aviation and pleasure boats too. The problem is that you’re trying to pretend classic cars are somehow a different category from other cars to make it seem like they’re not part of the problem. Should we also get an exception for pink cars? I bet those pollute even less.
They are different though, because they aren’t used every day for commuting and for deliveries. In the same way a camp fire is ok because we aren’t producing our electricity from burning wood and we also aren’t relying on it every day for heat.
It’s not that classic cars don’t contribute to the total amount of pollution (as well as GHG), it’s that the amount they contribute is far outweighed by many other sources of emissions. There are many choices we make each day which result in higher emissions than strictly necessary. I assume you do not live in a lean to built from dead sticks and eat only native scavenged plants while walking everywhere wearing clothes you have fashioned yourself from native plant sources.
No, you have decided to live in a comfortable home consisting of an excess of materials many of which were imported while typing out your responses on an imported device built from mined metals and hydrocarbons.
Leaving a car in a garage is absolutely not environmentally devastating. That’s got to be one of the silliest things I’ve read on here in a while.
They mean a large garage takes up land, after so many houses with a giant garage you could have space for dense housing which is proven to be better for the environment. Urban sprawl is a waste in many areas.
You can spin it whatever way you want, it was stupid and that’s not what they said.
Its exactly what they wrote …we have as much land devoted to housing cars as people etc. The inference meaning it is inefficient use of land, and everyone knows urban sprawl is a terrible waste and creates additional costs
Of course it’s silly when you can’t actually understand the words you read.
Look outside at all the land used to park cars and the point of their comment should be painfully clear.
Looks like a lot of people down voting can’t fathom land use efficiencies
Or scale. “Leaving a car in a garage is jot environmentally devastating” is true but they also show that they can’t think of what would happen if hundreds of thousands of people started needing parking spaces. It’s always “I’m not personally hurting anyone so should be able to do whatever I want” and never “my activity participates in a net negative and I should seek to figure out if I really need to do continue doing it”.