This page was last updated on October 26, 2012.
Déjà vu again?; Rick Suman; Beaver County Times; October 25, 2012.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Well, it’s election time again, and the Pennsylvania Emissions Inspection Program is under attack again.”
[RWC] At the end you’ll find Mr. Suman appears to have a special interest in this topic.
“This time by state Sen. Elder Vogel Jr. with Senate Bill 1532 exempting new cars from emissions inspection for 10 years. Oh, and on Oct. 2, he tweaked the bill to exempt state inspection on new cars for two years.”
[RWC] Here is Senate Bill 1532 (Regular Session 2011-2012). Exempting new cars from emission and safety inspections for two years isn’t new. I lived in Texas for 19 years and its exemption of “state inspection on new cars for two years” has been law for decades. Regarding “new car [exemptions] from emissions inspection for 10 years,” during their annual safety inspection these vehicles will still “be subject to visual antitampering inspections for the presence of emissions control components installed on the vehicle by manufacturers.”
As long as data like a very low inspection failure rate supports it, this is a good idea.
According to Wikipedia, 10 states have no “safety, emissions, or VIN inspections” and about 14 of the remainder have biennial inspections.
As for “[Mr. Vogel] tweaked the bill to exempt state inspection on new cars for two years,” not true. According to a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story, “[Sen. John] Wozniak, D-Cambria, added an amendment to the bill to waive the annual safety inspection for the first two years after a new car is purchased. ‘It’s an unnecessary expense to people,’ Mr. Wozniak said. ‘Maybe 25 years ago it was appropriate, but cars have become more efficient. Research shows that 98 percent of all cars pass the annual inspection.’”
Check the bill and you’ll find 23 out of 50 senators introduced the bill, including six Democrats.
“I’ve met with the senator and explained the many downsides of this bill. The upside is he’s getting publicity right smack dab at re-election time. Can we say agenda and timing?”
[RWC] If Mr. Suman “met with the senator and explained the many downsides of this bill,” why didn’t he explain even one of “the many downsides of this bill” in this letter?
“The bill is dead in the water because the legislative session is done for the year. It never had a chance to get though [sic].”
[RWC] The bill was originally introduced on May 29, 2012. With 23 sponsors, the bill “never had a chance to get though [sic]?”
“Sen. Vogel can re-introduce the bill next year, but it has to start back at square one. The bill would have been costly to the motoring public both financially and in bodily harm.”
[RWC] Once again Mr. Suman makes allegations but provides nothing to support them. I suspect these same arguments were made when we switched from semi-annual to annual inspections in the 1980s.
“Be careful what you wish for, it might bite you in the wallet.”
[RWC] How? Above Mr. Suman wrote about Mr. Vogel’s unspecified “agenda” but didn’t mention his own. If this is the same Rick Suman, he failed to mention he owns/owned Suman Automotive and is/was a member of Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Pennsylvania (Chapter 3). I suspect Mr. Suman is more interested in his “wallet” than ours.
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.