Yes, it is voluntary. Sorry if I led anyone to believe otherwise. As I
stated, it sets up a program to offer monetary inscentives for turning in
old inefficient cars.
Some thoughts I submit for consideration. Is the slippery slope argument
valid here? That is, once a precedent has been set to scrap older less
fuel efficient cars (legitimizing this misguided approach as a way to
'save the planet'), will this pave the way for manditory scrapping in the
future? If it has little effect, why should we allow it to be passed?
How many more laws do we need, especially useless ones, if they pose any
risk to our hobbies in the future?
Thanks and Happy New Year, all!
Michael
Adam Bradley <ambradley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I quickly read through Title VIII, Sec. 803, and it looks volountary,
> IF this bill should become law. There would be no forced retirement
> under Title VIII, just an option to get paid to scrap the vehicle
> rather than sell it to the public.
>
> If I had a rustbucket, barely running, almost totally worthless, I
> might seriously consider this program over trying to sell or unload it
> myself. Again, that is IF it becomes law.
>
> California has had a similar program, and other than laughable mailings
> to some list members to retire their old, tired cars (beautifully
> restored classics) it hasn't had much of an effect that I'm a
---
Michael Shimniok - KC0EKI - "A computer without Microsoft
Michael.Shimniok@USA.NET is like a dog without bricks
http://pw2.netcom.com/~shimniok/ tied to its head..."
/// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
|