OHTA.ca

Does anyone find it ridiculous that any new car, built to meet emissions standards, is required to take the emissions test, even if it is guaranteed to pass for the first 6 or so years? And at the same time, older vehicles (20+ years old) do not have to take the test, even though they are the ones that produce more emissions than new vehicles... Seems like easy way to add to government's coffers and make auto repair places make the easiest buck while polluting our environment (think of the gas spent uselessly revving up the car during the test plus driving to and from), just to give a very expensive sticker to the car that will pass anyway. 6 years or older I can understand, but why new cars?

For the general public the whole e-test busuness is a waste of time. Most people that know their vehicle will not pass will find a "friend" who will help them. No vehicle should be tested under 6 years. Why not concentrate on bigger vehicles such as buses/18wheel or impose higher fuel tax on private planes. But what can you say its just another bright idea that our government came up with.

casper wrote: Why not concentrate on bigger vehicles such as buses

Hey - Lay your mind off the buses. One bus can carry 55 (that's what Greyhound and Coach Canada say) people. One car usually carries one person. Even though one bus uses more fuel than a car, when the bus carries 10 people that is already better than each one of them using a car. And they cannot go over 115 km/h, so they cannot break OHTA on 400-series highways. I do agree with the 18-wheelers though.

Hey, lay off the trucks. They are still the #1 way for delivering goods in this country. Without trucks, we won't have food to eat. Or new cars to buy.

All vehicles, regardless of use should be tested for emissions. But there should be a period of time that new cars don't need to be tested. 6 years is still not enough time nowadays. I'd make mandatory testing of all vehicles, regardless of use, over 10 but less than 25 years of age.

But I would add one other test. Mandatory safety inspections on all vehicles over 10 years but less than 25 years, every year while car is licensed for road use, regardless of usage. This test alone will probably eliminate 1/3 of the cars that are on our roads right now due to them being unsafe.

Zeeman28a wrote:Hey, lay off the trucks. They are still the #1 way for delivering goods in this country. Without trucks, we won't have food to eat. Or new cars to buy.

All vehicles, regardless of use should be tested for emissions. But there should be a period of time that new cars don't need to be tested. 6 years is still not enough time nowadays. I'd make mandatory testing of all vehicles, regardless of use, over 10 but less than 25 years of age.

But I would add one other test. Mandatory safety inspections on all vehicles over 10 years but less than 25 years, every year while car is licensed for road use, regardless of usage. This test alone will probably eliminate 1/3 of the cars that are on our roads right now due to them being unsafe.

Excellent Idea

However this is a nice chunk of cash just to toss away by our elected officials,hence it won't happen

I lost track how many etests I have had to do on my 2000 Ford....never has been a problem. I keep the maintenance up, otherwise it will snowball in expense.

I would like to see testing after 10 years as well....with absolutely no age limit. Just went to a "old car" festival.....I love old cars....but choking all the time when one was turned on....those emissions are harmful........we have the technology, add a component on to cut those emissions that you actualy "taste".

Safeties on cars would be more beneficial..every 2yrs on cars 10yrs and older (even thou my car applies )

Weird thing on the etest....you have to spend maximum "X" dollars and if it still doesn't pass, you can still get your stickers then....if the emissions are that big a deal for us to test and you can't pass....why the does gov't let you continue to get the stickers?

Here I go again......"It's a cash grab....."

Reflections wrote:Here I go again......"It's a cash grab....."

I agree....and we just can't "slow down" and avoid it