Should "Beaters" Be Taken Off the Road?

fezo

I'll be sure to take you advice.

No wonder they keep you around, knowing what an upright citizen you are and never doing such a thing. I'm sure the cycle's owner quieted down out of deep respect for you as a model of what he wished to become....

Mr_Shiftright

Yes, I think it was an attempt on his part to renounce his life of drugs, booze and wife abuse and follow in my footsteps. :P

celica03gts

I was wondering if anyone could tell me if dealerships would pay me $1,000 below Kelly Blue Book trade-in for my car in cash? I have some serious stuff that has happened and I don't care I need the money. Its a 2003 Toyota Celica GT-S, its got 108,118 miles on it. Cars in emmaculate condition. Paints chipped on the front and has some dents. Could some one give me a run down of how to sell this car and I mean like in 3 days quick. Thank you very much. Sorry again. There is no "REAL" place to post this.

Mr_Shiftright

Just in case your regular host is busy elsewhere on the site right now, I'll give you the link as to where to post your question:

Real World Trade-in Value

Shiftright
Visiting Host

hpmctorque

Carmax, a national used car dealership chain, would probably offer to buy your car.

lemko

Really? Would Carmax just buy your car without selling one to you in exchange? I guess as long as you have a ride or bus fare home... I'm sure you'll get below it's book value, but if you have something old and beat-up and they give you $1,000 for it, why not?

hpmctorque

"Would Carmax just buy your car without selling one to you in exchange?"

In many cases, yes.

upstatedoc

I'm a New Yorker and am amazed at how many "beaters" still roam the streets despite having the strictest safety and invironmental inspections (w/ the exception of maybe California) in the country. How many times do I have to get behind someone who's car stinks and probably fails the emissions test? There ought to be a law that you can pass these people no matter what. :P

fezo

Last week I had a guy a couple of cars up that was pouring out more blue smoke than an old 50s mosquito truck. It was really probably the worst smoking engine I'd ever seen.

This is in New Jersey which has some pretty strict emissions laws as well. How the heck did this guy manage to get that car on the road?

andre1969

How many times do I have to get behind someone who's car stinks and probably fails the emissions test? There ought to be a law that you can pass these people no matter what.

Does New York have any exemptions in their emissions testing, where if the car fails, but then you spend over XXX amount of dollars to get it fixed and you still fail, then they'll waive you until the next test? Maryland is like that. If your car fails, they'll give you like 2 months to get it re-tested, and the re-test is free. (initial test is $14) If you spend at least $450 on emissions-related repairs and the car still fails, then you get a waiver that's good for 2 years. So you basically have 2 years to stink up all you want, and then just go through the cycle again.

Also, is New York's emissions test state-wide? In Maryland, it varies from county to county. The county I live in has a test, and so do most of the immediately neighboring counties. But where my Mom & stepdad live, down in St. Mary's county, there is no test. So they live down there, but drive up here to go to work, meaning they could theoretically drive a grossly polluting car and get away with it. So maybe that's what's happening in NY? And if so, people can always lie about where they live. For instance, if I really wanted to, I could claim my mother's address as my own, or somebody else's, get my registration info mailed there, and they'd be none the wiser.

I'm sure that if I've thought of it, countless others have actually done it!

lemko

...in PA used to be limited to metropolitan areas like Philly. I'm not sure if it now statewide. When I would go upstate to NE Pennsylvania, cars would only have the state inspection sticker whereas in Philly they had both the state inspection and emissions sticker.

Mr_Shiftright

Oddly enough, as long as the blue smoke hasn't wiped out the catalytic converter, an oil burning car can pass most emissions testing no problem.

I'd like to see these "sniffer cars" that can measure tailpipe emissions when they are in back of the offending car. Since a badly running car could create as much emissions as 50 or 60 healthy cars, it seems like a worthwhile thing to implement. Unfortunately I have heard that the technology for sniffer cars isn't good enough yet.

But I'd like to see that. Sniff your tailpipe and if you are a gross polluter, they call the tow truck and off you go. No ROAD FOR YOU!

I have no problem with a somewhat shabby car, if that's all you can afford, but you have no right to choke me.

boaz47

you can't win. I was reading that the dead trees from Hurricane Katrina are giving off as much CO2 as all the trees in the US can convert in a year. I wonder if there is some world organization that will ticket the US for producing so much green house gas? It wouldn't be the French they would be afraid we might "fight" the ticket.

Mr_Shiftright

Well you know you control what you can. Nature is in balance but we aren't, is the problem I think.

As for beaters, it's just common sense to regulate certain forms of conduct incompatible with the general good of all. If your car is dangerous, or is stinking up the neighborhood, it doesn't seem draconian to pull it off the road.

qbrozen

nope. not in NJ. Any visible smoke is an automatic fail. They won't even test the actual emissions. This is the problem I had getting my pickup to pass.

But, to Fezo's point, you can pass inspection and then start smoking a month later and keep running that way for almost 2 years before your next inspection.

cooterbfd

Here in Ri, if your emissions fail, and you spend $450 in actual repairs, you get a waiver, and a sticker. The next time, it drops to $250, I believe.

Mr_Shiftright

I'd like to see strict inspection in all 50 states, but not punitive in nature. Every two years would be fine, and just the basics. You need:

tread on your tires
all the lights working
brake lining on the brakes
no excessive smoke
no excessive pollution
no taped up windows
no body damage that protrudes beyond the car's "footprint"
insurance policy
no frame or suspension rust perforation (surface rust okay)
(re: above--if you can poke a screwdriver through it, you're out).

This is not too much to ask I don't think as it is all safety related, not aesthetic.

qbrozen

I mean, as it is, I think the system is flawed.

Here I have my '86 Spider and a '92 mazda pickup.

The mazda doesn't have a nondamaged body panel on it. The engine makes a constant death rattle. It is almost frigtening to drive. Yet it passed inspection and is legal to drive.

The alfa runs like a top. Doesn't smoke. The body is perfect. All the electrics work. Yet I can't legally drive it on the road because I'm told it doesn't meet emissions requirements.

Out of the 2 vehicles, anyone looking at and/or driving them would assume the truck wouldn't pass while the alfa would. Yet that's not true. Go figure.

Mr_Shiftright

Well you are in two realms there. One is the safety realm, in which both your Mazda and Alfa pass, and the other is the emissions realm, which your Mazda passes but your Alfa doesn't.

One half of the test isn't good enough. So it makes sense to me. You need to pass both halves, like you need two eyes to pass a driver's test (in most states :P )

qbrozen

well, sure. but driving, watching, or listening to them wouldn't give you a clue, either. I mean, the mazda smokes at startup and on heavy engine braking, not to mention the aforementioned rattling (bad wrist pins, methinks). The alfa, on the other hand, runs very very well. So its just odd. But I guess therein lies the emissions mystery. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean its clean, right?

andre1969

But I guess therein lies the emissions mystery. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean its clean, right?

Right. Basically the stuff they test for in emissions testing is greenhouse gases. Invisible stuff that's often odorless and works its way into the upper atmosphere and contributes to the greenhouse effect, eats the ozone layer, etc. But by and large, won't really do any physical harm coming into contact with a human being. Unless you're exposed to too high of a concentration of it. It may be different in other states, but in Maryland they test for Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbons (HC) and Nitrous Oxides (I think...it's abbreviated NOx). Cars nowadays run so clean that I don't think they can kill you anymore with carbon monoxide poisoning, although I guess if you're in a closed-off garage, eventually all the oxygen will be burned off and you'll still choke to death. It's just not carbon monoxide doing it to you.

As for the visible stuff you see, it pretty much remains low-level, near the ground, and doesn't really work its way into the upper atmosphere. It won't eat the ozone or contribute to the greenhouse effect, but I guess it can still cause cancer, respiratory issues, etc, and if there's enough of it and you have an atmospheric inversion that keeps it from dissipating, you could have a re-enactment of Donora PA.

lemko

...experience a lot of "killer smogs" in the 1950s?

fezo

"You need to pass both halves, like you need two eyes to pass a driver's test (in most states )"

Bzzzzttttt! No, I'm sorry that's incorrect... I've only had one legal eye since I was 10 and have been driving coming on 40 years. Most states work like NJ I think. If you flunk your test at the DMV they give you a form for you eye doctor to vouch for you. Well, that's the way they did it way back when anyway. They haven't sent anyone to grab my license yet...

upstatedoc

To me it doesn't matter if the vehicle passes or fails the emissions test, if a vehicles exhaust irritates my mucus membranes to the point of gagging even w/ the windows rolled up and all the filters I have on my car, it shouldn't be on the road. There....I feel much better now.

qbrozen

hmmm... so how should that be tested? I don't think you'd like sniffing every car at the testing station. ;b

lilengineerboy

I'd like to see these "sniffer cars" that can measure tailpipe emissions when they are in back of the offending car. Since a badly running car could create as much emissions as 50 or 60 healthy cars, it seems like a worthwhile thing to implement. Unfortunately I have heard that the technology for sniffer cars isn't good enough yet.

This was a popular summer internship for Raytheon/SBRC when I was in high school. Its called smog-dog and basically they park this full size van on the shoulder of the road and set up an infrared camera/exhaust gas analyzer aimed at the cars going by. Inside the van, a computer reads the data from the analyzer and can map the contents and gases in the exhaust. It also takes a picture of the vehicle license plate although "it was not used for enforcement purposes."

In California, there is a 1-800 number to report gross polluters as well, which I guess flags them for a smog check.

gagrice

In California, there is a 1-800 number to report gross polluters as well, which I guess flags them for a smog check.

The only gross polluters I have seen lately, have Baja Mexico plates. No way to nail them unless a cop stops them and issues a citation. Not sure if we have any agreement with Mexico on traffic violations.

nippononly

We have no such agreement with Mexico.

And the 1-800 number for polluters nets nothing more than a polite letter to the car's owner asking them to please, if they should feel like it, have their car checked because someone has reported that it may be smoking. It is not attached to any type of extra enforcement of cars that get reported.

We need something much more vigorous. I am all for the "beater laws".

oldfarmer50

"...Most "poor" people i have met over the years..."

That must have been quite stressfull for you.

hpmctorque

"We need something much more vigorous."

"Need" is a strong word, which, in my view, should be supported by facts. While I don't necessarily disagree with you, nippon, do we have any data to support this? I find it difficult to endorse new laws based on perceptions and biases.

We also need to consider that, unlike many other industrialized countries, many of our cities and communities, unfortunately, have inadequate public transportation systems. What many of us would agree is a beater may represent the only way that the driver has to get to work, or to a doctor. How would you deal with these issues? Do you think that comparing our beater laws with those of countries with excellent public transportation infrastructures provides a fair and balanced comparison?

andre1969

And the 1-800 number for polluters nets nothing more than a polite letter to the car's owner asking them to please, if they should feel like it, have their car checked because someone has reported that it may be smoking. It is not attached to any type of extra enforcement of cars that get reported.

I always wondered about that kind of stuff. Seems to me that if there was any real enforcement attached to it, it could actually be abused. For example, if that soccer mom/trophy wife in the Lexus SUV cuts you off or irritates you in some other fashion, just call the 1-800 number and report her, saying that she's blowing smoke. Then, in a theoretical society with enforcement, perhaps said soccer mom would get a letter ordering her to bring her vehicle in for an inspection, or her registration will be suspended. In the end, once her vehicle passed, she'd be sent on her way, but in the meantime it would be one heck of a hassle for her.

That's probably why they DON'T have any real enforcement...simply because it would get abused by spiteful/vengeful drivers.

Mr_Shiftright

It's not a great argument, because there's nothing to suggest that a somewhat shabby car that passes emissions costs any more to buy than a somewhat shabby one that doesn't.

Again, driving is a privilege, not a right. You have no "right" to a car, none whatsoever. That's why you get a license. You don't need a license to speak your mind or vote. Those are rights.

Nobody is probably more leftie and bleeding heart than I am, but no way I'm going to allow a person to coat the buildings in my neighborhood with poison gas because he's poor. I'd rather give him a low-income tax break on registration fees than let him drive a toxic beater.

bumpy

You have no "right" to a car, none whatsoever. That's why you get a license.

Not quite. You have the right to buy as many cars as you can in whatever condition you like. The privilege is to operate them on public highways.

Mr_Shiftright

point taken. I once gave a car to a 5 year old for his birthday (old beater). His dad was kind of PO'd :P

hpmctorque

We probably essentially agree in spirit on the safety and pollution issue, but we may differ on how to achieve the desired objectives. To elaborate, I agree with you that unsafe and polluting cars should not be permitted to circulate. Polluting the air (beyond the levels of cars that pass inspection) is neither a right nor a privilege. I think that while our state safety and pollution laws and tests are imperfect, I believe that they should serve as the arbiters for deciding which vehicles are permitted on the road, and which should be denied. If there's factual evidence that unsafe cars or gross polluters are slipping through the cracks, or aren't being caught, I would favor tightening our existing laws and tests, before establishing additional laws and bureaucracies.

Tightening standards and tests may be the relatively easy part of this issue. While there are probably multiple reasons - economic and psychological - why people drive beaters, I want to hope that the majority of beater owners can't afford something better. If that's indeed the case, or where it's the case, then I think that part of the overall solution to the beater issue should include dealing with the transportation challenges of these folks.

Mr_Shiftright

I used to live in a racially mixed lower-income boat/harbor community, so I got to observe some behavior in this regard. It was my impression that many people were not without money, but that their priorities did not go to what they drove in most cases---their cars were dead last, compared to the clothes they bought or the condition of their vessels or the type of food they ate. There was a disconnect in this regard.

So I guess I'm saying that a lot of people who drive beaters just aren't "car people" at all. Careful maintenance is a waste of money. So they are RE-active, not proactive with their cars.

grbeck

Interesting, because around here in many low-income communities, I observe the opposite. The vehicles comes first, especially in urban neighborhoods. It's not uncommon to see relatively nice vehicles parked in rundown neighborhoods.

The people who drive the smoking beaters around here are the type who don't spend money on ANYTHING. Their vehicles look terrible; they dress like they last shopped at the local Goodwill store about 15 years ago; and those guys from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would walk away in shock after seeing the results of their grooming habits (or lack thereof).

They probably have six-figure bank accounts, though.

autumnd

I think as long as a car gets you from a to b without hubcaps or exhuasts falling off and hitting other cars and putting other driver's saftey in jeopardy, that is the owner's prerogative to drive whatever car they wish.

upstatedoc

Uh oh, we may have a beater driver in our midst, better get the sniffer car fired up! :P

Mr_Shiftright

Well if you included that the cars had to be safe and pass emissions regs, I'd be okay with that.

RE: poorer neighborhood --- sure there's pride of ownership in every income level but I'm not sure all the $$ goes into maintenance. I'd bet a good deal of it goes into display, which makes sense, if that's the one nice thing you can afford to own.

lemko

...a lot of those nice cars in poorer neighborhoods quickly falling into disrepair as it its one thing to own an nice car and quite another to keep up with it as well. A lot of those nice late-model luxury cars come from shady BHPH lots. Lower Northeast Philly is full of them proudly displaying late model Benzes, Bimmers, Lexi, Jaguars, and occassionally a Rolls-Royce. There is no bigger white elephant than a modern luxury car out of warranty. A lot of maintenance and repairs are foregone so the owner can make the rent on his one-bedroom apartment in a shabby complex or pay for the groceries at Save-A-Lot. Follow one of these guys in traffic some day and you'll see a dashboard lit up with idiot lights.

andre1969

that many of those expensive, blingy cars you're seeing in poorer neighborhoods are actually leases. The "owners" keep them for a year or two, not doing one bit of maintenance on them, and then just turn them in at the end of the lease, paying any penalties for over-mileage etc...which they just roll into a new lease. At least, that's the case with the newer blingy cars. The older ones is pretty much what Lemko describes.

Mr_Shiftright

yeah but you need very good credit for a lease don't you? I mean, better than just regular financing? Or am I wrong about that. It was my impression that a dead person could finance a new car but for leasing they look at you a lot closer.

andre1969

I dunno...don't know much about leases. I know with financing they can run the gamut from excellent credit to sub-prime, but when it comes to leases, do they have some equivalent of the sub-prime?

Just out of curiosity, how are those "Smart Buy" things classified? Back in 1998, one of my friends, who was only 22 and had bad credit, got a new Tracker. The terms on it were $323 per month for 47 months, with a balloon 48th payment of $5600. Or if he chose, he could turn it in and would have to pay something like 10 cents per mile for every mile over 60,000 miles. It was called a "Smart Buy", but it sounded kinda lease-ish. Or rather some kind of hybrid between a lease and a purchase.

And as for how it turned out, when he hit the 48th month, he had about 92,000 miles on it. So he had a choice to either turn it in, pay them $3200 for the honor, and have NOTHING to drive, or cough up $5600 to keep the thing. He kept it. And damn if, the very next month, the transmission didn't crap out!

With these people with the blingy new cars though, I guess it's also possible that they're getting them into 72-, 84-month, or even longer terms? And I guess they'll let them roll over negative equity a couple times, but eventually, even with the longer terms, it'll eventually still snowball to the point that they can't do it anymore and finally get forced to stick it out with their car.

fintail

I think a lot of those cars aren't as expensive as they look. Lots of neglected but shiny highline cars out there, and salvage titles too.

For the newer ones, I think some kind of decent credit is necessary...but one can lease a higher line make for under $500/month, and it seems many will live off credit cards for that privilege. I live in an area where a leased low to moderate optioned BMW 3er is very common.

01trashfinder

U got it! I had a 51 F-150 with a oil bather carb !! not exactly "Green" but when my friends laughed i beeped the horn and flipped em off as they trudged through 3ft of snow!!Haha

jlawrence01

The problem that I have with state safety inspections is the inconsistencies between the various inspectors.

When my cars were registered in Missouri, we would take them into a WalMart or a Goodyear dealer for inspection. They would find a cracked headlight or something minor and it would set me back $200 or so.

Then I would see cars with $1500-2000 in frontal damage and maybe one functioning light and they would pass without the repairs.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch printed an article showing that some shops passed nearly every vehicle inspected.

nippononly

tonight I was behind one of those crap Lincolns from the 90s - you know the ones with the funky air suspension that goes belly up in about year six and is too expensive to fix, so the owners just drive them around with either the nose pointed at the sky or the [non-permissible content removed] end 6 feet off the ground. Tonight's example was the former, and had current tags.

It had passed smog, but should it be really be on the road? I don't imagine it's very safe to drive in that condition. Imagine how many people a two-ton Lincoln could take out.....

.....I'm not sure if this car would meet Shifty's definition of a beater, but in poorer areas they aren't that uncommon. I needed 1-800-beaters to call tonight.

andre1969

so the owners just drive them around with either the nose pointed at the sky or the [non-permissible content removed] end 6 feet off the ground. Tonight's example was the former, and had current tags.

In this case, I actually see two problems. First, with the failed suspension the car is probably going to flop around and be a bit unstable to drive, and will probably get unpredictable right when you need it most...in an accident avoidance situation.

Secondly though, if the front-end is pointing up in the air, then when the car is driven at night it's going to blind every oncoming driver on the road. IMO, that's actually a greater danger than the sloppy suspension. That is a major peeve of mine...badly aimed headlights. Or worse, drivers who have one low beam burn out, so then they drive around with their high beams on all the time!

gagrice

I don't see that kind of example near as much as the Japanese cars lowered to a couple inches off the ground. They have to drive so slow into a driveway that they hold up traffic in the right lane. I would extend the law to ticket any vehicle that is raised or lowered from stock. There is no way a lifted truck or a lowered car is as safe in an accident avoidance situation as the stock vehicle. There were laws concerning that when I was a teenager. And they were strictly enforced. Same with tires outside the fenders and loud exhaust. Those abominations far outnumber the beaters here in San Diego area.