Because the Big Three car makers and the National Association of Manufacturers run this state. They said it will "increase costs" and "cost tons of jobs" if a smog law was passed, since they will have to spend more to pass the tests.
You would think those groups would be in favor of regular smog testing, as it accelerates the retirement of old vehicles.
The automakers resisted adding smog equipment (which did increase costs), but that battle is already lost. They already make exclusively 49- and 50-state emissions legal vehicles.
I haven't taken the time to analyze the merits of that bill, but it would not revoke healthcare from victims of automobile accidents, it would restructure how it is provided. In states that do not have a mandatory no fault PIP, people buy a medical policy along with their car insurance:
So would many people see a drop in coverage? Probably. Would people be able to obtain medical coverage for injuries resulting from a car accident? Almost certainly.
(My ill informed cynical assumption is that insurers are funding the push to change the system, with the expectation that they will be able to profit more under the proposed changes)
In addition to having a fairly large libertarian-leaning contingent (especially in rural areas), people in Michigan tend to associate personal vehicles with "freedom" at a level probably unmatched anywhere in the country (if not the world).
Michigan is unusually conservative/libertarian. Its a shame children, the elderly, and those with lung conditions pay for this misguided philosophy with their health.
Reality is that it is a Democratic leaning state that hasn't gone Republican in a presidential election since 1988. All the Republican governors in my lifetime have been moderates with the possible exception of Engler who was elected on Reagan's coattails.
I find carbureted vehicles the most bothersome (the exhaust stinks of fuel at city speeds), so I guess enforcing emissions standards wouldn't solve the problem (because of grandfathering/exceptions).
There are very few carb'd cars on the road these days in the USA. They were mostly phased out in the 80's and 1990 was the last year of passenger cars that had carbs (and there were only 4 or 5 if I recall)
The problem is you can drive a vehicle that's burning coolant or oil and just spewing a cloud behind it and nothing is really stopping you. I'm not sure if you can actually get a ticket for it or not.
> There are very few carb'd cars on the road these days in the USA.
Yeah, there are less, but on a summer weekend in Southern California you can expect fumes from a number of car-culture enthusiasts and their cars.
My favorite : Carbureted rotaries. The smell of unbalanced air-fuel ratio plus the smell of motor oil being burned in combustion. It's like the two-stroke of the streets. Even better when it has lost a coolant seal and you get that nice sticky white-blue coolant component to the noxious cloud left behind.
They tend to be the worst, but they're not terribly plentiful. The bigger culprits are those oldish (10-20 years old) vehicles that have busted (if not removed) emissions control systems. As long as you enforce the emissions standards in effect the year the vehicle was built, you can get around a lot of the grandfathering issues.
Yes, every time I'm behind or passed by a "classic" older car with carburetors, even one that has been restored and looks like new, I'm surprised by how clearly I can smell the exhaust. By contrast modern cars emit almost no detectable smell. Hard to belive that pre-1980s all cars had exhaust odor like that, I certainly don't remember it from my childhood.
Pre '75 there was nothing to control oxides of nitrogen, which smell pretty awful, and combustion was never clean enough back then to control volatiles and hydrocarbons. I think all they had were secondary air injection, which was prone to failure and subsequent removal
You may not remember the smell, but do you remember the color of the L.A. skyline?
I guess the average carbureted vehicle on the road today is being run by someone with the mindset that the engine should run great and develop lots of power. Back in the day more people would have set them up leaner.
The ideal air fuel ratio for gasoline engines is 14.64:1. It hasn't changed. Running an engine too rich wastes fuel and reduces power, too lean causes detonation and can destroy it. Electronic fuel injection more precisely meters the fuel which keeps combustion closer to ideal. Carbureted vehicles are generally tuned as close as possible to ideal but it's always better to go slightly rich than slightly lean.
Couldn't the federal government require it? For example, I know that a number of the most populous counties in Texas require vehicle emissions tests as part of the annual inspection. This being Texas, it's a good bet that they didn't voluntarily decide to do this. With the possible exception of Travis county (Austin).
There are a great many things the federal government could require, but the US is in a constant tug-of-war between federal powers and states rights. Similar to the EU vs its member nations.
Emissions standards for new vehicles is regulated by the EPA.
