Will Old Cars Eventually Be Banned?
By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
If you’re not into modern cars, you’ve always had the option of driving something else. A car without a computer, GPS, a black box or any technology that pre-empts your decisions about everything from whether and when to turn the headlights on to how fast you’re allowed to drive.
But this end-run around automotive Big Brotherism may not be possible in the years ahead. Older, pre-computer cars could be outlawed entirely.
Several steps in that direction are already under way:
* Requiring that older cars comply with modern emissions control standards –
Many states have already rescinded (or are working to rescind) the “rolling exemptions” that used to allow owners of cars more than 30 years old (or thereabouts) to skip the annual or semi-annual emissions check — on the sound reasoning that most cars that old are no longer even roadworthy (if they’re even still in existence) and the few that are tend to be rarely-driven antiques and collectibles whose actual contribution to smog/pollution is so small as to be irrelevant.
Rescinding the exemption is bad enough — because it’s purely symbolic and arguably punitive — hassling old car owners for no good reason. But demanding that older cars meet current (or even recent) emissions control standards goes way beyond mere hassle.
It is possible for the owner of a 30-year-old car to tune/adjust his vehicle so that it meets the standards in effect at the time it was built. It is impossible to make it meet stricter (often much stricter) standards that came into being years after it was built — at least, not without re-engineering the entire car.
For example, a modern fuel injection system would have to be fitted in place of the original carburetor. Catalytic converters and oxygen sensors and a computer to run the whole thing would also be needed. In all likelihood, the entire original engine/drivetrain would have to be replaced with a modern engine/drivetrain — leaving the shell of the car as the only thing “old” about it.
You’d be looking at thousands and thousands of dollars in retrofitting. To say nothing of ruining the collectibility of the car by altering its original drivetrain/systems beyond recognition.
Most people, obviously, could not afford to have their antique/collectible vehicles modified in this way. Those who could probably would not want to keep the car, if the price of doing so meant destroying everything that makes it an interesting and collectible piece of automotive history.
But the emissions assault is not the only way old cars might be done away with.
* Safety –
Virtually all modern cars have anti-lock brakes, multiple air bags, and traction/stability control. Within a few years, new cars will almost certainly be equipped with “smart” systems that let the car’s onboard electronics receive instructions about things like the speed limit of the road you happen to be driving on — and which would be capable of interceding if you tried to drive faster. Or the system could be set up so you’d have a ticket sent to you, automatically, every time you drove faster than the posted limit.
GPS — marketed as a helpful tool to aid you in getting from “a” to “b” — also means your car (and thus, you) can be tracked in real time, 24-7, every time you get behind the wheel and everywhere you go. it would also be possible — is possible — to use GPS to turn off the car’s engine. (GM’s OnStar already has the ability to open the locks remotely; shutting down the engine via the same basic technology is just as doable.)
Onboard alcohol sensors are also being developed that are expected to become standard equipment within five years. These are similar in principle to the “blow tube” interlocks required for DWI offenders but differ in two key ways. One, they are “passive” — meaning the sensors don’t require the driver to blow into a tube before the car will start. Instead, sensors built into the steering wheel or gearshift knob (or some other place) sample your skin or breath to detect alcohol without you even being aware of it. Two, the sensors will be built into all new cars — instead of affixed to the cars of DWI offenders only — nixing forever the quaint notion that only people who actually drive drunk deserve to be treated like drunk drivers.
And so it goes.
Cars that lack such systems will be targeted for being lawless — and, of course, unsafe. Since it will be economically and otherwise unfeasible to retrofit older cars with this stuff — just like modern anti-pollution equipment — the result will be a very effective indirect ban on older cars.
Ten — even five years ago — the scenarios painted above would have seemed a bit on the ragged side of paranoia. Today, the technology is all around us — and the actual efforts and public utterances of anti-old car politicians (and the automakers themselves; see here for a “case in point”) speak for themselves.
So, don’t say you weren’t warned. And try to enjoy your antique/classic car while you still can.
Comments?
Visit www.epautos.com and click on the red “Forum” button.
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
OnStar already does give its operators the ability to remotely shut down your car (at least in 2009 and later models). This is touted as a way to prevent high-speed chases and get your car back unharmed if stolen. Some buyers want this feature.
The problem that law enforcement might use data collected by car computers to (a) write you speeding tickets or (b) actually have the car not allow you to speed has been around for a while and is not limited to OnStar. Most recent cars have these “black boxes” even though they’re not obvious to drivers, and you can expect the contents to get subpoenaed after any crash that winds up as a court case. You can also expect insurance companies to require these boxes, or at least charge a huge penalty for any car that doesn’t have one.
There have also been “software speed governor” programs hidden in electronic-fuel-injection computers as long as those have existed.
Which leads me to wonder: does anyone make and sell (or is it illegal to sell) replacement chips and/or software that will defeat or deceive these monitoring or speed-governing systems on a car? ‘Cause I know a lot of people who would want to do that if they knew about the problem.
Meanwhile, NMA may want to start a targeted effort to recruit people who get caught (or even framed) by these kinds of technology. After all, many, perhaps most of the people who support low speed limits and other strict driving laws are thinking about the other guy, and assume they themselves are too smart to get caught speeding (or whatever). Once that turns out to be wrong, most of them will have to come around to supporting more reasonable laws, making them our natural allies!
This is paraniod bullshit. The percentage of older cars is going down all the time and it would be very expensive and unpopular to impliment this. It would destroy the motor industry with the loss of millions of jobs and drive out people and investment. People have been making these claims before the publication of 1984 by the way you sad dreamer. How on earth did you cope with 31/12/99?
On Star already possesses the ability to turn off the engine remotely. I see no problem with where technology is taking us as far as reducing the number of automobile fatalities each year. I do have a problem with any type of ban of older non compliant vehicles. Which by the way has already begun with the implimentation of the cash for clunkers program. The clunkers MUST be disabled and scrapped which removes them from service indefinitely creating a vacancy for a compiant vehicle on the road in it’s place.
Phil Mckrackin if you want to keep cars on the road that get less than 18 mpg then I have a problem with your problem with that. I get more than twice that and we all should be pushing for higher fuel efficiency.
I’m with you Phil. I’m a car enthusiast. I am/helping restore a 69 GMC, 77 Trans Am and an 86 Trans Am…all which fall under the above category. They are all worthy vehicles and are no where close to being parked because of some dumb law that people are trying to pass. The Clunker Program hurt people like us for the fact of spare parts to restore our running/restoration project cars. It pretty much irritated me from the moment I heard it.
While letting cars turn with the new technology is great and all, but forcing us to take perfectly good running older vehicles off the road is absolutely infuriating. I will not park any of my vehicles. They will basically have to just crumble into a pile of rust right out from under me before I park them. And that’s unlikely because we also take care of the rust problem. :)
Carrie your hobby of keeping old cars is fine. Getting rid of gas hogs off day to day driving is better. From what I heard from the cash for clunkers was that only the engine was disabled. That may be wrong but that is what I heard. The only big complaints I heard about the program was the cost and repairmen that lost out on fixing old cars. If you believe we need to keep all old cars on the road that drink a lot of fuel and cause more pollution you are wrong.
Well Randy they need to start with the oversized SUVs, large trucks and OVER powered cars of today…the ones that are computerized and meet the safety requirements. The number of daily driven SUVs, large trucks, and over powered cars greatly out numbers those of the older generation cars. Hobbyist like myself do not drive ours daily because of the idiots that are on the road today. They are priceless possessions that no one understands until you actually rebuild one yourself. Sure, we have our more fuel efficient car to drive too (but I drive my 86 Trans Am daily because that’s all I can afford), but that’s not the point here. They’re trying to ban ALL older cars regardless of their condition.
The whole crap about there being too many old cars on the road, hogging the gas, being main factor in pollution causing is for the birds. I want you to count how many pre-80s and older cars you see today. And then count how many 5+ passenger vehicles, sports cars, etc that you see that are not Hybrids/Electric. THOSE are the problem, not the owners of classic and antiques.
And speaking of which, yeah, my car probably is considered a gas hog since it’s a “Trans Am”. But what you don’t know, is that it gets 23 mpg. It’s a V8 with a 4bbl. Hrmmmm. Not great, but not bad for a sports car eh?
I’ll say again, I’m totally on board with the saftey thing. But everything else that we’re blambed for, I’m not buying it one bit.
Carrie the only place that says that they are going to ban old cars is on web sites like this one that distort the truth and flat out lie. yes there are old cars on the road that are hogging gas and as for the new cars that you say are also hogging gas, they are putting in laws that will require increases in gas mileage so that problem will also be resolved. If something is not done we would not only have too much pollution but also run out of gas/fuel very soon with vehicles getting less than 20 mpg on the road that do not need to be there.
And by crushing the cars, the bureaucrats ensure they won’t be available in junkyards as a source of parts to keep other old cars going. It’s idiocy.
@Randy: Fuel efficiency is nobody’s business except the individual paying for the fuel. CAFE standards kill thousands of people every year by forcing them into lighter-weight cars where more of them die in wrecks; no amount of fuel- or environment-saving is worth human lives. Besides, federal standards for cars are unconstitutional.
Hey, other Randy –
If you really want to type like the old one you have to take your grammar, word choice, and punctuation down a level or two.
You have the drunk driving insistence spot-on though.
Also, @ eric: Post sources or no one will take you seriously.
Also, grammar: “without you’re even” ? Replace you’re with “you are.” It now reads “without you are even being aware of it.” This, if you can’t tell, is incorrect.
The masses would never stand for the legalism of having the gps send you tickets, nor do gps systems hook into the car like you describe.
@NMA – If this is the best you can do, get in touch with me (Your back end can tell the different Randy accounts apart). I will replace him as an author. Seriously. Blogs such as this destroy, absolutely demolish, your credibility, and – by extension – the credibility of your members. (Note that I used your and not you’re).
You should read some of the NMA’s editorials and reference sections. They are filled with grammatical errors that cloud the message. If you point these out to any NMA member they get defensive and label you as the enemy so proceed cautiously.
[...] Vía | National Motorists Association USA [...]
Since I ride a motorcycle, I’m already classed “unsafe” by the safety police. All of these “improvements” to cars are trying to slop over onto bikes too. I’m glad I’m old(63) and pity my grandchildren, who will have no idea about personal rights.
Yes Sharon Taylor, the rights as NMA puts it is to drive drunk and at an excessive speed and run red lights. There are no personal rights of other drivers on the streets according to NMA to be safe.
Thank Obahma for this stripping of personal rights. He has much more of it instore for us.
You don’t get your rights from government.
You have your rights. No one can take them from you.
Now it is up to you to preserve them.
I like it. NMA finally found a way to get rid of the older gas hogs on the road that do not meet any emission or safety standards. How you would ask? Have the drunk drivers flock away the new cars with interlocks for drunks and have the drunks drive the old ones. The extra crashes that will happen to old cars will finally get rid of them.
Have the drunk drivers flock away . . .
What does this mean? I am ignorant of the meaning of this statement.
That should have said drunk drunk drivers flock away from the new cars with interlocks to stop drivers from driving drunk and the drunks would instead flock to the old cars.
That is a bird term as in group together in masses.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861612271/flock.html
good point Randy
Over my dead body!
Me and you both Stephen. Old cars have ALWAYS have been a part of my life and ALWAYS will be. And these “anti-gas guzzler” people that have a problem with it, better get over it. In my neck of the woods there are a TON of SUV’s. There are more the SUVs than “gas savers”. I’ve actually just seen 1 Smart Car on the road since they’ve came out. Maybe it’s just where I live (Mississippi) that we embrace the old muscle, but I don’t see many eco-friendly cars here. But I can guarantee, that we will clutch to our beautiful muscle the entire time.
Who’se not to say that these totally computerized cars can’t get a virus (I’m almost positive it is a possibility)? And if people say “It can’t happen”, well just look what happened to the Titanic. I’ll just point an laugh at those cars as I pass by them in my “old gas guzzler”. :)