EGR: Expensive Garage Repairs
I took my car to a garage this morning, Ms J, to have an exhaust emission test. The province of Ontario has decreed that every car must be tested for exhaust emissions every two years. The test costs $37 and the certificate must accompany the application to renew the license plate sticker. We must purchase a renewal sticker each year ($74) and every other year, this test must be done. It's the law.
I suppose the ideology behind it is a good one. Aren't we all concerned about the environment and the control and reduction of green house gasses? But the reality of it, however, is that it costs money. The garage owners must buy expensive computerized diagnostic equipment, and consumers must pay to have their cars inspected.
And what if the vehicle doesn't pass? Conceivably, it could cost hundreds of dollars to affect the repairs necessary to achieve a passing grade. What then?
$450. Ms Journal. That's the cap. That's the maximum any driver would have to pay in order to get a "conditional" pass. The car may still be spewing toxins, but at least the owner wouldn't have to re-mortgage his house to satisfy the requirements. The government has decided that if the consumer invests $450 in his car, he's been suitably hobbled and the mechanic well and fairly remunerated, even if it hasn't made much difference to the quality of the tailpipe emissions. It seems like a bit of a scam to me.
So anyway, I've left my car at --
Oh. Excuse me, Ms J. The telephone is ringing.
"Hello?"
"Hi Dale. It's Omer calling from the garage. We've tested your car and unfortunately, it's failed."
"I see. What does it need, Omer?"
"Well, your EGR valve is definitely shot. I've checked the onboard computer and it shows thirteen faults. Most of those should clear up if we replace the EGR valve."
"Yes?"
"Yeah, and well, they're not cheap, eh?"
I closed my eyes tightly and grimaced. I could see this coming.
"How much then, do you think?"
"About $450."
Like I say, Ms Journal, it seems like a bit of a scam. I hope the car's ready by three o'clock. I've got to go back to work and it's too hot to walk.
***
Mused by Dale @ 11:15 am
At 1 August 2006 at 15:33, 
Valerie - Still Riding Forward said...
At 1 August 2006 at 21:04, Michelle said...
At 1 August 2006 at 23:44, 
said...
At 2 August 2006 at 10:04, said...
At 2 August 2006 at 13:23, PBS said...
5 Comments:
I think you are right, it's a heck of a scam!
I like the idea in theory, however what if there was a married couple say with a grown kid living at home who had only just turned 17 or 18, their first car is an old bomb,so you're expected to pay 3x cars?? A rort if that's the case!
You can thank my state of California for that. We've had smog inspections for about 30 years now, and yeah, they're a pain in the arse!
HOWEVER... When I came here as a kid in 1965, the smog was so bad that your eyes stung just if you werre outside in the summer, and I coudn't see the montains that were only a mile away! There is NOTHING like that kind of smog now--a vast improvement.
Actually Dale / Valerie I would respectably disagree with you.
I don’t think it is a scam at all. By definition, a scam is an enterprise wherein people are mis-lead and pay money for services or products that they never receive (or the services or products are very different that what was advertised). For it to be a scam, then an unscrupulous party has to be profiting from the transaction. I don’t see any party profiting from it.
The garages don’t profit from it. I have talked to some garage owners and they dislike having to do it. Like you said Dale, they have to invest a lot of money into capital equipment that provides a limited (and many times a capped) return. There are easier ways for them to make profit rather than from this program. Unless you know something I don’t, the politicians don’t profit from it. If they do, then that would make a hell of a story that would break across the country’s newspapers. So therefore I ask you (in good-natured debate), who is profiting from this ‘scam’?
I think you can challenge and question the actual effectiveness of the program. However I think it is unfair to the many people (both in the private and public sectors) who have worked hard to put a program like this in place. These programs simply don’t grow out of the ground; they take months (if not years) of hard work by a number of concerned parties. Simply labeling it a scam is a bit of a ‘slap-in-the-face’ to these people who have worked hard for this. Too many people today use the word ‘scam’ far too liberally.
I think we all have to realize that there is no free lunch. If we want a cleaner environment then we have to make personal sacrifices (including paying extra occasionally). It is a tradeoff. I am amazed at how some people soapbox about global warming and cleaner environment … but as long as it comes at no cost to them.
I quite like this program. The alternative is an overall tax on the population to pay for cleaner emission cars. This then is not fair to people who don’t have cars or drive cars very little because they opt of cleaner forms of public transportation … like Go-Trains… ;-)
GM
GM, whoever they are, brings up a good point. But it does seem like people have their hands out for our money at every opportunity!
Post a Comment
<< Home