In a comment posted to the SVABC Bulletin Board February 11, 2001 by Tom Carlson:


In a letter to the Sunday, February 11, 2001 edition of the Surrey/North Delta Leader we hear from David Gourley, P. Eng Manager, operations Pacific Vehicle Testing Technologies
Ltd. I quote, "AirCare rejects smoking vehicles from testing because of concerns related to workplace health and safety. AirCare workers are not required to breathe in the smoke
created by oil-burning vehicles and are able to reject any vehicle that is considered to be smoking excessively. Last year approximately 9,000 vehicles (less than one per cent of the
vehicles tested were turned away from inspection centres for smoking."
In this regard I have two very simple questions.
1. AirCare workers are "required" to breathe in the air polluted by the 8% of the vehicles that are tested each day and fail?
2. "Last year approximately 9,000 vehicles (less than 1 per cent of the vehicles tested) were turned away....." HUH! (sic), 1% of the vehicles tested were turned away from testing.
Forgive me but this statement makes absolutely no sense to me, you appear to measure something you did (turn away from testing) by something you claim you would not do, namely test
the vehicle.
For the record I am for clean air and safe legal vehicles BUT if a smoking vehicle passes the AirCare test for the particulates being tested I believe it should be given a pass. AirCare by