Talk:Ontario's Drive Clean

If I wanted to read an editorial, I would have gone elsewhere. This article debases what Wiki is about.

When I read this page, I can hear a giant axe grinding. I've since edited it to leave it a little less one-sided, and to include other pertinent information. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivandenisovitch (talk • contribs)

Obviously the status-quo with Drive Clean is not working. Only by pointing out the flaws in this program can we effect positive change. Drive Clean is a politically-motivated revenue-generating program, and is clearly not fulfilling the goals of Ontario with respect to reducing air pollution. It is also unfair to operators of older vehicles. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.51.10 (talk • contribs)

While you may be right, that discussion has NO PLACE on the Wikipedia. Please state ONLY the facts, and cite your sources. This article is ridiculously POV, and needs quite a bit of revision. --74.115.11.144 15:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There were no less than 16 citations on this article, now there are 26. Enough "citation needed" please. The Drive Clean program subject is inherently political and controversial, different sides therefore should be (and are) expressed in the article, including Liberals, Conservatives, environmentalists, etc. It is not my fault that there remain few supporters of this program aside from those directly involved (Ontario's current government, mechanics, the oil industry). The alternative is to present a false concensus or sterility of this issue to readers (a situation that most certainly does not exist). There simply is not much positive to dig up about this program other than deliberately misleading stats and good intentions. 24.57.195.98 19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is horrible

When I look at this article I see a one sided argument that has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion it is a place for information. Some of the information about the flaws is still important but a sentence like the program gives people a false sense of security is completely unnecessary as it is a personal opinion. Instead of vandalizing Wikipedia improvements need to be made. Xtreme racer 03:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? go stand behind a car sporting a Drive Clean "pass" windshield sticker, right near the tail pipe, now breathe in deeply... feel sick? Now you may understand that there is no such thing as "drive clean", (unless it is a pure electric car) so why did the government name it that? To give people a false sense of security, not only the name is misleading the public, but the logo has a car with a halo on it. The fact is even tuned-up cars pollute and are the major cause of urban smog. Drive clean is only reducing this by about 1%. So much for the halo. Please read some of the many references before you criticize this article. I assure you that the more you inform yourself on the issue and the science, the less biased you will find this article to be. 24.57.195.98 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No matter what the facts and figures say about Drive Clean even though it hasn't made a huge impact it is still doing something and it prevents untuned cars from continuing to drive on the road. Now we can't leave out the corruption in the program but it is still a one sided argument on this article because the things that are beneficial are left out no matter how small they are and I am aware of the science of the issue but no matter how small the impact on the environment the program has it still doesn't mean Wikipedia should be biased by personal opinions of people, instead it needs to be from a neutral point of view. Xtreme racer 03:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is more of an editorial than a neutral piece of information. By all means, include info on the diversity of opinions about the program, but don't take an extreme position in this forum. - Grandma Roses.

Any article on the Drive Clean program must focus on awful it is, just like any article on the Nazis must focus on how evil they were. Nazis always kept their boots nicely shined; I can't think of anything good to say about the Drive Clean program.209.29.91.213 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

When I looked further at this article it is clear that the article isn't written in a neutral tone for Wikipedia or a tone appropriate for Wikipedia. It needs to be improved so any bias and problems with tone are fixed, especially the sentence "Diverting Provincial funds towards existing public transit networks would have easily prevented damaging fare increases seen in Toronto from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) in recent years." This sentence and most of the article suffer from this problem. I am hoping that some responsible, and unbiased editors will improve this article so the personal opinions of users will be eliminated from this article so it will finally be up to standards. Xtreme racer 00:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no bias here. The references indicate that several billion dollars have been spent on the Drive Clean program since 1999 (well over $500 million has been spent on the Drive Clean test computers alone). On the page, http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/data/200602081737.shtml, Howard Moscoe asks the Province for money to prevent another TTC fare increase. It follows that money for Drive Clean could have been spent to encourage ridership by preventing fare increases. If you look at TTC budget shortfalls, and then do the math there is absolutely nothing wrong with this statement unless you are ignorant of the numbers (or choose to ignore the facts). Ignoring documented evidence in the name of neutrality is nonsense, but this appears to be your point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.195.98 (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To be frank, I happen to agree with a fair amount of the criticisms of the program shown here. Yes; drive clean is of limited use. No, cars are not clean. Yes, hybrid cars perform better. However, this article - and, actually, reading some of the above replies, the discussion as well - is almost as one-sided as it's possible to be without resorting to ad hominem attacks or Hitler references. Of most concern to me, drive clean testing is not as expensive as people are led to believe based on the wording. Based on the wording, my first thought was "$450 for a drive-clean testing? What mechanic is that person going to?". Drive clean testing is capped at $35 a visit; less, if you shop around. Further to that, the "repair cost" quote shown there is overinflated and/or out of context. What must be considered is what types of problems are picked up by a drive-clean inspection; things like leaks in various parts of engine and exhaust systems. Those problems would be costly to the drivers no matter what; be that when getting annual safety checks when they would make the exact same repairs, or else in reduced gas mileage. In addition, so lay the TTC fare hike exclusively at the feet of the drive-clean program is shortsighted at best. For that, I need only point at the $354k pay raise that the Toronto councillors voted themselves this July.... not two months before the TTC reported their funding was short by about $350k. I'd be right behind you if you took up that fight - and for that matter, the fight against unreasonably high insurance, which hurts low-income drivers far worse than a drive-clean test EVER will. THIS article? Very biased, and in my opinion, unreasonably so. 99.225.238.106 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The $450 in the article is called the repair cost limit (which is the ceiling for repairs prior to receiving a conditional pass), the tests are $35 if you pass first time. The repair cost limit is not quoted "out of context", it is clearly stated at a maximum of $450 everywhere, including the Drive Clean website. Small exhaust leaks do not affect a car's operation much, and do not need to be repaired right away, but Drive Clean centers will not tolerate any leaks - meaning an exhaust system with a year or more of life left may turn into scrap metal much faster than otherwise, and at a fixed time - before a driver has time to save up for the major repair. Small exhaust leaks are not covered as part of a vehicle's safety, and the safety checks are only required when a car is sold. It is misquoting the article to suggest it implies that the TTC fare hikes are directly due to Drive Clean. The idea of Provincial funds used to make public transit cheaper as a policy alternative to Drive Clean's attempt to make cars "cleaner" is a valid one. Insurance costs are steady and predictable, Drive Clean costs are not, particularly when they can reach four figures in the space of a week due to related repairs and costs, hence the disproportionate damage to low-incomes. City Councillors' salaries are really beside the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.225.141 (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've retagged the article for neutrality. Many of the above concerns remain directly applicable. TheFeds 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

While I sit on my fence and admire the valiant pen-strokes of those nearby, I can't help but imagine a link to another article which provides an outline of the Drive Clean programme (I might suggest the article 'Vehicle inspection' as one such link), and a subtle name-adjustment for this article to reflect that it provides information regarding the challenges the programme has faced in implementation. Otherwise, I very much appreciate the content of this article, and I believe it just might have solicited the intended consequences, gauging the discussion-temperature up in here! I must concede the bias, however, is as palpable as it gets. HardReadButFungi (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

removing POV template without ongoing discussion per Template:POV instructions

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Reinstated POV template

The article still reads as an editorial even after all these years. 2607:FEA8:56C0:6D00:9D2E:C0E4:324B:684F (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)