I took some more time to read your comments and I still must disagree with your conclusion about the frustration:
> instills complete and utter contempt for emissions standards [and how they are enforced]
Why not hold contempt with the manufacturer who has a bad solution to meet the standards?
What if the manufacturer wants the solution to be bad (malicious compliance)? What if they don't care?
What if they do want to have a good solution and it's just otherwise bad?
You could insist that their trucks do not meet your standards and the manufacturer needs to do a better job of both meeting emissions compliance requirements and not crippling the ability of the vehicle when they fail to.
> the only way to fix it was to replace the sensor, which required taking the entire freaking back axle off
This was a design decision made by the manufacturer and it is their fault that it's so difficult to fix.
This has nothing to do with legislation except for that the sensor needs to exist; the legislation does not specify where that sensor needs to be, nor does it require that the sensor ever stops functioning (again, blame the manufacturer!).
The manufacturer 1) doesn't need to stay in business and 2) needs to meet emissions standards.
I don't see an argument against the emissions standards that doesn't start with the assumption that the vehicle manufacturer either will or should stay in business.
It's only because the manufacturer shifts the blame that you're complaining about emissions standards rather than the decisions made by the manufacturer.
> instills complete and utter contempt for emissions standards [and how they are enforced]
Why not hold contempt with the manufacturer who has a bad solution to meet the standards? What if the manufacturer wants the solution to be bad (malicious compliance)? What if they don't care? What if they do want to have a good solution and it's just otherwise bad? You could insist that their trucks do not meet your standards and the manufacturer needs to do a better job of both meeting emissions compliance requirements and not crippling the ability of the vehicle when they fail to.
> the only way to fix it was to replace the sensor, which required taking the entire freaking back axle off
This was a design decision made by the manufacturer and it is their fault that it's so difficult to fix. This has nothing to do with legislation except for that the sensor needs to exist; the legislation does not specify where that sensor needs to be, nor does it require that the sensor ever stops functioning (again, blame the manufacturer!). The manufacturer 1) doesn't need to stay in business and 2) needs to meet emissions standards. I don't see an argument against the emissions standards that doesn't start with the assumption that the vehicle manufacturer either will or should stay in business. It's only because the manufacturer shifts the blame that you're complaining about emissions standards rather than the decisions made by the manufacturer.