Y2K All Over Again

The article Too many cars, too few digits on the VIN shortage starts out painting a picture of doom and gloom with the quote:

Longer codes would require a major overhaul of computer systems that would dwarf the challenges and expenses spawned by the Y2K computer dilemma, said Dave Proefke, chairman of the committee. . . "The scope of the logistical changes and the monetary impact are just astronomical,"

But then the article wraps up by saying:

Despite the complexity of the problem, SAE officials are confident they can iron out the problem. . . . "In reality, it’s not going to be the big issue that we think it is," said Sparkman, a former Michigan police officer. "It’s sort of like the Y2K thing."

Of course they won't start out telling you things aren't that bad. Bad news sells. If they opened with the good news then this news would hardly warrant a whole article.

It was interesting that the point out that when the VIN system was adopted in 1981 they only expected it to last 30 years. Can you imagine that? Only 30 years? And then they said that if they had gone with 18 or 19 digits instead of the 17 they used they would be good for 100 years.

Now I am glad they are confident that they can iron things out without much trouble, but was saving the space of those 2 measly digits really worth the 70 additional safe years they could have enjoyed? Just think if they had originally adopted a 20-digit number. What is it with the incredibly shortsighted people who are setting standards?

Check out the handy chart that explains VINs at the bottom of the page.