Earlier this week, we got one of those dreaded “I’m ok, but . . . ” phone calls from our daughter. A combination of completely bald tires and heavy rains led to a nasty three car pile-up. The Highway Patrol issued the offending driver a $1K fine for driving on bald tires. She claimed she knew nothing about cars—except to take her whip in for an oil change from time to time. Nobody at the shop warned her about the worn out tires. I’m all for mandatory annual safety inspections, which aren’t required in the land of the proctological emissions test (go figure). In fact, I’d like the state to check the headlights’ alignment, window tint levels and exhaust noise at the same time. In fact, a British style annual MOT requirement seems about right. The cost and hassle to our family would be significant; I’ve got six cars. But needs must. Your take?
I agree with the idea, as long as independent shops get to do the testing. This would negate a significant cost, because these shops would do the inspections for low cost or free because they would want to do the repair. Unsafe cars effect everyone on the road. There are to many cars on the road, with parts falling off, bald tires, headlights aimed to high, lights that don’t work, etc.
I also think that snow tires should be mandatory in the snow belt form mid November, to the end of March. Every time we get some flurries here in Detroit, you see all the news reports about accidents caused by the lack of traction that so-called “All-Seasin” tires just don’t have on ice and snow. BTW, our “All season tires” are called Three season tires in Europe.
I agree that each state should have mandatory annual inspection beyond emissions. Non-dealers should have the opportunity to do that work as they do emissions testing here in RI.
I also think that over 65, drivers should be re-tested every so often.
The snow-tire piece, nah! Bad for body shops. Besides, global warming is about to turn New England into Camelot.
I’m against them, the number of accidents that unroadworthy cars cause is very small.
The British MOT focusses far too much on bodywork, a nice little earner for the repair shops, yet I doubt that 0.01% of accidents are caused by rusty panels.
In Germany, we have bi-annually inspections. While I think that inspections are necessary, an inspection every three years sounds about right.
Frankly, US streets are just scary. Apart from drivers education, US cars are oftentimes heaps of crap that shouldn’t be endangering other drivers.
However, you can’t have independent shops doing the testing, as they’ll do anything to keep you as a customer.
Louisiana has a mandatory vehicle inspection, and a hefty fine if you don’t have a current year sticker in your windshield.
The state is filled with cars that would fail an inspection from across the street…all sporting a current sticker. Probably because their cousin works at a garage.
Mandatory inspections are nothing more than a better hidden tax on drivers. Similar to vehicle emissions tests in the northwest.
We don’t have safety inspections on cars here in Michigan.
And I like it this way.
here they a required yearly for cars under 6 years old and every 6 months for those over 6 months old.
they inspect tires, brakes, suspension, steering, rust, lights, headlight aim, wipers etc pretty much everything
Regular safety inspections made sense decades ago when cars were far less reliable and had shorter life expectancies. At one time, the city where I live had an annual municipal inspection. When I arrived, in the mid 1970s, there was a state inspection. Although neither exists today, I haven’t observed any increase in the number of decrepit vehicles on the road and accidents due to mechanical failure are rare. Mandatory inspections are a just another bureaucratic boondoggle.
My fist instinct is to say yes, only because I like the myth of perfectly maintained cars driving down on perfectly maintained German and Japanese roads.
On second though, however, the only times I’ve been held up in traffic recently are when an idiot ran out of gas or got a flat in a late model car and was not smart enough to pull over.
If poorly maintained cars were a threat I think the IIHS would be strongly lobbying for inspections, or insurance companies would be requiring inspections as a condition of coverage.
Makes perfect sense to test emissions and basic safety features.
Doesn’t have to be to complicated just check steering, brakes as well as for excessively worn tires or dangerous rust. The inspection interval can be reasonable no inspections for the first 4 years, every other year until 10 and then yearly after that.
Yes, it would be more taxing for poor people driving old cars, but it is not a favor to them or anybody else leave unsafe cars on the road.
Vehicle inspections are just another way to try and stop human stupidity. Knowledgeable drivers try their best to take care of their vehicles… therefore, the vehicle will be in good order.
If it wasn’t for the annual safety inspection I would have been driving on bald tires. It was not that I did not know the tires were bad I knew the car was about to die. To pass I had to put some used ones on and that did the trick but the car did die a few months later. It does make the cheep people like me to make the car safe. The problem is that the Good old boy network keeps a lot of bad cars on the road and the dealers up sell services to the poor saps who don’t know any better.
When I lived in VA I was required to take my car to a state approved inspection station once a year. The basic test told the inspector that all the lights worked, the mirrors were on and they removed one wheel (at random) to insure that there appeared to be brakes installed on the car.
Of course everyone knew where the local “Inspector” was to visit if your car was marginal (or below). All the inspectors were located at your local gas station, the lines got long towards the end of the month on Saturdays, causing a fill up to be almost impossible to do. It seemed to be a great scam for the Gas stations and not of much use to a car owner. The only things that were checked were things that should be so obvious to the average (or even below average) driver, that you would have to be an idiot not to catch them.
A friend and I once got a Dodge caravan with 3 of it’s six cylinders firing, a duct taped on side mirror, and failing rear brakes to pass inspection (don’t worry, we got the thing fixed, but you had to get the sticker to park it on the street or get a ticket for non-compliance).
In the end I think most of these inspections are a waste of time and money. And form of legal robbery for the gas stations.
Some states don’t!?
Coming from Germany I agree with Tom. Annual is too often. Maybe if the car is under 10 years old it is good enough to proof with repair slips that the brakes and tires are not worn out. If you have a good car and maintain the brake pads, tires, keep all lights working I doubt something would break that could cause accidents. On the other hand, you have Chryslers, GM, Ford, Daewoo, Yugo…. with those cars I would want to have safety inspections.
After 10 years corrosion can damage important parts.
That lady claiming the shop never told her that she needed new tires BS the shops tell you you need new tires or new oil or new everything even if you show up with a brand new car.
Here in WI there isn’t even mandatory liability insurance. I think insurance should be MANDATORY and the insurance company could perform inspections before they insure cars. They don’t have an interest in selling unnecessary services, but an interest in safety.
Another safety thing here in WI (Dane county!!!), drunk drivers. Even when you see some drunk driver swirving around and call 911, those dingbats are just like “why do you call us?” (because you are the Police?) The 911 center has even been under investigation because they didn’t dispatch police to an emergency call and the girls was killed by a robber. When I look at the number of drunk (or drug) accidents, that is more important than unsafe cars.
Old people… the only good thing about them that they are slow.
However, car safety would be a good start, but the people are more important. 99% of the accidents caused by people, 1% caused by failing brakes.
This is classic American logic. Blame the inanimate object – but god forbid trying to hold the actual driver responsible.
Seriously, how many times have you been surprised at someones lane change because it was not signaled?
Was it the tail light or the driver that was not fully operational?
To be fair Canadians are not perfect either. Don’t get me started on our newest citizens blasting out of Brampton on Hwy 410 and 401 out of Brampton during their first snow storm.
An annual inspection that focused on basic safety items – tires, brakes, mirrors, seat belts, wipers, lights, windows, etc – where subjective judgment is minimal, would be fine with me.
Of course, such a system is useless without validation by the state – in the form of undercover cops with test cars and nasty fines toward repair shops that are willing to skimp or cheat.
Of course, the above would require time and effort from judicial and law enforcement systems in states. It’s so much easier to fine people for doing 10 over on deserted highways on Sundays at 7am.
kaleun:
EVen whne you see some drunk driver swirving around and call 911, those dingbats are just like “why do you call us?” the 911 center has even been under investigation because they didn’t dispatch police to an emerency call and the girls was killed by a robberer.
The police have NO legal responsibility to respond in a timely manner. Note the following (which was widely ignored by most of the press).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
Absolutely opposed.
This will only provide yet another vehicle (please ignore pun) for the state to impose a disguised tax on automobile ownership.
You know damn well the POSes that are meant to be taken off the road or “repaired” will, once the ACLU, Jesse Jackson, et al get done screaching, be exempted or the repairs will be paid for by the middle class so as to avoid the appearance if gov’t facilitated “profiling” of the “poor”.
If the “inspection” is performed by an independent shop that will do the “repairs” there will be fraud run amok– again raping the middle class drivers. (And and of course the middle class will be on the hook for costs incurred by the “hardship” special interests.
Regarding the emissions tests: Back in the day I had an 87 Sable wagon w/ about 90k miles. Took it to the dealer for the mandated emissions test. It failed. They showed me the printout. About $200 of tune-up later they said it still wouldn’t pass. They showed me the post-“repair” data which was much higher than the initial “failed” test. I bitched–vociferously.
The wrench went out back to “retest” the car. And wouldn’t you know: The wagon magically “passed”. Of course $200 of non-“repairs” and sticking the probe into a different vehicle’s anus will always work miracles…
A mandated inspection to tell a moron her tires are bald will do nothing to correct the most serious problem: The moron behind the wheel…
VerbalKint nailed it.
Not only would this be a tax on consumers, it would be a blank check for most independent repair shops.
There’s enough influence and corruption in most states to make this a nasty weapon that victimizes the poor and the uninformed.
VerbalKint+Steven Lang
I agree. I can see the repair shops jumping for joy at all the suckers that will be forced to pay for whatever repairs they dream up.
Wow, I’m in NY and annual inspections it is, tires, brakes, suspension, emissions, lights, you name it. Just got a ticket two weeks ago for being a day or two over the date. I had no idea so many people got off easy on this one.
Mechanics certainly do try to fleece people over the inspection failures occasionally, but it’s really not that difficult to get a second estimate. It really dosen’t cost much; 20 to 40 bucks (I forgot already) and, upstate at least, it’s ridiculously easy to get an undeserved pass.
Honestly I think it’s probably a good thing in the end. A lot of my cars have ended their useful lives due to rust and corrosion (NY salts big) spreading into expensive and dangerous places, and that seems to be the point of yearly inspections. My old Dakota rusted through the frame rails to the point where I fit 3 fingers through the middle of them with room to wiggle…on both sides. If I hadn’t noticed myself (replacing a tire) I would’ve been warned at inspection.
For those opposed to mandatory inspections, let me pose this question; when else would the government retrofit your car with a GPS tracking chip for the per-mile tax? Huh?
Too easily abused by the guys doing the inspection.
It might be interesting if the inspections were mandatory but the repairs weren’t, keeping drivers informed of the overall condition of the vehicle and holding them responsible for it if the problems cause an accident eventually.
I would prefer not to have annual inspections. Its already a hassle to get my car inspected every two years.
For those opposed to mandatory inspections, let me pose this question; when else would the government retrofit your car with a GPS tracking chip for the per-mile tax? Huh?
The gubmit will just rely on its fleet of black helicopters to do the job. Oh sure, the ACLU and Jesse Jackson will complain, but we have ways of dealing with national socialists like that.
In New York State, inspection is annual (I used to be a licensed inspector) and focuses on basic safety (brakes, tires, steering, glass, ect) and emission controls. It also looks at corrosion- a very big issue in a Rust Belt state. I have seen a few cars that looked great from the curb but were rusted out to the point of collapse underneath.
The _intent_ of inspection is good: it assures that all vehicles are roadworthy.
Unfortunately, every town has a shop that will pass anything that comes in the door. Every few years someone gets killed in an unsafe car with a obvious defect and a fresh sticker. The inspector winds up in jail on manslaughter charges.
In Finland we have annual inspections, where they check everything, especially body corrosion. Of course it’s a big problem here, with long winters and salted roads. The inspections are also made in specialized inspection stations, so there shouldn’t be any abuse of power.
One good thing about annual inspections is that they lower the price of old cars. You can easily get old clunkers for 300 euro or less, if they’re not likely to pass the next inspection.
Delaware has (or at least use to have, I assume it still does) safety inspections done every time your registration comes up for renewal, which was five years from the date of purchase of a new car, and every two years after that. The nice thing, and the pickle, with them is that they had to be done at the DMV. If there was a problem they would write up a sort of ‘fix it ticket’ that you could take to the shop of your choosing to correct. So, you avoid the possibility of a shop faking things wrong to make a buck, but you force every driver in the state to go through the inspection garage at the DMV which caused long lines pretty much constantly. All in all, not a perfect system, but a liveable one.
In Florida, there are no inspections, safety, emissions, or otherwise (at least not in this county). I like it because it saves me time and I don’t have to fix a couple things I know are wrong with the vehicle, but then again, the inspection would be the kick in the pants I need to get it done. All in all though I am not a fan of nanny-state antics, so I am happier that I have my right to drive my vehicle in whatever state of repair I see fit.
In most States in Australia, Police are empowered to issue inspection or work orders. If you’re stupid enough to drive around in a POS that attracts attention you’re likely to then repairs ordered otherwise the car is de-registered.
Such orders then have a follow-up to ensure they have been made.
Some States have inspections as well, and tip-off lines for oil-burners or obvious illegal modifications.
It’s a system that appears to work pretty well. No-one is juiced into a money stream, and crap cars are removed from the roads.
Runfromcheney, You can’t tell me you haven’t driven down I-75 or some other freeway and almost hit a piece of debris from some old clunker that had no business on the roads. I had my Subaru for three days when a piece of rusty body work fell off of an old beater truck and damaged my side mirror. Then their are the cars that have a headlight aimed to high and blind everyone that’s going the other way. A few years backs, I barely missed a wheel that broke off of a car. It wasn’t from loose lug nuts, but it broke off at the hub.
For all of you that say the repair shops will abuse this, and make people get unnecessary repairs or pass unsafe cars, just have random inspections of these places. The fine has to be steep enough, to make them think twice about cheating the system. If not they will. It reminds of when I was in high school. There was a gas station in town that sold cigarettes to minors. He got caught once very couple of months, but he made more money selling to minors, then was the fine.
I like the prorated idea, of a new car not having to be checked out as often as an old car. Although this wouldn’t really work with tires. And for the statistics, how many incidents are just written off as road debris, or are never even claimed? Just taken to a shop and fixed?
If you drive around to places where there are inspections, you notice a huge decrease in junk cars on the road, then in places like Michigan, where there are no inspections.
PeteMoran, cops can give “fix it tickets” here to make someone fix a problem on their car, but they usually don’t unless they stop the person for something else. Don’t ask me why.
Annual safety/emission testing for vehicles after 4 years should be mandatory in all states. Sadly, there are those, in the interest of “saving” a few bucks, would allow their cars to become a rolling menace. Driving comes with a set of responsibilities that some chose to ignore. This is a case of the needs of the many outweigh the inconvenience of a few.
I used to live in Texas, now I’m in Michigan. (1) Despite mandatory inspections, there are a lot of beaters on the road in East Texas. (2) Anything that requires me to place a sticker on my car offends me, because stickers are evil. They’re clutter, and I’m a neat freak. My car doesn’t go into state parks ’cause of the sticker thing. (3) Anytime someone says “there oughta be a law” I get pissed off. We need more common sense, and fewer laws.
In an ideal world where everyone took responsibility to make sure their cars are in good working order there would be no need for inspections.
But, we all know that there are plenty of people who don’t look after their rides. I like the idea of an age based sliding scale with more frequent inspections required for older cars and less frequent for newer one. California already does that for emissions testing, which generally isn’t required for cars in their first six years of life. We used to have a lot of problems with deceptive smog check operators, but the state clamped down hard on them and it is mostly a thing of the past.
This is the only way some people will ever realize their lights are out, or aiming high. (My most recent close call was with a car with no brake lights.)
Here in Pennsylvania, we have annual safety inspections; 30 years ago these inspections were performed every 6 months! Annual is reasonable.
I perform as much of my own car work as I can, but the inspection process still occasionally catches an oversight, such as low brake pads or loose ball joints.
Fortunately, Pennsylvania has gotten away from cosmetic inspections, so that only truly safety-related violations are flagged.
What I do not agree with is the policy on emission inspections; here in PA it is done county-by-county. I really think this should be done uniformly across the state, if not the country. Even though I’m no fan of regulation, safety and emission standards do make for a better living and driving environment.
One complaint about inspection stickers: Both of the Chrysler minivans I have owned have had their front windshield defrosters destroyed in the first year of ownership by the garage doing the inspection work. Their scraper blades cut right through the defroster lines on the window – AAH!
Here in Texas the inspection for a brand-new car is good for 2 years, then an annual inspection is required. In some counties with air quality challenges an additional emissions inspection is performed at the same time as the annual overall inspection of the car. In my part of Texas (Central part of the state around Austin) over the past few years we have seen more “sticker stores” that specialize in inspections and only minor items (lightbulbs, wipers, fuses) for repairs. I have found they are a bit more likely to be honest with the inspection since they are paid the same for pass or fail (failed inspections can be re-done after repairs one time at no extra charge) and they do not do any major repairs. The state does random testing to ensure accuracy.
I used to live in Florida, and until the early 80’s they had annual inspections done by state-run centers. They were extremely unpopular, as it was usually an all-day affair to sit in line for one of the three shops per million people for the bureaucrats in overalls to do the test. Former Governor Bob Graham ran in part on a promise to do away with the inspections, and when he won it was one of the first changes he pushed through the legislature. I know that Florida now has emissions testing in certain counties, but they (according to my relatives) are more plentiful and better run, and they only focus on emissions and not overall fitness of the car.
I’m an insurance appraiser and 2-3 times a year I have to settle a claim with a widow or grieving parent where the driver lost control and had a fatal collision. When I inspect the vehicle the tires are bald. It’s not always old beater cars. Some are nice sports cars that go through tires fast and the owner is just cheap or not paying attention. There should also be inspections by the state of any vehicle that has structural repairs from a collision. It is frightening how many shoddy repairs are on the road that put every one else in danger. I grew up in MA. And we had inspections every year. I once failed due to a broken grill and got a nasty ticket for not fixing it in 2 weeks. I’d be all for smaller inspections here in OR. I think safety inspections by the state with a fix it list lends to the least amount of fraud.
Couple of points:
1) I challenge you to show me any evidence that proves states with mandatory inspections have a significantly lower rate of accidents. Hint- If the evidence existed, insurance companies would push to get mandatory testing contry wide, to save themselves money.
2) All a safety test proves is that a given car was safe during the twenty minutes it was in the inspection lane. If its brakes are marginal, but still meet minimum thickness requirements, the car could be “unsafe” next week, with a safety sticker good for several years.
Given the massive opportunity for fraud any test program creates, I’d just as soon leave vehicle safety in the hands of the vehicle owner, and penalize those whose maintenance practices lead to problems.
It’s funny to me that TTAC spend so much effort reporting about the dubious safety claims for red light cameras, yet this idea – mandatory safety inspections- is accepted by half the B&B with nothing more to back it than anectdotes.
Where is the statistical evidence that inspections will lower the accident rate appreciably?
What is the accident causation ratio between driver error and mechanical failure? I don’t have any statistics but my guess is that driver error/mechanical failure is about 1000:1.
If we are really serious about accident prevention, let’s find out the cause of most accidents and do something about THAT. My guess is that the cause of most accidents is not bald tires or worn brake linings. That’s just a guess though – let’s get some accurate numbers on this and proceed from there.
There is no doubt that a few accidents would be prevented – like the one mentioned in the article casused, in part, by bald tires. I knew someone who had their tie rod separate on the highway. But will the number of accidents prevented be worth giving repair shops a license to steal?
“let’s find out the cause of most accidents and do something about THAT”
That would be too complex (so many variables) and there wouldn’t be an “easy fix.”
Most people should have an inspection done yearly for maintenance purposes anyhow.
What’s wrong with anecdotes? If I ask you for a mechanic recommendation are you going to give me a bunch of statistics? Or will you (preferably) recommend one based on a positive, personal experience (anecdote)?
I don’t understand why all the hate for safety inspections…Yes, it’s another tax, but I think it’s important. I know an awful lot of people who have no idea if their tires are bald or flat or anything…We’re not talking about government putting a GPS system in your car, we’re talking about government imposing a minimum standard for cars to drive on their (your/our) roads. Everyone should be entitled to a certain minimum level of safety from their fellow drivers.
I used to live in NYS and yes, the possibility for abuse in independent shops is very prevalent. Both on the “you’re car failed emissions, but a minor tune up should do it-$190” and “wow, those brake pads are really worn”
I now live in France, and I have lots of problems with the level of government intervention here, but I think they do it right for safety/emissions. New -> 4 years old, no inspection. 4+ years old every two years a complete safety and emissions inspection in an independent inspection station. They can not do repairs. They can not touch you car. Their only job is to inspect cars. If it fails, they earn no money – you have 2 months to fix the problem and the follow-up is free. It does cost something like 55-65E for the inspection.
To sell a car, you need to pass inspection (unless it has a junk title or you’re selling it for parts) and the inspection is transferable if it’s less than 6 months old. This is good because 1) You know you have a road-legal car for 2 years and 2) You generally don’t get screwed on things like brake pads or a plethora of other “old car problems”…
What’s wrong with anecdotes?
What’s wrong with common sense? It should be common sense to anyone that allowing unroadworthy vehicles to roam the roads is a risk.
If you accept there is a risk, then a way to deal with it should be found. It becomes a question of what’s the best way to do it.
Doing nothing would be handing the lawyers a picnic in negligence and at-fault cases.
BTW, I would suspect insurers already factor in the “risk” that older vehicles create with a long tail on the insurance premium as the vehicle gets older.
Unless there is road fatality data that makes a clear case that unroadworthy cars are a significant contributor to road deaths, I would say this is nothing more than a tax on motorists and a nice earner for the government as well as car and car service industry.
I also would suggest that the instances of drivers that are unaware of their cars major safety problems are low. Every time you get your oil changed (which most people think is 3000 miles) the mechanic tries to upsell you on just about everything he can and would never ignore the golden opportunities for revenue that worn tires or bad brakes represent.
As has already been pointed out, New York’s system is relatively reasonable. Unless a shop is really shady, a truly dangerous car cannot pass. OBD2 cars outside of NYC don’t need the exhaust gases tested, as long as they don’t throw any CELs (which means my girlfriend’s Intrepid probably needs an EGR valve, since our inspections are both due this month).
As for having an invalid inspection sticker, I suppose that hinges on how douchey your local cops are– I’ve known people with inspections that are a year or more out of date before getting a minor fix-it ticket. If your inspection sticker is the color for the current year, you’re generally not going to attract attention unless you’ve been pulled over for something else.
It’s a tough call–those living on a shoestring budget may not be able to afford keeping their cars safety-worthy every single year. My response to this is “Sure, if they fix the safety inspection criteria.” On the one hand, necessities like the brake, steering and suspension systems should obviously always be checked regularly and fixed when necessary. Also things like seatbelt mounts.
But safety inspections, at least here in Ontario, are way too strict for something like this to be yearly. If there’s the tiniest crack in your windshield, it typically requires replacement, if it’s anywhere NEAR the driver’s side. The horn must work, no matter what. The tiniest of exhaust leaks must be repaired. Any holes anywhere on the car, not just structural ones, must be repaired. I mean, that to me is a pretty big one right there–a small hole in a quarter panel that enters the passenger compartment, or a hole in the trunk floor, is something EVERY winter beater has in Canada.
So, if this yearly safety inspection was just for really important stuff like I listed above, I think I’d be just fine with it. In fact, considering how many unsafe cars are on the road, I think it’s a great idea. But the inspection shouldn’t go overboard.
On the other side of the spectrum you have places like Michigan that require nothing to plate a vehicle–and it’s absolutely disgusting. The cars you see driving around in Michigan every day are downright frightening–driving on spacesavers for years… entire body panels missing… rot so bad it’s leaving body parts on the ground… open exhaust at the manifold. I thought I knew “beaters” until I visited Michigan for the first time. It’s disgusting and for any state or province to have that kind of standard for road vehicles is an insult.
tigeraid, I’m happy you’re backing me up on the cars here in Michigan. I assume you live somewhere close in Ontario. It really is night and day when you cross the border. (Not to mention the roads, our our sad excuse for them)
What’s wrong with anecdotes? If I ask you for a mechanic recommendation are you going to give me a bunch of statistics? Or will you (preferably) recommend one based on a positive, personal experience (anecdote)?
The difference is that when I recommend a mechanic, we don’t make it a state law that everyone has to use the mechanic I recommended. Taking the point a bit further – what if I really could provide useful statistics on mechanics? Wouldn’t that actually be better info than my personal experience?
If we’re going to make a law about inspections, shouldn’t it be based on some real evidence that a significant number of accidents are caused by mechanical failure?
On the other side of the spectrum you have places like Michigan that require nothing to plate a vehicle–and it’s absolutely disgusting. The cars you see driving around in Michigan every day are downright frightening–driving on spacesavers for years… entire body panels missing… rot so bad it’s leaving body parts on the ground… open exhaust at the manifold. I thought I knew “beaters” until I visited Michigan for the first time. It’s disgusting and for any state or province to have that kind of standard for road vehicles is an insult.
I live in Michigan, and if I’m not mistaken, we originated the term “beater”. I’ve yet to hear of an accident caused by missing body panels. An open exhaust poses a danger to the driver (and passengers) of the car, but virtually no risk to anyone else on the road. I’ve never heard of an accident caused by a driver being overcome by exhaust fumes – that sort of thing happens when parked.
When we have some stats on how many accidents are caused by faulty vehicles then we’ll have a starting point for deciding whether or not there should be mandatory inspections.
We have neither (smog or safety) here in FL and it is greatly preferred. Inspections seem to do nothing more than generate revenue for either state DOT’s budgets or add to a state’s general fund.
Crashes caused by worn out cars are miniscule next to those that are caused by numbskulls who text, read, eat, talk on cellphones, are drunk/drugged, too old, too stupid etc.
State statistics back this up as I have combed them and rarely ever find “equipment” as the cause of an accident; it is invariably speed or lack of attention (which covers the above).
I’m opposed to the idea. We have a responsibility to keep our cars in working order, and it is a personal responsibility. As a parent I would instruct my daughter/son as to basic car care, checking oil, tires, etc. It would then be their responsibility to do so. And yes, not everybody will do what they’re supposed to. But do we really want a nanny state that treats us all like children? Most adults wish to be treated as such. Living with those who aren’t responsible is part of the price we pay to live free. Sometimes it sucks, as would be the case if you were hit by someone else with bald tires, but to me, it’s better than the alternative.
so I am happier that I have my right to drive my vehicle in whatever state of repair I see fit.…
That statement right there is all the evidence needed to make a case for inspections. Sorry Bud, you DON’T have the right to endanger the lives of others because you are too cheap to keep your car in good repair. You want to run on 15 year old hoses and do long term durability testing for belts, be my guest. However, when your poor judgment, cheapness, or plain indifference to others endangers other motorists, it should no longer be your call. My mom spent 4 days in a hospital because some a-hole with near slicks and struts with 145,000 miles lost control on a wet semi-residential street. An old car can easily be kept fit if you are willing (or forced) to take care of it. Inspections are a necessary evil because you can’t count on everybody to do the right thing. And sometimes, people just aren’t aware that something needs attention. Most people aren’t “in tune” with their vehicles – the B&B is definitely not a typical cross section of car buyers.
dolo54-when you see a loved one being removed from their car on a stretcher because somebody wanted to save 80 bucks on a tire, you will pipe a different tune. The word is responsibility. Driving is not a God given right; it is a privilege, and with that comes responsibility. “Freedom” isn’t free.
Regarding accidents caused by “mechanical failure”, strictly defined that number should be low. Good engineering has reduced accidents caused by broken tie rod ends, brake failure, etc. to near zero. However, bald tires, worn struts/shocks, bargain brake pads, technically aren’t “mechanical failures”
@golden2husky:
I was going to write a reply to that post, but you stated it much better than I ever could.
@ NulloMondo:
“so I am happier that I have my right to drive my vehicle in whatever state of repair I see fit”
OK, try that statement as : “so I am happier that I have my right to drive my vehicle in whatever state of drunkenness I see fit”
What, really, is the difference?
@ golden2husky: I would hold the individual responsible not the state. I would probably want to kill them with my bare hands. However I would never want to live in a world where every personal responsibility was mandated by the government. And I have lost a loved one to a bad driver, and been hurt pretty seriously as a pedestrian by a drunk driver. Even so, I’m against drunk driving checkpoints.
Driving is not a God given right; it is a privilege, and with that comes responsibility. “Freedom” isn’t free.
Other than the fact that the “privilege” theory is drummed into us in Driver Ed class, is there any basis at all for saying this?
The state may not withhold a drivers license for arbitrary or capricious reasons – or for no reason. In my view, driving isn’t a privilege, it’s a right, with limitations – just like all our other rights.
Sorry to get off on a tangent, it just bugs me when people imply that the state grants us a drivers license as a privilege.
When we moved into a new state some 32 years ago, there was a mandatory “safety” inspection before license plates could be issued. I was forced to replace a windshield, marred mainly by bug splats, before the vehicle could be certified. Clearly, it was the only thing the shop could con me into so they could weasel a few bucks out of a newcomer. I’m all for postmortem safety citations when an obviously defective vehicle is involved in an accident, but the onus should be on every driver to maintain safe transport. Education trumps enforcement. The state-forced version seemed mainly to provide a revenue stream to unscrupulous repair shops; within a year or so after we arrived, the inspection program was eliminated. Now, emissions tests are also less invasive — roadside scanners with cameras are being substituted for emitting greenhouse gases while waiting in line for a static test. The only hangup is trying to find a test spot when the contractor decides not to show up at their scheduled location.
MBella:
I do, London. And it’s like coming into some sort of Silent Hill-esque, nightmarish alternate reality when I cross the border into Michigan. Not only at the abhorent condition of all the vehicles, but the fact that virtually EVERY car I see on the road has dents in bumpers and doors from impacts in parking lots and intersections. It’s as if parking by sound is mandatory.
On the other side of the coin, going over the border to New York State is fantastic–roads are gorgeous, cars all look relatively well kept and safe, and the countryside still looks like Ontario. :P
@Scorced Earth.
Amen. I’m not drinking this coolaid!
@Dynamic88
I think the distinction of the two arguments is due to the drivers license seeing duplicate use as an official ID more so than a license to drive type function. Its a big ‘ol can o’ worms.
In Michigan the state is very happy to issue you state ID if you don’t have a driver’s license. I’m sure other sates are the same way.
I wasn’t going to bring out my own experience, since I assumed everyone had a couple of their own. I was driving to Lansing on I-96 on a Saturday morning. I was in the right lane, going 70. A guy in a Blazer passed me on the left going about 75. Nothing crazy yet. He is a couple car lengths ahead, when his right ball joint snapped. He lost complete control of his car and started spinning. He barely missed a semi that would have killed him instantly, and then barley missed me. They couldn’t have choreographed it better in movies. He ended up in the ditch on the side of the road. It could have turned very ugly quickly. If he clipped me, it would have started a large accident.
There were countless times when I worked as service tech that I would point out bald tires, bald joints, tie-rd ends that needed to be replaced, and the customer was “smarter” than me. He didn’t need new tires or ball joints. I’m sure something similar happened to the guy from the aforementioned story. Ultimately, there is a large enough percentage of the population with these cars on the road, that action needs to be taken to keep others safe. It’s not the government’s job to keep people safe from themselves, but it is their job to keep others safe from you.
It is interesting that this discussion is quickly boiling down into two points of view –
1. There’s a lot of “Car dumb” people out there; sad but true – and a little bit of nanny state goes a long way to protect them. And perhaps that’s not a bad thing.
2. Natural Selection is alive and well on our highways. Just be sure to get the hell out of its way and this issue will self correct itself soon enough.
I’m a bit surprised at the attitude that an annual car inspection is akin to an invasion of privacy.
To me, that is like not preflighting an aircraft before flight (Hey, it worked last time- what could go wrong?) or skipping an annual medical physical (But I feel fine!). As noted before, I used to hold a NY inspectors license and the inspection (with the exception of OBDII or emissions testing) really isn’t that much more comprehensive than what a smart car owner would check over before a road trip or an autocross.
I’m really thrilled that the B&B all take such excellent care of their rides as to make mandatory inspections unnecessary. Believe me, we are a very small minority. The ‘average’ driver either can’t diagnose the various noises and smoke signals from his car or will ignore them and put a lot of faith in St. Christopher.
Since the ‘average’ car owner doesn’t have the skills to diagnose or even recognize a potential safety problem, doesn’t make sense to let a professional look the car over once a year?
I will agree that there is the potential for abuse however, in NY the car owner is free to not have any repair work done and can take the car to a different mechanic for a second opinion. The state DMV has policies in place to protect the car owner. Also, the DMV does random checks of inspectors with a ‘bait car’ – making sure the car is actually inspected and that no bogus items are being written up.
No! I don’t want to risk letting some incompetent mechanic touch my car, or expose myself to listening to some ripoff artist’s sales pitch.
If you’re incapable of looking at your tires once in awhile, you probably shouldn’t be driving anyway.
If its brakes are marginal, but still meet minimum thickness requirements, the car could be “unsafe” next week, with a safety sticker good for several years.
Maybe if it enters a 24 hour race right after the inspection! There’s a helluva lot of brake pad left once the squealer starts touching.
Not only would this be a tax on consumers, it would be a blank check for most independent repair shops.
There’s enough influence and corruption in most states to make this a nasty weapon that victimizes the poor and the uninformed.
+1. Just look at the accident data — equipment failure plays a role in very few accidents. In the scheme of things, equipment failure as a related cause is a tiny drop in a very large bucket.
In theory, I don’t mind the inspections, but in practice, the cost-benefit ratio just isn’t there. Consumers would pay billions of dollars, and get virtually nothing in return. This would just be an extraordinary waste of money that transfers cash into the hands of auto mechanics.
Mandatory inspections? Yes. Annual? No. Here in Texas new cars get two years before the 2nd inspection is required. Second inspection after 3 or 4 years would probably be adequate. Every other year after that. On the other hand, Kansas has no safety inspection and obviously worn out cars were common on the road.
Dynamic88
There is a world of difference between redlight cameras and a yearly, low cost, safety inspection. I live in an area where both are applied and in my experience the cameras are an anxiety inducing daily hazard (especially in construction zones and on broken pavement) and the inspection is a forgettable check-up that has actually stopped me from driving around without turn signals and reverse lights (and I pay attention to my cars).
Window, suspension and brake failure are areas where I suppose you could see dramatic accidents due to mechanical failure, but I wouldn’t expect these to contribute to a meaningful number of crashes. I think the real upside to inspections is stopping prolonged exposure to more subtle problems, like tire wear and signal failure, where a driver can make-do and not notice the fault while still being exposed contantly to unpredictable traction and unaware drivers. Even car guys miss those problems occasionally.
Besides, a registration isn’t ever going to cause you to crash, or entice your local police/DOT into altering signal timing, or really do anything to make you more unsafe. Whereas red light cameras…
In Jersey, new cars are good to go for 4 years, after that, you must have the car inspected every 2 years. Inspections can be done at State inspection stations for free, or at licensed private garages for a fee. Inspection includes basic safety and emissions. ODB-II cars are hooked up to the inspection center’s computer via the car’s diagnostic port. ODB-I cars are run on a dynamometer with an emissions probe up the tail pipe. Most failures are for emissions.
BTW, all Pennsylvania inspections are done at private garages. The garage owners regularly engage in scams against the hapless car owners by claiming the cars need extensive work and “I can’t even allow you to legally drive that car out of here”, type nonsense.
There’s no reason, other than political timidity, why a sufficient increase in the penalty given violators post accident, can’t produce an equivalent drop in dangerous behavior; without inconveniencing a thousand ‘innocents’ for every ‘guilty’. Just keep increasing the fine / prison time until you achieve the desired reduction in dangerous behavior. It will come at some point, guaranteed. If today’s accident rates due to neglect are found to be too high, somewhere between here and Taliban inspired hacking off the gas pedal foot of the offenders, there’s bound to be a sweet spot.
stuki
The problem with that approach is severe penalties do not guarantee changed behaviour. And when that happens the government’s course of action can fairly be called a total failure. I would cite prohibition of widely used substances as a good example…millions in jail, no positive change in behaviour.
Being “politically timid” in this respect is being conservative enough in temperment to shy from unecessarily hurting citizens with the power of government.
@tedward
I don’t think your example is entirely appropriate. In most jurisdictions, the user, who drives demand, tend to get of fairly easily; while the various levels of providers are the ones being targeted for increasingly harsh punishment. As their incentive is profits, to whatever extent penalties reduce propensity to partake, prices go up, increasing propensity again. In countries with extremely tough penalties even for users, like Singapore , usage is much lower. Similarly, some European countries noted sudden, major drops in prostitution (and pimping) once they started targeting the prostitutes themselves and their customers, rather than focusing their ire solely at the pimps. Of course I don’t have any numbers, but it would surprise me greatly if recreational pot smoking on campuses did not drop significantly if it resulted in immediate and unavoidable execution.
And it seems generally accepted amongst criminologists that likelihood of apprehension/conviction and severity of punishment both correlate negatively with crime. At least for minor crimes punished very lightly. Increasing already very harsh sentences may be a different matter, as the continued debate over the effect of the death penalty demonstrates.
And as for not hurting citizens, forcing thousands who are perfectly responsible in their vehicle upkeep to spend time and money for no safety gain at all, is hardly harmless. Just so you know where I’m coming from, I would for one stop the ghastly tradition of ‘administrative fines’, and not let government touch a hair on anyone’s head, nor a coin in their wallet, without proving endangering negligence or behavior to a jury of peers. And then, only once this much higher than today hurdle is passed, attempt to achieve an acceptable level of deterrence by adjusting sentencing severity.
And as I’m sure you know, hacking off feet and executing college kids are simply exaggerations for effect, not policy recommendations.
“the user, who drives demand, tend to get off fairly easily; while the various levels of providers are the ones being targeted for increasingly harsh punishment”
Sure, but I see this as evidence that the government is targeting behaviour so widely engaged in that they need to re-examine the utility of making it illegal in the first place (or at least their enforcement method). Pot smoking is a perfect example, b/c technically it probably could be stopped with a draconian enough enforcement, but everything our country has done has not really curbed it’s use, leaving us with a status quo of constant government violence. More violent punishments at this point would probably cost politicians their jobs long before a long-term experiment could confirm their utility. I believe that a tactic of aggresive punishment of safety faults would lead to a similar circumstance, with so many people so totally indifferent towards, or unable to pay for, vehicle maintenance that a steady stream of these arrests/fines would result, with little change in behaviour.
I really do feel you on the desire for limited government intervention, but I’d rather pay a garage a defined small fee than have them send the same bill to the state and have it come out of a tax-fed fund. I’d also prefer this to taxpayers paying for a garage infrastructure that can cope with inspecting every car yearly. More to the point, I’d rather pay this private garage a fee, and have them point out violations with no fine, than have police fund-raising with structural inspection tickets as a matter of course. At least now an inspection only cost me 20 or so bucks, the rest goes to car repair.
One very good reason here in Texas for annual inspection is for validating insurance coverage. If the vehicle has an current sticker it also has insurance. No insurance no sticky.
short answer: F*CK NO!
too much corruption by inspection stations
even worse than the emission inspection run by the state that give inaccurate or false readings requiring unnecessary “repairs”
the government already regulates too much, monitors us too much, etc
we don’t need European levels of government intrusion, monitoring, inspection, control, etc here in the US
all types of auto inspection, speed/light cameras, electronic lane/tollway monitoring, city “congestion price” monitoring, and the like need to be 100% banned
The driver who took out three cars thanks to bald tires in my original story was fined $1000. Her insurance rates are going to skyrocket. Even so, the possibility of those penalties wasn’t enough to get her to maintain the vehicle properly ahead of time and avoid the mayhem in the first place.
MA has had safety inspections forever. If the car doesnt pass, it will be given a rejection sticker. You are under no obligation to get the problem fixed at the inspection station.
@rpn453 :
No! I don’t want to risk letting some incompetent mechanic touch my car, or expose myself to listening to some ripoff artist’s sales pitch.
As a former auto tech, I find that comment to be incredibly offensive and prejudicial. I went to college (and continually updated my education with manufacturer-sponsored schools), sunk a ton of money into tools, and held an inspector’s license and I didn’t do all that to be called incompetent or a rip-off artist. The vast majority of technicians are both professional and honest and for anyone to imply otherwise demonstrates ignorance.
If you’re incapable of looking at your tires once in awhile, you probably shouldn’t be driving anyway.
Uh-huh.
If its brakes are marginal, but still meet minimum thickness requirements, the car could be “unsafe” next week, with a safety sticker good for several years.
In that case, the inspector tells the customer (and backs it up in writing) that the brakes are legal and functional, but will require service in the near future. At that point, repairs become the owner’s choice and responsibility.
Since this is not a newsgroup, I’m not going any further with this.
In theory, I don’t mind the inspections, but in practice, the cost-benefit ratio just isn’t there. Consumers would pay billions of dollars, and get virtually nothing in return. This would just be an extraordinary waste of money that transfers cash into the hands of auto mechanics.
Well said.
For myself, I’m not against the idea of regulation and nanny state intervention, I just don’t think it will really make our roads significantly safer.
Those of you who favor inspections need to show some hard statistical evidence that states with inspections have fewer accidents -per cap or per miles driven or some other metric – than those states w/o inspections. So far, no one has provided anything but anecdotes.
http://cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0591.htm
When I lived in Michigan, the emissions test was easy to pass, even for my old clunkers. All I had to do was make sure the car had a recent tuneup; new plugs, points, and reasonably new plug wires, O2 sensor, etc.
But the emissions test was a boondoggle, with lots of graft and corruption happening in the service bays. And the worst polluters, cars over 10 years old, were exempt! Does Michigan still have this?
I despise getting government involved, but one of government’s functions is to establish and enforce standards. Food safety standards, “rules-of-the-road/waterways” standards, building construction, electrical, and plumbing codes, and so forth.
Can you imagine if one state had decided that they wanted RED to mean “yield” and PURPLE to mean “stop”? And another state might decide that we’ll all drive on the left side of the road except on Sundays when we can drive wherever we damned well pleased? We would have anarchy on the roads!
Therefore, I favor a reasonable CONSISTENT, and CONSISTENTLY APPLIED safety check for cars that use the public roads. Yeah, I know. It’s government we’re talking about… sigh..
But I’ve seen it so often…it’s the rusted out bumperless junker who’s holding up traffic on the freeway onramp because his foot is all the way to the floor and his truck just can’t GO faster. It’s the guy with the busted tail light and the spare-tire-doughnut who’s driving slow in the left lane. It’s the woman with the sagging rear-end suspension and opaque-white plastic sheets taped over her broken driver-side window who’s stalled out in the middle three-lane traffic. I’m quite convinced that a lot of unfit cars (often driven by equally unfit drivers) cause accidents.
Maybe they’re not “IN” the accident, but they contribute to them, nonetheless.
Calling inspections and repair a “tax on the poor” and using that as a reason for this continuing insanity is not right; and it does not respect the safety and well being of those of us who ARE responsible. Who DO take the time to fix our own shit!
This should just be common sense!
Turn signals, 4-way flashers, wipers, brake lights, headlights, and tires should be in good working order. Why is this an unreasonable request? The seat belts should not be compromised. They should be properly mounted and they should work. I’m tired of having the irresponsible sue the responsible (and successfully too) because they didn’t take care of themselves! The car should be reasonably well maintained so as to be roadworthy, or it shouldn’t be driven on the roads used by the public.
But that’s not all. Other things should be verified, too.
The car should be insured! Some states check this at the time of tag registration, but maybe this should be done on its own schedule, too; to prevent the (all too often) case where the tag registrant buys one month’s worth of insurance, gets the tag, then drops the insurance/”forgets” to pay for Month Two.
The primary driver (who may or may not be the tag holder) should also be verified to have a current driver’s license, and he/she should verified to be able to read and understand English road signs (for US driving). Maybe that last one could be handled in a driver’s license test…but I think too many states give that test in Spanish or other languages.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-Spanish. I just don’t think we have the room for bilingual road signs, and the added confusion would make driving even more dangerous than it already is. I’ve not been overseas, so I don’t know for sure…but I wouldn’t expect to be allowed to drive in Germany, China, or Japan if I couldn’t read and understand the signage, so therefore, I think it’s reasonable to make all US testing in English.
Florida used to safety inspections, but since I’ve been driving (around ’85) I’ve only had to the emission thing. Then about 10 years ago they stop doing even that!
I’m all for it – I can’t tell you how many people I have nearly hit because their brake lights were OUT! Not to mention bits of bodywork falling off, mismatched bald tires, lose fitting hubcaps, broken windows covered with garbage bags… the list goes on. Don’t even get me started regarding loads in pickups not being even remotely secured or the condition of small utility trailers.
The laws regarding how safe a car has to be when its made are numerous (and often overkill), but keeping your car up to those standards, heck ANY standards? Nothing.