Texas about to do away with auto inspections
- Thread starter rekit
- Start date
I'm a cop in Texas and I support doing away with inspections. Inspections serve little purpose anymore but to inconvenience the law abiding and generate a modicum of income for the state. Inspections, based on my anecdotal opinion, do not improve roadway safety.
The real issue is rampant fictitious 30 day permits, which is what people acquire to avoid having a derelict vehicle inspected. My county of 110,000, with a commuter transient population closer to 150,000, has thousands of fictitious 30 day permits roaming the roads at any given time. With 6-10 Deputies on duty and two additional state troopers, there simply isn't enough time in the day to do anything about it on the street level. The state is trying ways to go after the plate generators online, but its a loosing battle. Lets not even talk about unlicensed drivers...
So in summary, the inspection is pointless as the truly dangerous vehicles would never be inspected anyways.
The real issue is rampant fictitious 30 day permits, which is what people acquire to avoid having a derelict vehicle inspected. My county of 110,000, with a commuter transient population closer to 150,000, has thousands of fictitious 30 day permits roaming the roads at any given time. With 6-10 Deputies on duty and two additional state troopers, there simply isn't enough time in the day to do anything about it on the street level. The state is trying ways to go after the plate generators online, but its a loosing battle. Lets not even talk about unlicensed drivers...
So in summary, the inspection is pointless as the truly dangerous vehicles would never be inspected anyways.
Interesting. So it's if it is "primarily operated" in that area but not registered there. I believe it has to have a frequency component (x number of times you pass a mobile station) or a lot of folks both in/out of state would get notices.
Three observations in 60 days (an "observation" is when the roadside emissions monitor sees that vehicle). There has to be at least 2 weeks between observations, if I recall correctly.
EDIT: "Vehicle must be observed no less than 3 times in a 60 day period, with no less than 30 days between the first and last observation"
Last edited:
Yeah I'm good haha. I go up a few times a year in the car I am concerned about.
I actually am curious if it would just pass....it's got a cat..just not the 2x factory ones. It could go two ways..."ok/pass" or "OMG SUPER POLLUTER!".
So why not do away with the 30 day permit instead?
Well...I had two others like the post as well.
In areas just North of me (known for its bad water) a crackdown on insurance and plates would likely yield a 40-50% reduction in the road, add to that an inspection program and I am betting 3 out of 4 of these heaps would be off the roads. There are a number of areas I avoid driving in because of this.
I totally understand what you're getting at. I'm not a huge fan of vehicles puking out all kinds of smoke and crap. But most of the time, when the check engine light is on, The car still runs the same. I would have to believe if there was really a problem, The car would run lousy and gas mileage would go down.
Another vote for inspections. If I drive a tired looking but well maintained car to work at 0400 in the morning I'm a target for a cop who hasn't found a drunk yet that night. I'd rather schedule an inspection on my time schedule within the month due than endure possibly multiple ones on the cop's schedule.
That's why cops are supposed to have "Probable Cause". Yes, even if just to check your car's emissions.
I'm curious since this is right up your alley so to speak. Tinted windows are a big thing and CA regulates how dark they can be but of course there are those who think those regs don't apply to them. So I saw two cars today with the side front windows tinted as dark as the side back windows which meant you couldn't see the driver at all. If you pulled over a car like that for a reason how would you approach it from ether side being unable to see what a driver or passenger might be doing behind the tint?
This is an interesting point. We had a particular intersection here on a state highway that every local knew was dangerous. Even being careful near-misses were common if you had to commute it daily.
There were two fatalities in ~18 months (this is very rural so that's a high number). The state was approached and insisted the intersection was entirely safe and every accident there had been "driver error."
Interestingly, when there was a third fatality a few months later they immediately began a rather large construction project to re-work the intersection, softening curves, improving visibility and adding merge/turn lanes.
Just coincidence I'm sure. After all, they had previously sworn there was nothing wrong with the old design.....
CO requires max of 30? or 35? % VLT on front windows, but as mentioned earlier in the thread it irks me to see unmarked law enforcement vehicles with 5%
I'm assuming the reasoning is we don't need to see LEO's but they need to see the bad guys in front seats, thus a statutory exemption for law enforcement.
As was said, rules for thee but not for me.
I don't want 5% up front but I feel different rules for the peasants simply sets a bad precedent.
Looks like TX is working on it:
Bill to Eliminate Paper Tags Advances in Texas House
The Texas House Transportation Committee unanimously approved a bill Wednesday that would eliminate paper temporary license plates in Texas.
www.nbcdfw.com
Blaming driver error is a kneejerk reaction from incompetent DOT employees. Even when the MUTCD (which some of them have no clue about) specifically prohibits the intersection configuration in question (a yellow trap).
The problem was resolved when I went to the city manager about the problem and made them aware they have a huge legal liability on their hands. Then it got fixed.
Pretty sad when the "Traffic Signals Supervisor" has no clue what this is or why it's a problem:
Yellow trap - Wikipedia
Similar threads
