Time for mandatory inspections through the US?

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Nonsense. Driving is a privilege, period. If someone elects not to keep a vehicle maintained to minimum safety standards, or someone chooses not to have insurance, they have no business endangering those of us who do. They can still walk, ride a bicycle, or take public transportation.

Most of the people that claim they can't afford to maintain a vehicle still manage to have a cell phone (no, that's not a right either), cable or satellite TV (again, not a right) or choose to have a boatload of kids (a choice) that they also can't afford.

I have no problem with the way that someone sets their priorities for their life, but along with that comes responsibility. Claiming that driving is a right as opposed to a privilege absolves people of the responsibility they have to the rest of the motoring public.

That lack of personal responsibility is something that is, and should be to everyone, unconditionally unacceptable.


I'm not disagreeing strongly--I wholeheartedly agree that we all need to keep our vehicles in good order. I'm disagreeing with the notion that one can truly get by without a vehicle. Only in limited circumstances can one get by w/o it. And further, the road system is set up to prioritize vehicle traffic. And thus I do not agree to the notion that we should jack up the requirements of the driving test, especially not so that we can finally have roads that we can drive at 100mph. Some sort of vehicle safety monitoring system I think is important, but it likely needs to be somewhat variable depending up each state: rusted out body panels should be a fail in all states, but perhaps Nevada does not need nearly as much tire tread depth as say Maine or Washington state?

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Zaedock
Wow. Some of you guys are just awesome. You can tell who's never really been through tough times here.

Let's tell the low-income single Mom that she can't have her car back until she buys $600 in tires & pays a hefty fine.

Brilliant.


Since when is that an acceptable excuse to take my and others' safety for granted?

There is a thing called responsibility, and regardless of whether driving is a privilege or a right, this responsibility trumps. Noplace in privilege or right does means come into it. If you cant afford to maintain your vehicle, you cant afford to drive. There is no legality to going where you wish, just not in something that endangers the general public.

Of all things that government is good for, protection and general welfare of the public from threats, internal and external is one.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: supton
And thus I do not agree to the notion that we should jack up the requirements of the driving test, especially not so that we can finally have roads that we can drive at 100mph. Some sort of vehicle safety monitoring system I think is important, but it likely needs to be somewhat variable depending up each state: rusted out body panels should be a fail in all states, but perhaps Nevada does not need nearly as much tire tread depth as say Maine or Washington state?


So youre saying that driving skill is only necessary over 100 MPH? Because last I checked, there are a ton of lousy drivers doing stupid stuff at 25, 55 and 65 MPH.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Really? Federally mandated automobile inspections?

Under what version of the US Constitution, enumerated powers can the Federal Government mandate such a thing?

Answer: They can't. It's up to the states.


Driving is a privilege, not a rite.


Nice comeback, but "free and unrestricted travel" is a natural right. Higher courts and the US Supreme court have routinely ruled that the method of travel matters not. On foot, horse, car or airplane, free and unrestricted travel remains a natural right in the United States.

So, while driving may be considered a privilege, the travel itself is not, and therefore cannot be federally regulated on an individual level.

That's why the interstate commerce clause is the basis for the EPA, the NHTSA and more. Your car comes with federally mandated features under this methodology. Yet, the instant you take possession, the regulation is a state matter.

I'm not sure the "stop and frisk" decisions are in total support of your statement.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
So youre saying that driving skill is only necessary over 100 MPH? Because last I checked, there are a ton of lousy drivers doing stupid stuff at 25, 55 and 65 MPH.


No, I am not. But jacking it up is not going to take bad drivers off the road. I could pass any written test if I wanted to, but it means nothing about how I'll wind up actually driving. Similarly, requiring elderly people to be able to pilot something at 80mph isn't going to be helfpul if their only goal is to putter to the doctors office and back during daylight hours while avoiding traffic.

My point is, while we need to be driving safe vehicles, and drive in safe manners, it's ludicrious to require everyone to have the ability to handle a blowout at 100mph. Just as it's selfish to put others into risk by either my faulty vehicle or my faulty driving--forcing people off the road has impacts others. My focus is on the driver requirements, less on the vehicle requirements, although that could be worked in as well.

 

[sciphi]

NY's far from perfect, yet I still think our inspection system is well-suited for our particular needs. We get all 4 seasons up here, from 90+*F summer days to -10*F winter nights, and everything from weeks of no rain to 3 day long blizzards. We also put tons of salt onto the roads every winter that turns the snow into a grainy slush.

So, one needs brakes that work to avoid others watching the summer clouds instead of the road. We need functioning lights to be seen during the dark winters, tires with enough tread to get through the slush safely, and functional windshield wipers to clear away precipitation year-round.

There are lots of folks who don't ever think of their cars until the yearly inspection. I'm glad we have some mechanism in place to ensure everybody's car has a minimum level of safety equipment.

For the millions of folks who live in NYC and the surrounding regions, I'm sure they're glad to be breathing air that is cleaner today than 30 years ago thanks to emissions testing and enforcement. Folks in my little backwoods hometown way far away from NYC who live on the main drags are glad their houses aren't covered in particulates and soot from car and truck emissions.

There are abuses that happen, and people that let abuses happen to them. There are also enforcement mechanisms to mitigate the worst of those abuses. On the balance, I'm glad our inspection system is in place, pain in the kiester it sometimes is.

 

[Zaedock]

You guys think someone who can barely get to work and make enough to put food on the table is going to worry about auto repairs? They're blessed just to have a running vehicle. Some of the elitist responses here are laughable.

I never said it was right or the way it should be. Unfortunately, it's the way it is for some people and adding hefty fines and/or mandatory repairs is not the way to do fix it.

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: Zaedock
You guys think someone who can barely get to work and make enough to put food on the table is going to worry about auto repairs? They're blessed just to have a running vehicle. Some of the elitist responses here are laughable.

I never said it was right or the way it should be. Unfortunately, it's the way it is for some people and adding hefty fines and/or mandatory repairs is not the way to do fix it.

Were talking about other innocent live`s here being threatened by people that choose to put their junkers on the road each day. Driving is a privilege , not a right. And if someone in your family was to get hurt or even worse, from a vehicle that was not road worthy, how would you feel then? Still think they should be out there? Or should I say..." it's the way it is for some people"?

 

[kb01]

I think a safe and properly insured vehicle is the responsibility of every motorist; not for the driver but for other people who might be injured or killed. The most efficient and practical way to enforce it is the real question.

Supposedly, about 20% of motorists in my state don't have insurance and even with annual safety inspections, I'd conservatively estimate that a similar number operate unsafe vehicles. I really don't feel any safer here than I did when I lived the next state over, which didn't have inspections.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Zaedock
You guys think someone who can barely get to work and make enough to put food on the table is going to worry about auto repairs? They're blessed just to have a running vehicle. Some of the elitist responses here are laughable.

I never said it was right or the way it should be. Unfortunately, it's the way it is for some people and adding hefty fines and/or mandatory repairs is not the way to do fix it.



Wait, so if they hydroplane on their bald tires and run over somebody's wife and infant, it is OK because they couldn't afford new tires?

That's laughable! If you can't afford to own and maintain a car, you can't afford a car.

If somebody cannot afford to keep their vehicle in a safe state, they are not jeopardizing only their own lives, no. They are jeopardizing the safety and lives of everybody around them. they are a HAZARD.

Nobody has the "right" to be a hazard just so they can enjoy the privilege of driving a car. The notion of even entertaining this premise is ridiculous.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Nonsense. Driving is a privilege, period. If someone elects not to keep a vehicle maintained to minimum safety standards, or someone chooses not to have insurance, they have no business endangering those of us who do. They can still walk, ride a bicycle, or take public transportation.

Most of the people that claim they can't afford to maintain a vehicle still manage to have a cell phone (no, that's not a right either), cable or satellite TV (again, not a right) or choose to have a boatload of kids (a choice) that they also can't afford.

I have no problem with the way that someone sets their priorities for their life, but along with that comes responsibility. Claiming that driving is a right as opposed to a privilege absolves people of the responsibility they have to the rest of the motoring public.

That lack of personal responsibility is something that is, and should be to everyone, unconditionally unacceptable.

X10000

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: Zaedock
You guys think someone who can barely get to work and make enough to put food on the table is going to worry about auto repairs? They're blessed just to have a running vehicle. Some of the elitist responses here are laughable.

I never said it was right or the way it should be. Unfortunately, it's the way it is for some people and adding hefty fines and/or mandatory repairs is not the way to do fix it.

How about doing what poor people who cannot afford cars do? Take a bus, public transportation, hitch a ride, walk (wild idea their), etc.

I'd love to see a yearly inspection system to make sure their is a basic level of functionality in every vehicle on the road. IE the brakes work, the tires are pretty good, the suspension isn't in danger of blowing apart a ball joint, all the lights function, the defroster works, none of the glass is cracked, etc.

 

[The_Jeff]

^ This tire cost me less than a pair of Big Mac value meals.

I know some people who choose to be poor. It really is a choice, usually justified with "I'll get by." OK, so far so good, you may be clever. If you're clever, you can get by, lots of families drop to one income so they can raise kids or whatever. I know some success stories.

If you don't want to buy used tires or other auto parts, buy used clothes from goodwill. Brew your own coffee at home. Brown bag lunch. Bring in a boarder in your spare room. Or, for heaven's sake, drive a car that's cheaper to run.

Coincidentally, my utopia would have 20% of drivers fail their license tests; it would light a fire in them to outperform the rest of their competition. It would never, never happen of course.

 

[supton]

Wait a minute: Defroster and "none of the glass is cracked"? I don't think those are vital. The defroster is nice, yes; but would you fail a vehicle for having non-functional A/C? Speaking of which, my VW doesn't have effective defrost in winter: it takes it miles before it will blow heat onto the windshield: should that be a fail? I've always managed by just rolling down a window, if the defroster was failing to do its job.

Similarly, if a passenger window is missing, should that be a fail? I could see broken shards of glass being a problem, and AFAIK only the winsdshield can actually crack; but let's not set the bar too high. I recall a friend being told he had to have a passenger door repaired, as the latch didn't work from the outside. And I recall being told that I needed to fix my driver's side window, as it wouldn't roll down. [It was off the regulator, and at the time frozen in place due to frost.]

Should an inspector get in and stand on the brakes as hard as they can, to see if a brake line pops? I think so--but then that is an automatic safety violation, oops, gotta repair it here, or pay for a tow... Yet isn't that one of the biggest "hidden" failure points? Unsafe tread is easy to see, a brake line damaged by internal corrosion...

[Personally I would just as soon have it pop, as I'm not interested in driving an unsafe vehicle. I only go to shops I trust, and would be content to have it repaired on the spot. So I'm all for a brake check, but have to point out yet another issue.]

 

[The_Jeff]

ME inspection manual

Note how in the preface they relaxed the rules, you can now have a torn ball joint boot or CV joint. They used to need those goofy headlight wipers to work but unrolled that requirement.

They appear to try to be reasonable, if your rear window regulators fail you pass but front ones are needed. Presumably so you can get out of your car if it falls in a pond.

School busses need working heat, first aid kit, and a bunch of other stuff.

 

[sciphi]

Agreed, people make choices and have priorities.

As somebody made very clear to me some years back, driving is a privilege, not a right. Even in the rural areas there are ways to get to work that don't involve a car. They might be inconvenient, sure, but there are ways. I've done without a car twice in my adult life for extended periods of time while away at school, and it is doable. It is a royal pain sometimes, but it is doable. Carpooling, public transportation, taxi for emergencies, biking, and walking all were used, and they all got me where I needed to go by the time I needed to be there.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
ME inspection manual

Note how in the preface they relaxed the rules, you can now have a torn ball joint boot or CV joint. They used to need those goofy headlight wipers to work but unrolled that requirement.

They appear to try to be reasonable, if your rear window regulators fail you pass but front ones are needed. Presumably so you can get out of your car if it falls in a pond.

School busses need working heat, first aid kit, and a bunch of other stuff.


Wow, that's quite a manual. Much more strict than my state.

Ironically, I think my Explorer would have been off the road much sooner had it remained up north due to inspections. A lot of the rust related hazards it had were overlooked by the NC inspection process. It slipped through at least two NC inspections with a rigged up parking brake and lots of severe rust damage, including to the brake lines.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
ME inspection manual

Note how in the preface they relaxed the rules, you can now have a torn ball joint boot or CV joint. They used to need those goofy headlight wipers to work but unrolled that requirement.

They appear to try to be reasonable, if your rear window regulators fail you pass but front ones are needed. Presumably so you can get out of your car if it falls in a pond.

School busses need working heat, first aid kit, and a bunch of other stuff.


208 pages! I'd like to see an inspector pass a random test of their knowledge of that document. The idea that the general public has to understand such a ridiculous document is nuts.

The enforcement of such a document would be as arbitrary as the individual inspector would like it to be, and that is the main issue with such ridiculous practices as vehicle inspections.

A guy on a Ranger forum was denied because his engine didn't have a vibration damper on it that is no longer made by Ford. Rangers came both with and without them.


I have always lived in areas without inspections and have never seen a need for them.

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn
I'm glad you goons aren't in charge of things. take your mandatory inspections, turn them sideways and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.


Yeah thats real nice, thank you.

 

[Spazdog]

I used to perform state inspections.

My former employer and I got into it because I would not pass a car that had all but a 6" strip in the middle of the windshield tinted with what appeared to be 5% tint. I also frequently failed APC style clear taillights because they had no red reflector(Sec. 547.303. COLOR REQUIREMENTS. (a) Unless expressly provided otherwise, a lighting device or reflector mounted on the rear of a vehicle must be or reflect red.) He told me he was going to charge me for the money he lost. It reached a boiling point when I refused to "hot-pipe" his undocumented immigrant buddies.(illegally pass cars using my own car's exhaust reading)

I'm friends with a Department of Public Safety official who's responsible for State Motor Vehicle Inspection compliance. She catches fraudulent shops frequently yet they persist.

The inspections do not stop bad vehicles from driving. Ironically, the owners will often spend a large portion of the amount it would take to fix their cars to obtain a sticker.