Time for mandatory inspections through the US?

[The_Jeff]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

ME inspection manual
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.


To be fair a passenger car is only 28 pages of that, and a fair share of that is how to handle jacked up trucks, low riding cars, fenderless street rods, and other oddities.

The rest is mucky muck about locking up your stickers, whether or not you can have a dirt floor, tarpaper sheathing, rights of appeal, etc.

I performed inspections, briefly, before breaking my ankle and returning to a desk job. Also, as a member of the public, I previously and successfully narced on a shop to the State Police using that publicly available document as my guide. Shop said my rear drum brakes were out of adjustment, look, see, you can see the wheel spin and not stop. I retorted that the brake pedal had plenty of reserve and the e-brake worked fine. I was right and the fuzz read them the riot act (but they stayed open.)

 

[JimPghPA]

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.

Zaedock, you would be the first to scream if one of these working mothers transported a member of your family to some event and lost control due to some unsafe unmaintained section of their vehicle and got into an accident resulting in a permanent disability, and or disfigurement, or even a death of one or more members of your family.

Or if such a driver lost control and went onto a sidewalk, or into a vehicle being operated properly, and hit and damaged a member of your family.

 

[JimPghPA]

People who neglect repair or upkeep because of lack of cash are the same people who will talk to other people about the fines that they will have to pay if they do not do the repair or upkeep. If a fine breaks their bank to the point that they can no longer drive than so be it. They do not have the right to endanger, harm, and kill others just because they are short on cash.

 

[morris]

is there a REAL trouble in states that dont do inspections? NO 1. NO 2 my car IS NO ones bushiness.

 

[Shannow]

If you are on your own private road, then fine.

When you share a public road with me and my family, then I am entitled to know that there's a more than fair chance that you at least meet some standard of roadworthiness

 

[JimPghPA]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
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.


+ 1,000,000

 

[Shannow]

As to the low income affordability justification to lack of vehicle maintenance, by the time that you buy "something", either with money that could be spent on rent, or worse still, as a loan with interest, pay the required road taxes and personal indemnity insurances, and even before you start buying fuel and not buying tyres...you are probably better off leasing the service from a taxi company

Especially if you limit those services to when you actually NEED a car, rather than driving to the shop because you already have a car.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: daves87rs
It's becoming a valid question lately.....

Yeah we need more government...not! People who have jobs will buy new cars. So much for change.

 

[Zaedock]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
As to the low income affordability justification to lack of vehicle maintenance, by the time that you buy "something", either with money that could be spent on rent, or worse still, as a loan with interest, pay the required road taxes and personal indemnity insurances, and even before you start buying fuel and not buying tyres...you are probably better off leasing the service from a taxi company

Especially if you limit those services to when you actually NEED a car, rather than driving to the shop because you already have a car.

It wasn't a justification. It's simply reality for many, which was the point I was making. I never once said it was right. Unfortunately some here try to argue about it instead of actually reading.
The bottom line is that people need help, not fines. My wife and I do a lot of charity work and this thread has me thinking about low income repairs for those who need it. It would be nice to help keep everyone safe both directly and indirectly.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
I'm not sure the "stop and frisk" decisions are in total support of your statement.

I understand your point and we probably agree on the substance of the issue. However, you must also understand that there is a clear distinction between a minor delay, as defined under the CFR's and a restriction. Hence, the legality of certain checkpoints and the resulting minor delay.

 

[Tdbo]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Yeah we need more government...not! People who have jobs will buy new cars. So much for change.

+1.

 

[Kestas]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
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.

Excellent post... and said without support or criticism of mandatory inspections. Best post in this thread.

 

[bruno]

How about a National Drivers License with very strict testing ? If you want the government overseeing our lives why not take that next logical step ?

My belief - less government , not more !

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: 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.]


Oh I'd love for them to be much more strict than that:

1. The wrong First Aid kit
You must carry a first-aid kit that meets or exceeds German legal requirements and standards of Deutsche Industrienorm (DIN).

2. Front and driver door window tint
After-market transparent or tinted material cannot be attached to the windshield, drivers-side window or front passenger-side window.

3. Chips and cracks in windshield
Glass in the front, rear, or side windows directly to the right or left of the driver may not have cracks that impair or distort the driver's vision. Windshields with cracks or fracture damage in the driver's windshield-wiping area over 1-inch long (2.5 cm), star-shaped fractures over ½ inch (12.5 mm), or any condition concerning glass breaks or cracks that obstruct the driver's visibility are not allowed.

4. Brake inspection
Braking effort from any wheel less than 70% of maximum effort recorded from another wheel on the same axle or during road testing, the vehicle deviates excessively from a straight line.

5. Incorrect turn signals
Light color, position, or intensity not according to regulations.

6. Worn tires
The tread depth of the vehicle tires must be at least 1/16 of an inch (1.6 mm). Inspectors will use a tread-depth gauge at any two adjacent major grooves at three areas spaced approximately equally around the outside of the tire.

7. Engine/Transmission/Power Steering fluid leaks
The vehicle will be rejected if there is evidence of an ongoing slow leak of oil or antifreeze or saturation of the underbody of the vehicle. If there is evidence of a slow leak, the undercarriage must be cleaned and re-inspected to verify whether or not there is still a slow leak. Excessive leaks are immediate failures.

8. Vehicle height
Minimum body ground clearance must be at least 8 cm from flexible body parts such as ground-effect spoilers or air dams and 11 cm from hard parts such as exhaust, frame components, and suspension.

9. Headlight alignment
Headlights must be aimed correctly (higher than 56 cm and lower than 137 cm). Lamp color, position, and intensity must in accordance with regulations.

10. Exhaust leaks/Noise level
The exhaust system must be secured tightly and free of leaks. Tailpipes must extend behind the rear wheels or beyond the side edge or rear of the vehicle body unless prevented by the manufacturer's specifications. Vehicle may be rejected if it emits excessive blue or black smoke. All exhaust line parts must be strong enough to resist normal hand pressure applied by the inspector. All repairs to exhaust systems must be made by welding or component replacement. All motorcycles and automobile exhaust systems will be inspected for noise levels. Noise level may not exceed 95 decibels.

I want them to target [censored] aftermarket parts as well.

 

[morris]

TO: shannow " meet some standard of roadworthiness" i agree 100%. i do have a obligation to keep my car in good shape. and i do that. BUT its NOT the governments business.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: morris
TO: shannow " meet some standard of roadworthiness" i agree 100%. i do have a obligation to keep my car in good shape. and i do that. BUT its NOT the governments business.


Then who is going to enforce it?

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: gathermewool

I slowed down, changed lanes and flashed my highbeams a couple of times - no response. I gave it one more try by turning my lights on and off twice - no response. Unfortunately, he was not alone. I made a point to count off all the other unsafe no-light-users to my wife and I ended up with over a dozen in the 20 minute drive, but made no further attemtps to "help."


This is one of my all time pet peeves on the road. Cops only seem interested in enforcing speeding or dont want to get out of their car in [censored] weather.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Quote:
8. Vehicle height
Minimum body ground clearance must be at least 8 cm from flexible body parts such as ground-effect spoilers or air dams and 11 cm from hard parts such as exhaust, frame components, and suspension.


I have seen (and driven) cars that did not meet this RIGHT FROM THE FACTORY!

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: 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.]


Oh I'd love for them to be much more strict than that:

1. The wrong First Aid kit
You must carry a first-aid kit that meets or exceeds German legal requirements and standards of Deutsche Industrienorm (DIN).

2. Front and driver door window tint
After-market transparent or tinted material cannot be attached to the windshield, drivers-side window or front passenger-side window.

3. Chips and cracks in windshield
Glass in the front, rear, or side windows directly to the right or left of the driver may not have cracks that impair or distort the driver's vision. Windshields with cracks or fracture damage in the driver's windshield-wiping area over 1-inch long (2.5 cm), star-shaped fractures over ½ inch (12.5 mm), or any condition concerning glass breaks or cracks that obstruct the driver's visibility are not allowed.

4. Brake inspection
Braking effort from any wheel less than 70% of maximum effort recorded from another wheel on the same axle or during road testing, the vehicle deviates excessively from a straight line.

5. Incorrect turn signals
Light color, position, or intensity not according to regulations.

6. Worn tires
The tread depth of the vehicle tires must be at least 1/16 of an inch (1.6 mm). Inspectors will use a tread-depth gauge at any two adjacent major grooves at three areas spaced approximately equally around the outside of the tire.

7. Engine/Transmission/Power Steering fluid leaks
The vehicle will be rejected if there is evidence of an ongoing slow leak of oil or antifreeze or saturation of the underbody of the vehicle. If there is evidence of a slow leak, the undercarriage must be cleaned and re-inspected to verify whether or not there is still a slow leak. Excessive leaks are immediate failures.

8. Vehicle height
Minimum body ground clearance must be at least 8 cm from flexible body parts such as ground-effect spoilers or air dams and 11 cm from hard parts such as exhaust, frame components, and suspension.

9. Headlight alignment
Headlights must be aimed correctly (higher than 56 cm and lower than 137 cm). Lamp color, position, and intensity must in accordance with regulations.

10. Exhaust leaks/Noise level
The exhaust system must be secured tightly and free of leaks. Tailpipes must extend behind the rear wheels or beyond the side edge or rear of the vehicle body unless prevented by the manufacturer's specifications. Vehicle may be rejected if it emits excessive blue or black smoke. All exhaust line parts must be strong enough to resist normal hand pressure applied by the inspector. All repairs to exhaust systems must be made by welding or component replacement. All motorcycles and automobile exhaust systems will be inspected for noise levels. Noise level may not exceed 95 decibels.

I want them to target [censored] aftermarket parts as well.


A list like this is exactly why a comprehensive inspection regulation does not have the support of 99% of the population. People dont want to be shaken down $300, $500, $1000+ chasing fluid leaks that are not safety sensitive.

If you kept the inspection just to:
Lights/reflectors functioning as per regs
Working wipers
Tires
Brakes
Suspension
Steering
Emissions
And other glaring illegal mods like window tint.

I think there would be a lot more support for mandatory inspections if the process could be made fair and efficient.

 

[javacontour]

What elitist about not wanting someone to crash their unsafe car into me or my family because they "feel" they have a right to ignore the law because they are poor and it's not fair?

Which is the elitist attitude, the one that expects that folks obey the law or the attitude that you get a free pass if you are poor?

I think the latter is the elitist attitude. Thinking anyone's situation gives them "the right" to ignore the law.

Elitist isn't just an attitude by those who are wealthy. It's alive and well in all socioeconomic strata.

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.