Wife’s rogue failed inspection. Is this legal?

There is no way to prove how unsafe this thing is without actually crashing it and comparing it to an OEM crash result. I don’t like these sort of guilt shaming tactics. If it is 0.5% less safe, than why should I be villainized? People have their own tolerances for safety.
The fact of the matter is, that you have no idea how solid it is. It might be 25% compromised. It might be 50% compromised. It might be 0%, but until it is taken apart and properly inspected, you have no idea.

Face it, you bought a potentially dangerous car.

No matter how much you want to rationalize it, or convince yourself otherwise, you don’t know that this car is structurally sound.
 
How do we know that it is just the bracketry that was done badly?

This thing was totaled by the insurance company.

Totaled.

So, the fix was likely more than “bracketry”.

Replacing the obviously boogered brackets, without a teardown to ensure that the rest of it is structurally sound, is lipstick on a pig.
The airbag deploying is a key part of the assessment. Airbags only deploy if an impact reaches a certain threshold. With the airbag deployment in this vehicle, it is an appropriate assumption the unibody/ frame rails and certain attached components have changed from the way the vehicle left the factory. The changes in the unibody/ frame rails from factory specifications may reduce safety which was designed by OEM engineers and crash tested so the vehicle would mitigate some of the impact from a collision in certain ways.
 
The car has been butchered and in reality there is no way of bringing it back to the original structural integrity without spending a lot of money and even then it would be questionable. And there is no easy way of even assessing its integrity.

At this point the only options are fix it enough to pass inspection and drive it. Or sell it to someone else.

Despite all the safety shaming, this vehicle looks too nice on the outside for someone to scrap it. It will likely stay on the roads for few more years whether it’s OP or someone else.
 
There is no way to prove how unsafe this thing is without actually crashing it and comparing it to an OEM crash result. I don’t like these sort of guilt shaming tactics. If it is 0.5% less safe, than why should I be villainized? People have their own tolerances for safety.
Plus some of our safety police are ignoring the fact you're inquiring about correcting what an inspector asked to be corrected.

This is SOP in many such scenarios when inspections are required. Make corrections as noted, re-inspect and you either pass or fail.

Any safety shaming also disregards personal responsibility. THEY will tell you what is good for you.
 
The fact of the matter is, that you have no idea how solid it is. It might be 25% compromised. It might be 50% compromised. It might be 0%, but until it is taken apart and properly inspected, you have no idea.

Face it, you bought a potentially dangerous car.

No matter how much you want to rationalize it, or convince yourself otherwise, you don’t know that this car is structurally sound.
Yea...but it's his wife' s car. Think about that for a moment. If it was me the car would been disposed of yesterday....
 
Plus some of our safety police are ignoring the fact you're inquiring about correcting what an inspector asked to be corrected.

This is SOP in many such scenarios when inspections are required. Make corrections as noted, re-inspect and you either pass or fail.

Any safety shaming also disregards personal responsibility. THEY will tell you what is good for you.
It is a safety issue. You can't explain that away...... it's non sensical.
 
The car has been butchered and in reality there is no way of bringing it back to the original structural integrity without spending a lot of money and even then it would be questionable. And there is no easy way of even assessing its integrity.

At this point the only options are fix it enough to pass inspection and drive it. Or sell it to someone else.

Despite all the safety shaming, this vehicle looks too nice on the outside for someone to scrap it. It will likely stay on the roads for few more years whether it’s OP or someone else.
So as long as it looks nice but unsafe it should be driven?
 
Plus some of our safety police are ignoring the fact you're inquiring about correcting what an inspector asked to be corrected.

This is SOP in many such scenarios when inspections are required. Make corrections as noted, re-inspect and you either pass or fail.

Any safety shaming also disregards personal responsibility. THEY will tell you what is good for you.
Yes, but I wish they would just make you sign a waiver or something. This issue isn’t something that should ban you from driving it.

People want to just push me around saying I’m this and that for allowing my wife to drive it. I’m such a terrible person for letting her drive this car, blah blah blah. It’s all moral grandstanding.

Some people let their wives drive corollas. Oh the humanity, how dare you let them drive corollas instead of big safe Yukons.

we are both ok with the car as it is from a safety perspective. Now the airbag, I agree. That should have been replaced sooner.
 
Last edited:
So as long as it looks nice but unsafe it should be driven?
Did he say that unsafe cars should be driven? Where? When? He just said it’s a shame it has to be written off. Where did you get that conclusion?
 
How do we know that it is just the bracketry that was done badly?

This thing was totaled by the insurance company.

Totaled.

So, the fix was likely more than “bracketry”.


Replacing the obviously boogered brackets, without a teardown to ensure that the rest of it is structurally sound, is lipstick on a pig.
+1 that makes sense and even the brackets were a poor job, deck screws, really?
 
The fact of the matter is, that you have no idea how solid it is. It might be 25% compromised. It might be 50% compromised. It might be 0%, but until it is taken apart and properly inspected, you have no idea.

Face it, you bought a potentially dangerous car.

No matter how much you want to rationalize it, or convince yourself otherwise, you don’t know that this car is structurally sound.
You’re right I can’t know with absolute certainty. But still I should be able to make the decision or not whether my family drives this car. There are many people that drive older, unsafe cars, like cars without airbags at all because they are too old. I won’t safety shame them and tell them they are some sort of awful person for driving that older car with passengers. Do you think this rogue is more dangerous to drive than a 1920s car? Should people who own 1920s car be forbidden from driving them because of safety? What about Kei-trucks? The government is trying to ban those because they’re not safe. Let people choose what they want, especially if it is not hurting others.
 
Yes, but I wish they would just make you sign a waiver or something. This issue isn’t something that should ban you from driving it.

People want to just push me around saying I’m this and that for allowing my wife to drive it. I’m such a terrible person for letting her drive this car, blah blah blah. It’s all moral grandstanding.

Some people let their wives drive corollas. Oh the humanity, how dare you let them drive corollas instead of big safe Yukons.

we are both ok with the car as it is from a safety perspective. Now the airbag, I agree. That should have been replaced sooner.
Some people ride motorcycles.....
 
I don't think this vehicle is the death trap some are making it out to be, but that shoddy repair to the upper tie bar is not going to pass this inspection, a new one needs welded in and that involves taking the entire front end apart. Now, once you do that there's a chance of around 99.9% that the new one isn't going to fit because everything it mounts to is out of alignment. I wouldn't sink anymore time or money into this - take it back to Florida and sell it private party, keep it registered in Florida or junk it.
 
Back
Top Bottom