Well do you agree? Todays USA Today ran a story about states eliminating safety inspection programs. D.C. in paticular was cited, the D.C. administrator stated that no data between safety inspections and fewer accidents exist.
On a side note a 1975 or so study about safety equipment put forth the idea that drivers take more risks because their cars have equipment that “make the car safer”
I tend to agree with the idea.
Yes, we had a heavy snow fall/blizzard here. My wife went to a meeting in a front drive car and observed nearly all the vehicles in the ditch were SUVs!!! These clowns are so overconfident with ABS, AWD, traction control that they cannot gauge the limits of the vehicle to stop.
In other words, although fatalities have steadily dropped, accidents have increased dramatically, mainly due to lack of driver skill and poor judgement.
Todays USA Today ran a story about states eliminating safety inspection programs. D.C. in paticular was cited, the D.C. administrator stated that no data between safety inspections and fewer accidents exist.
I’m NOT disagreeing with you…but there’s a reason there’s no data. It’s almost impossible to collect. Most accidents (unless there’s injury) are NOT inspected to determine the actual cause. Faulty equipment may be the underlying cause, but because no one was injured or killed it’s assumed Driver error. So no one really knows if safety inspections have any effect.
If safety inspection programs had checked whats under the hat rather than the hood, there might have been a better correlation. Acting on a false sense of security goes with my ‘under the hat’ inspections, so guess I’ll agree.
I’m an SUV owner and do agree that many many SUV owners haven’t a clue on how to drive it. They just assume because their in a SUV they can drive in a snow-storm the way they could on a sunny 85 degree day.
Last storm no SUV’s off the road, just 8 cars
I think it’s correct that more safety equipement leads, on average, to more risky behavior. I still think we come out ahead, we just don’t get all the benefit people expect. Related story: some sports safety folks say football players would be safer (fewer concussions and other life-threatening injuries) if all pads AND helmets were eliminated! They arrived at that by comparing Australian-rules football injuries to NFL stats. More Aussie injuries, but fewer severe ones…
And I remember in Anchorage the first vehicles in the ditch after a big snow were often the 4WD pickups…
I saw that article. There are only 19 states that require safety inspections. One study compared fatality rates of one state with the inspections with one without and the one with was slightly (not statistically signiificant) higher. That study apparently did not look at accident rates, only fatalities.
Without a valid study comparing the 19 states’ accident and fatality rates with the rates for states that did not have safety inspections, no good data exists that validates the annual safety inspections.
Personally, I have reservations about their validity. I have a hard time believeing that anyone can drive a car with the type of safety problem that causes accidents and be unaware of it. And it’s vary common to see vehicles going down the road that are clearly unsafe, yet have a sticker. IMHO these insections are used as revenue generators for most shops, ways to find things to fix. The system borders on corrupt.
The article also made the point that if safety inspections treuely reduced accidents the insurance industry would be pushing for them in all states. They are not. Something suggests to me that they’ve studied the data and it just doesn’t validate the programs.
I know others will disagree. I respect that. But I persoanlly think mandated annual safety inspections are ineffective except as revenue generators for the industry. Perhaps a better system would be to provide subsidized safety inspections for all those who want them. Then the oeners could decide for themselves what they’d like to fix and not fix.
I personally think 50-75% are completely clueless on vehicle safety advances like stability control, traction control, TMPS and whatever acronynm is on their vehicle. So given that I cannot say they take more or less risks they get in and drive.
I agree.
I’ve always called it ‘baby sitting’ equipment and remain a staunch advocate that we all must really learn to drive.
From the very first finger pointing, fault accusing law suit that set the precedent for drivers to believe that “the car should do it for them” and the courts’ allowing the proliferation of such mindsets, drivers have increasingly ignored their role in operating a motor vehicle.
Like a cancer it spreads.
From one system to another to the next, Far too many drivers have no clue what sould be done in the absence of such technology to the point of EXPECTING it to negate all actions of the driver to the contrary.
From the older & more obvious 4x4 feeling of invinceability to the lax driving practices now associated with air bags and antilock brakes, drivers are just giving up learning the real way to drive.
We now have babysitting rear proximity sensores and adaptive cuise control that are soon ( mark my words ) going to result in liability lawsuits claiming that it’s totaly the fault of the system and not any fault of the human behind the wheel.
. One study compared fatality rates of one state with the inspections with one without and the one with was slightly (not statistically signiificant) higher. That study apparently did not look at accident rates, only fatalities.
I think it’s IMPOSSIBLE to compare one state to another. I lived in NY before moving to NH…Completely different driving conditions and driving situations. Unless those are taken into account when doing the comparison then it’s meaningless.
I have a hard time believeing that anyone can drive a car with the type of safety problem that causes accidents and be unaware of it.
I think that’s the point of the safety inspections. I know of (actually related to me) some people who’ll KNOWINGLY drive a car that has issues…And they won’t address them until their safety inspection (which could be months away). This includes things like bald tires…bad front brakes…bad tie-rod.
IMHO these insections are used as revenue generators for most shops, ways to find things to fix.
Some states the inspections are state-run. The inspection station does NOT do any repairs…just inspect your car.
Not sure if it’s actually working to reduce accidents…When I worked as a mechanic some 35+ years ago and we did safety inspections…I know first hand that we stopped at least a dozen cars from being on the road in the completely unsafe condition they were in. Not sure if that reduced accidents…all I know is those cars were NOT safe to be on the road…and I’m very very glad we got them either fixed or to the salvage where they belonged.
On a side note a 1975 or so study about safety equipment put forth the idea that drivers take more risks because their cars have equipment that “make the car safer”
I believe people take more risks because they can. It is not the presence of safety equipment but improved performance that allows them to push the envelope. Greater HP and acceleration allow people to pull out with oncoming traffic closer. Better braking allows them to cruise closer and wait to brake much longer than prior systems. Stickier tires and improved suspensions allow them to take corners faster and driver faster in general even during inclement weather. They become accustomed to this new level of performance and continue to push the limits of the technology, resulting in increased risk of collisions or loss of control at greater speeds every year. Safety equipment is only an afterthought for the vast majority of drivers IMHO.
While I recognized that study that was referenced in the article, I thought I was clear that the study was inconclusive and not significant. It had some serious weaknesses, not ths least of which was that only comaring two states is inconclusive. As I said, no valid and comprehensive study exists that I’m aware of. As far as I know, there simply is no data.
Without a comprehensive study, I believe it’s really impossible to tell if the inspections do any good. While I’ve had thing sfound that needed doing, I’ve also had and vehicles rejected for totally rediculous things. And I’ve seen and know of countless vehicles that truely are unsafe rolling down the road with inspection stickers. One was so bad I posted about it here a few months back.
Th earticle in USA Today listed the states that use state facilities and those that use private garages. Only two on the list used state facilities.
Personally, I’d like to see a good study done. I’d also like to see the third option I suggested tried, subsidizing nonmandatory voluntary safety inspections. To the best of my knowledge it’s never been tried. Perhaps if the states did so, and used the private garage infrastructure, people would bring their cars in when they suspected a problem rather than once a year. Perhaps knowing that they’d get a free inspection and could then make the decision what to do about any problems found, and knowing that the garages couldn’t “find” something bogus and force them to get the unnecessary work done, would relieve the stress that comes with safety inspections. Perhaps it would also relieve the shop dishonesty in those cases where it does exist.
I don’t know if the system as it exists is effective in reducing accidents. My problem is that nobody does. Yet we still have it in place on faith alone. It becomes a required task and cost for the motorists and a cost to the states with nobody actually knowing of it works.
I don’t know if the system as it exists is effective in reducing accidents. My problem is that nobody does.
I agree 100%. No one actually knows. And I think a study is warranted.
I too have seen unscrupulous mechanics fail a car inspection for needless things (i.e PCV valve). Before I go to have my car inspected I inspect it myself. That way I shouldn’t be surprised. I have been though. And I’ve never dealt with that mechanic again. Last time it happened…the jerk failed me for headlight alignment. First he couldn’t show me where in the state code that the headlight alignment is part of the inspection…and second he couldn’t show me that it was indeed NOT aligned.