NJ doesn't inspect car's anymore

Maintenance/Repairs
,
21

Yes, but those things don’t help because of all of the other variables involved. This kind of thing requires serious multivariate analysis by people with good data who know what they are doing.

There have been a string of such studies over time. Mostly the results have been mixed (i.e. there’s no clear consensus). The most recent was commissioned by PA. It uses FARS data and reports clear evidence that inspections reduce the rate of fatal accidents.

Its available here: http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/inspections/Inspection%20Program%20Effectiveness%20Study.pdf

Anyway, sorting this out would require tons of time & work. I know a couple of things. One is that Caddyman’s simplistic statement (and others in this thread like it) is simply incorrect. There is not some simple, clear story. The most recent serious attempt to sort it out completely contradicts that statement. Another thing I know is that the anecdotes that people tell mean exactly zero. I also know how to get a sticker the illegal way. I also have stories of stuff that made no sense. (Last year I had to take a rejection while I polished my headlight lenses - despite the fact that 1/2 the cars on the road have good inspections & foggier headlights). If our criteria for whether to have laws/programs or not is that they must always work exactly as intended then we should just dump them all.

The one thing that would tell me something is truly knowing where that stuff does stand among the things in the insurance underwriter’s basket. But all I have on that at the moment is hearsay.

22

+1

And, even though I usually agree with Ken Green, I am going to take issue with his statement, “State inspection or not, this is something every vehicle owner must do anyway”.

“Must do” and “will do” are two very different things. While both you and I will do what it takes to keep our cars safe, the same cannot be said for everyone on the road. To assume that everyone is proactive in making sure that his/her vehicle is safe and roadworthy is quite a stretch, IMHO.

23

IMHO at safety inspections are a good thing as done in NH. The main purpose is we get severe rust on old vehicle that are unfit for the road. Although this is more in the past.

They check things like defrost on windshield, lights, brakes, suspension bits, tire tread depth, cracks in glass, wiper function, exhaust and fuel leaks etc. These are all thing that not only save a person’s life but others.

I know other states are less strict.

There are people out there who are not able to take care of their vehicles due to apathy, financial situation, or intelligence. NH legislates it.

24

Wow. First you set the bar low, by asking me to provide data. I did. The data reflects a lack of a trend when comparing states that inspect to states that don’t inspect. It also reflects a lack of a trend in insurance rates. Yes, there are other factors involved, but all you asked for was data, and I’ve provided it. Now, after I provided the data, you raise the bar of actual causation, which we both know is impossible to prove because of all the extenuating factors.

Your position is that state inspections save lives. My position is that hasn’t been proven. Nobody can prove a negative, but I have shown no trend exists in the data to support your claim.

I took a quick look at your study summary (yes, it’s just a summary with no real data), and to no surprise, it is funded by the state of Pennsylvania, the same folks who have a conflict of interest in making sure inspections continue so they can continue to have a job.

To make matters worse, Cambridge Systematics, the company that conducted the study, is in the business of selling systems. I would prefer to see a study conducted by a civil engineering consulting firm, not a group that sells stuff.

We can both sit here and poke holes in each other’s positions all day. In the end, neither of us has provided the data that proves our positions. Fortunately, my position is the negative one, and you can’t prove a negative anyway, being that state vehicle inspections have not been proven to save lives, reduce vehicle collisions, or reduce auto insurance rates, all of which you would expect to see if the benefits of inspections were to be objectively measured.

I’ve offered you no anecdotal personal experiences as reasons for my position, so I don’t know why you would make that part of our discussion. I am quite aware such arguments are misleading and unsound. The argument that “all the other kids get away with it” shouldn’t be uttered after the age of 10.

I will add one last point, and that is enforcement of vehicle safety rules should be the job of law enforcement officials, not mechanics. If vehicle inspections were really about safety, they would be conducted by those most likely to consistently enforce the rules, not those with a vested interest in selling you unneeded repairs. With the current system in many states, inspections are conducted by private repair shops, which is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. When I get sick and need medical care, do I go to a pharmaceutical salesperson or to a doctor? When I am shopping for a home, do I let the Realtor do the inspection, or do I hire a professional inspector?

25

I agree that the OP has expressed himself…in not the clearest fashion.

However, I can tell you that many folks in NJ (my state) are frustrated that our esteemed governor (who is only really popular outside of NJ) has essentially eliminated state MV inspections. The only remaining process is an emissions check once every two years. Even if somebody pulls into the state inspection facility with inoperative headlights, faulty brakes, and no windshield wipers, the inspectors can do nothing about it.

While I maintain my car meticulously, the same cannot be said of many other folks with whom we share the road. And, like it or not, if someone’s vehicle causes an accident due to bad brakes or other equipment problems, it might have been preventable if the defect was caught during the inspection process.

In their CYA press release following the decision to eliminate safety inspections, one of the governor’s aides stated that, since there was a failure rate of less than 20%, it was felt that we could dispense with this process–or something to that effect.

26

Tell you what Whitey. Once you start arguing about something you start flying off all over the place on all sorts of things fighting with straw men. (Here are a couple: I never asked you or anyone else to provide any data (I did ask for a source - by which I meant an actual competent analysis of data, not just a list of data - a source for Caddyman’s claim & mountainbike’s (below)); I never made a positive or negative claim either way; you seem to want to admit that simplistic raw data can’t establish the case but want to use it anyway; I references anecdotes in this thread, not ones that you provided etc.) It just gets annoying. That’s not a general thing about you. I pretty much always appreciate your comments & perspectives on the boards. I’m just exhausted in general and don’t really have an interest in the arguments.

So if you want to take the position that safety inspections are useless, that’s fine. The “fact” at the moment is that there is no clear evidence about it either way.