Years ago I had a Toyota pickup truck with a rear bumper made of a 2X10 (or 2X12, I’m no longer certain) carriage bolted to a 2X2 steel angle iron that was bolted to two 2X2 angle irons bolted to the frame. In NH, pickup trucks aren’t required to have rear bumpers, but a shop rejected it because the bumper was soft wood instead of hardwood. It was still on the lift, and I said “if I remove the bumper, will it pass?”. His answer was “yes”. So I told him to cut the bolts mounting the angle irons to the frame, throw the bumper in the bed, and give me my sticker. He did, and I went home and bolted the bumper back on. For the record, it had been there for years, and I had it for years after without any questions. But I never went back to that store.
I’ve seen a car (not mine) rejected because the oil was low. That isn’t a requirement, and they had no business checking it as part of the safety inspection.
I’ve seen a sedan rejected because the trunk light was burned out.
And, before a centralized recording system was implemented at the state, I had one inspector just take a cursory glance at the vehicle, check the windshield wipers, and give me a sticker.
I’ve see a vehicle with a new sticker with lug nuts missing and bent, wobbly wheels.
State inspections are “all over the map”. Cars get rejected for nothing and others get passed as long as they can roll forward.
Yes, but “can” and “do” are not the same thing and I can’t be the only person in this forum who has observed cars on the road that shouldn’t be there, and that have clearly not been “flagged” by law enforcement.
For a few weeks, there was a small Hyundai wagon parked in the lot at my local supermarket. After seeing it in the same space for several days, I decided to take a closer look at it, and I quickly noticed that the front brake discs were scored/gouged VERY deeply, meaning that there had surely been metal-to-metal contact for at least a few days before the owner finally figured out that he/she could no longer drive that heap.
Eventually, the car disappeared from the lot, and I can only hope that it was finally towed to a repair facility.
That’s Maryland’s solution. I got pulled over for a burned out tail light. I had to replace it within two weeks and get it certified by any police officer, state or local. I asked about why I got a citation instead of a verbal warning. The officer said that the state assembly settled on having the citation system instead of safety inspections every year or two. I don’t like the current system, but I like it better than an annual safety inspection. We do have safety inspections before a purchased used car can be registered. The previous owner can get the inspection certificate, or the buyer can.
That’s an acceptable answer for “elective” stuff. But the mandate for a “safety inspection” is just that: by denying a sticker, you’re stating, in your professional opinion, that the vehicle is unsafe and a hazard to other motorists.
That doesn’t jibe with (for instance) a hazy plastic light cover, without any testing to see if minimum candlepower is attained, or if beam pattern is in specs. (Literally, they did the test in bright daylight: saw the lenses were hazy, and failed, even though there isn’t such a criterion spelled out in the PACode.)
I buffed out the lens cover, and had a few pointed words about what they could do with their inspections when they begrudgingly passed my truck.
Most regulations I’ve seen have a “catchall” clause in there that allows the inspector to reject the vehicle for just about anything. And some inspectors “inspect to reject”. They feel their job ti to find something wrong rather than to make sure the car is safe.
Granted, a shop that performs both auto repair and inspections could be considered to have a conflict of interest.
BUT, what’s the inspector to do when a car comes in for an inspection and said vehicle has problems that will cause it to fail inspection?
A. Alert the customer and give them the option of repairing it or taking it elsewhere for repairs?
B. Look the other way and let the inspector run the risk of a fine and/or jail time?
This inspector may have had good intentions but look where it got him.
Yeah, that particular incident came to mind immediately when I read this thread. Call me a jerk, but as far as I’m concerned, the condition of the car and the condition of the customer’s checkbook have nothing to do with each other. The car needs what it needs to be safe and roadworthy, and that’s that. I ran my own place for 8 years, and now I’m shop manager of a repair facility, and the policy is clear. We fix it right or roll it out the door.
Having said that, I’m opposed to any sort of mandatory safety inspection program, solely for the reason that all the evidence I’ve seen points to there being little or no benefit to the motoring public in general, and that the programs are full of graft and opportunities to fleece the unknowing public.
We’re in an impossible situation sometimes. 15 years ago I worked at a shop where a customer came in demanding we pay his $110 ticket for no license plate light because the car was in 3 days earlier and we signed off that all the exterior lights worked. Last week my alignment guy was topping off washer fluid on a car and the customer came running out of the waiting room screaming that he didn’t want anyone touching the fluids on his car.
If a car is in for brake work and I recommend a serpentine belt, the customer can get upset that I’m nosing around the car. If I don’t say anything and the belt breaks next week, I’m at fault for not notifying him.
I don’t disagree with a single word of asemaster’s comments.
I was an inspector when OK had their program but not out of choice. The employer made it mandatory.
Not only was I against the inspection program for all the reasons asemaster cited but it also was a real aggravation and cost the mechanic money each time one was performed.
The inspection was five dollars and the mechanic got two dollars of it for an inspection which was stated to (when done properly…) take a full hour. How many mechanics want to work for 2 bucks an hour and then have to stand behind the inspection? There was talk once of raising the fee to 25 dollars but all hxxx broke loose from the public over that.
There was also the issue of a mechanic being pulled off of a paying job and losing focus on the job at hand; sometimes leading to mistakes when the job was resumed.
We’ve had people come back in carping over receiving a ticket because this or that lamp was out or what have you. Apparently some people don’t realize that automotive bulbs are just like the ones in a home; they can burn out at any time.
Some inspectors have an “expected fail rate” goal, in that their supervisor is going to assume they aren’t doing their job if they don’t make quota. I knew that was true with the FAA examiners; I could see how it would be true with a state employee who was a “full time safety inspector.”
I’d sooner have private businesses doing the inspection; conflict of interest or not! (It helps that I get to choose my private guy, and the state would likely “assign” one…)
Back in WI, the state run station I went to had 8 lanes for inspection, you pulled up and sometimes had to wait but not for long. The process was efficient and fast. Around here, you can go to dozens of places BUT no one has any bandwidth to take you in without you making an appointment first. I had a day off and wanted to get my cars inspected. I went to no less than 8 places and was told no appointments open today, maybe call tomorrow. Finally found a place that would take me that day but to come back after lunchtime. Wasted another day where it should have taken 15-20 minutes tops.
Depending on the state-run inspection facility in NJ that one chooses (no, nobody is “assigned” to any specific inspection station…), your waiting time might range from 20 minutes to zero minutes.
On the advice of the service manager at the Subaru dealership, several years ago I got into the habit of taking a nice 25 minute drive through the countryside to a DMV center/inspection station that is somewhat under-utilized and that is staffed by really pleasant folks. When I went for my 2 year inspection a few months ago, I drove directly into the facility and I was out of there in ~10 minutes.
Of course, our inspection now consists solely of credentials checking and emissions checking, but spending only about 10 minutes in total on the process makes it essentially stress-free.
Oregon does not have safety inspections for non-commercial vehicles although they should. I have seen some pretty scary vehicles on the road. Only 2 counties require emissions testing and I don’t live in either one. I discovered in the early 1980s if I needed to visit a DMV It was worth the 10 minute trip to the small town one.
Both NH and Massachusetts have annual safety inspections, and I still see some pretty scary vehicles on the road. The programs do no good other than as revenue generators for unethical shops.
I know we’ve had this discussion before, but I see a great deal of good these programs do.
What you’re NOT seeing are the cars that come in for an inspection and the owner is completely clueless that their car needed new tires, or rear brakes were shot and fronts were almost gone. Those happen hundreds of times a day in NH and MA. Those numbers are hard to quantify, but I’m willing to bet they far exceed the number of unsafe vehicles on the road that did pass inspection.
IMHO, that is like arguing that, because some people smoke and don’t die from lung cancer, or that not everyone died in car accidents prior to the advent of safety belts, that we can ignore the danger of smoking, or that we can disregard the benefits of being safely belted-into your car.
Seeing a few examples of dangerous cars on the road (or some people being able to survive smoking, or most people having survived the absence of safety equipment), and concluding that certain regulations aren’t necessary only serves to ignore those who have benefitted from the imposition of certain restrictions or regulations.
That’s a fact.
But the statistics all favor my argument. Occasional observations on either side cannot be considered in any way statistically significant.
And arguing that regulations are necessary because they benefit a few ignores those for whom they cause to bear unnecessary aggravation and cost.
The argument has two sides. Your argument can be turned around.
It’s safe to say we’ll continue to disagree.
