Well said!

states actually lose a lot of money on the program ($M)

can't forget the J/B Weld guy, can you?

he was a piece of work

The bottom line is: YOUR car affects MY safety.
.
@autodiy has the excuse "We have a judicial system, when people are irresponsible and create havoc"
.
Well a fat lot of good the judicial system will be to me, when I'm I'm a vegetable on life support in 3 pieces.
&#^$% the judicial system.
.
If you can't be bothered to fix your death trap, then don't come on the road.

I think reasonable people take their car in when it shakes. Or starts making a noise. And, I think most people are reasonable. I am in Pennsylvania. The lengths they go to fail your car is absolutely ridiculous. to your point though, I was in Ohio and somebody pulled up next to me at the 7-Eleven and they were steering their car with vice grips. This was in Belfountain Ohio. Needless to say Ohio doesn’t have safety inspection.

@jamey021
It's not the reasonable people you need to worry about

People are not reasonable by nature. That's been proven scientifically time and again. And Americans have also been proven to be very, very poor at maintaining their vehicles as they are supposed to.

ok and I guess driver licensing is a socialist conspiracy too? And aircraft regulations. Oh and traffic lights. Those devils reduce my freedom too... telling me when I can or can't go. Screw them! {black}:serious:

"The 'inspection' is only as good as the person performing it. "
... and you can choose where to get it done.

When 99% of the people are punished via a tax, and receive absolutely nothing that is wrong. When money is taken from the 99% and distributed to the 1%, that is a social welfare type of redistribution. That is not freedom when I am forced to do so.

Driver licensing affects everyone who drives equally. You drive a car you pay. You drive a car, you need training.
Aircraft regulations: Has to be regulated due to the complexity of operating the planes. There's no way around that.
Traffic lights: 100% of the people on the roads benefit from having them. Everyone is on a level playing field.

99% of the people getting the inspections are not thinking about the quality of the inspection. They simply want to get it done, pay the money and move on.

We have a judicial system, when people are irresponsible and create havoc, they need to be dealt with harshly by the system in place. A muffler drops off your car and hits someone? Make it a felony with 10 years minimum in prison.

I want the people who are the problem to be hammered, not me or anyone else who isn't creating an issue.

" receive absolutely nothing"
You receive safe roads.
" distributed to the 1%"
Explain.
" A muffler drops off your car and hits someone? Make it a felony... "
It probably already is, but good luck catching people. And if the victim is dead or injured then it's too late. The damage is already done.

Believe it or not, I do understand your position. However, when I'm doing nothing wrong I don't like being punished for it.

When I pay $$ for an inspection when my car is in perfect shape all of the time, I have a 100% loss.
I waste my gas driving to the inspection site, the money for an inspection, and my time.

The inspection money is paid to the inspectors, or the 1% (actually much less than 1%). Since I am responsible, I receive nothing for it.

Driving is the most dangerous thing the vast majority of us do on a daily basis. I may get hit with a muffler tomorrow, who knows.

If I do, I still would not expect you to pay for it with a yearly inspection due to someone else's negligence.

Do you have any conclusive proof that inspections reduce the number of instances? I was unable to find any.

" I don't like being punished"
Again. By that logic a licensing fee is punishment too.
"The inspection money is paid to the inspectors, or the 1%"
OK, and when I get a hearing exam, I pay the ear doctor. Their population rate will be in the single digits too. What's your point?
"If I do, I still would not expect you to pay for it"
You won't need money when you're 6ft under.
"the complexity of operating the planes"
Many people can't even handle the complexity of changing a tire or oil
"conclusive proof that inspections reduce the number of instances"
Surely, you're not arguing that it doesn't take unsafe vehicles off the road.

Correct, I do view all licensing fee's as financial punishment. Unfortunately, some are justified.

When you go to the doctor, you are paying him. I am not expected to pay for your exam. (we could go down a rat hole on this one however)

From my point of view freedom is not free, and we live in a potentially dangerous world.

I believe in rugged individualism, and even if something bad happens to me I will deal with it. I don't expect you to have to deal with it since you are not the issue.

And I am not expected to pay for your inspection. I don't follow.

I don't like too much regulation either. But there are too many chuckleheads out there think it's a good idea to glue their wheels on, or not maintain their brakes etc. And if they're deadbeats, then you won't get dime for recompense out of them. They are taking away MY right to be able to safely drive on public roads. If you want to drive on roads that I helped pay for, then you better show that (1) you know how to safely operate a motor vehicle and, (2) your vehicle doesn't pose a risk to other road users, and (3) you insured to cover damages you might incur. Road use is a privilege, not a right. If you wanna play you gotta pay. If you don't like then walk or take the bus. Freedom is not unlimited. It ends where mine begins.

You hit the nail on the head, that's the real issue I have with the regulation. My freedom is being compromised so that you can feel safer driving down the road. I would argue that even with the inspections, you are not really any safer. It only makes you feel good at my expense.
I'm surprised no one has posted Scotty's video on it yet:

Why State Car Inspections are a Scam

I went ahead and also posted it as a comment.

I don't like wading into these conversations because it never ends well, but I thought I would mention one thing: back in the day, you could pass the tech $100 to pass your car and they probably would. However, it does not work like that anymore. When we inspect a vehicle in the state of Texas, we hook up the state inspection machine directly to the OBD-II inside the vehicle. If it doesn't have OBD-II, it has to pass the tail pipe sniffer test and rolling road test which is a real pain. But anyway: we hook up the computer, it pulls the VIN, we hit a button to confirm it is correct, and then the tech follows the instructions on the screen. It is NOT POSSIBLE to bypass anything anymore. The DMV computer talks straight through the OBD-II to the computer in the car, which relays parameters back to it. The tech has no say in what gets put in for values or any of the data....it is automatically pulled and sent to the DMV without any way of altering data. As an I.T. expert, this system is virtually fool proof. Some people don't realize these changes have been implemented in many states. Also, there is a visual inspection to be done by the inspector. The state is extremely strict these days and techs lose their licenses if they knowingly pass a bad vehicle on visual. In addition, even if the car passes visual, if you fail the data test then it fails regardless. Just interjecting as it was stated you can buy off the inspection tech. While that used to be true, it is not the case anymore. Carry on.

I have zero issues with anyone challenging or arguing against any points or opinions I make. In fact, I welcome them. By hearing other peoples opinions it's a great way to learn and grow.

As far as the emissions part of the tests are concerned, you are correct. I unfortunately also have to pass an OBD-II emissions test every year as you described above. The user end of the software is very simple, it has to be so that the inspector can easily enter the data. Regarding the emissions tests, the state systems are effective.

Apparently fraud happens all of the time in PA. The links I listed below seem to pretty clearly show a very flawed inspection system.

I absolutely hate what they began doing, Having a system in my car meant to snitch on me is insane - I am of the belief that everything I personally own should be loyal to me.
-
@Mod_Man
Where I live OBDII inspections never have been implemented.
So this makes me wonder, what if I sabotage ECU communication, so that my OBD will have power but no ability to speak on the network?

If the state system can not speak to your ECM, you automatically fail. Not sure why you would want to sabotage it anyway. {black}:idontknow:

"I did my own brakes. The grinding felt normal"

Customer refused new brakes:

PA is an incredibly corrupt and unionized state. A very socialistic minded state as well, so I don't doubt they came up with their statistics backing up their inspection programs. A state run statistical analysis can be just as corrupt as you stated above.

The amount of money people are scammed out of in PA is incredible. These inspections just don't make people safer.

https://www.bensleylawoffices.com/blog/2015/08/dealer-fraud-state-inspections-antiquated-and-inadequate/

https://archive.triblive.com/local/pittsburgh-allegheny/pennsylvania-may-again-consider-scrapping-annual-vehicle-inspections/

https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/warwick-township-auto-garage-issued-hundreds-of-fraudulent-vehicle-inspection-stickers-police/article_d9b7d4c8-101e-11ec-9a9f-1f6e22e4d91d.html

hahaha now who's attacking credibility when it's convenient?

The data was assembled by an Illinois company. I guess they're corrupt too, and you have the evidence to back that up as well.

Do you live in PA? I do and you are wrong.

So far, this is the only counter-argument I have heard. "Oh they're probably corrupt". How convenient.

So show me evidence to the contrary.

@mmj , the funny thing is that how it works.
In 2010, the my local gov published a report that said "no traffic deaths were caused by technical faults" and praised the inspection policies they had - you know what's the funny part?
A year prior (in 2009), the same people published a lesser known report that found that 13% of the vehicles on the road with valid inspections are not roadworthy - the same amount that they have found before the inspections mandate. 🤣
Basically, either so many cars are not roadworthy and they are a danger, or the same not road worthy cars don't cause accidents?
-
Welcome to the realm of incompetence and corruption.
As @AutoDIY said, State run programs will always find a way to praise themselves and steal more from the people.
-
remember when the Italian police shortened yellow-lights to boost up the numbers to make it seem like the system isn't just a tax on the people and simultaneously bring in more profits?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/02/italian-red-light-cameras-rigged-with-shorter-yellow-lights/
This is unrelated to inspections but it shows you how much corruption there is.
-
The best example I can think of, of corrupt "official independent reports"?
I can show you a report by my local "The authority for highway safety" (a government funded non-profit) on speed cameras next to the report done by a committee hired by the police.
One provides evidence that cameras have caused significant increase in accidents where they are installed and that they have not changed the growth in accident rates,
While the other says the opposite also provides "evidence" - it's not concrete and often is just not related to the effect of what they're studying but just talks about their "performance".

(and it’s not like these are countries with rampant corruption, I live in a place that’s the 35 least corrupt nation (about the same as South Korea and Spain) while Italy is more corrupt (ranks 52/172) but still not what’d be considered very corrupt)
-
Same with roadworthiness inspections, all of those "independent" reports are to serve the interests of the gov and of the automakers .
I have so many more examples of so called "independent" reports parsing the gov even when that's not factually correct...

> no bureaucrat or an elected person will ever say "let's be good with the people and lower the inspection criteria,

Most of them are saying exactly that

> why would they go against car companies that are eager to sell more parts

Car companies don't want you to fix cars. Used cars LOSE them money. They want you to buy a new one.
Either way, what difference is it to government how much car companies make?

@mmj
As far as the first quote, yes, I meant doing.
Saying and doing has a pretty big difference - I haven't seen such a thing where I live (Instead there's a proposal to inspect and put license plates on motorized kick scooters. I wish I was kidding. Europe is also doing the same)
I remember a proposal for cars under 7 years of age having to do the inspection only every 2 years instead of annually being rejected (although it got green-lighted by the MOT) because of massive lobbying.
-
As far as the second quote,
That's not really the case, (all of the data here is pre-pademic, from 2019:)
PSA claims they make more money on parts, service and used cars sales than on new cars (8% margin over 12 billion Euro) other automakers are also finding ways to make money on used cars.
https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/how-tavares-has-turned-psa-profit-machine
When they say they make more on used than new, It's not like PSA doesn't sell a lot new cars or fails to make a profit on them - they make 25% more cars than Kia does and have overall high profit margins.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/26/peugeot-maker-psas-revenue-profits-rise-in-2019.html
Car brands using their power to dominate parts sales is a theme in Europe and where I live. the numbers kind of speak for themselves - 60% of the car parts market where I live is dominated by the OEMs, their revenue on used parts is huge, here and in Europe.
On a Skoda Rapid, on average, parts are going to cost you an additional 28% of the purchase cost in just 5 years (28% of 120k NIS is $10k) - most of the money is going to the manufacturer.
(I can provide sources for all of these numbers, but they are not in English)
.
Of course the automotive manufacturer would rather sell you a new car (so having cars with plenty of life left in them be considered mechanically totaled helps), but when it comes to selling you parts you wouldn't otherwise need and that won't prolong your cars lifespan they're happy to do so.
Also used car parts dealers often have quite a big influence, especially in smaller countries (although they have only 40% of the parts market they're often corporations with very stable income streams)
And as far as government, they don't care - But those elected by the public care a lot because of those companies' lobbying (Where I live there was a quite a large scandal on that topic).

For many of those people it could actually save them money. If they aren't required to make repairs, then they simply won't. Sometimes this will lead to further damage that will end up costing them more in the long run.

I disagree with mmj - if they’d actually inspect safety that’d be the case… but from what I’m seeing worldwide thats just really not the case.
In 90% of cases it’s just a tax on the poor imposed by car maker’s lobbying.

@dan, that's the only problem I have with them. I have no problem with checking basic safety items like tires, brakes, suspension, lights, etc., but it never seems to end there.

I've been driving for over 50 years and in that time I rarely got "nailed" for a legitimate safety issue since even when young and stupid I was not suicidal and was not going to drive around with bald tires or no brakes. Most of the time the problem would be some non-safety issue that in some cases was a real pain to fix on an old beater. ("Your gas gauge doesn't work." "Your left rear window doesn't roll down." "Your dome light doesn't turn on when you open the door." "Your vent window doesn't lock." Etc.) Rather than being restricted to actual safety items, inspectors in many states have had carte blanche to fail you for whatever they felt like that day.

Then as you've noted in some countries inspections are being used primarily to force older cars off the road. (Can't afford a new car? Take the bus, prole!) Not really happening in the U.S. yet with the possible exception of the Peoples' Republic of California where CARB is used like a sledgehammer against car owners, but there are definitely politicians who would want to do it.

what is the laser marking for?

On the catalytic converter it needs to include executive order exemption number (D-###-###), manufacturer part number, and date of manufacture.  These must be legible during the smog inspection.

-

It’s etched in but the original markings (on older catalytic converters) used to be embossed and virtually indestructible (I.e. you could always read it).  The etching method does not hold up over time.

I guess it's to make sure the cat meets regulations.
In that case, part of the regulation should be that the markings will last the life of the part.

I didn’t like failing the test on that alone and then cost me $750 to get a replacement catalytic converter. My vehicle passed all other SMOG inspection requirements (like tampering and modifications) as well as the OBDII monitors all showed complete. So they can go overboard sometimes and get folks into a pickle.  If they wanted to do a sniff test at that point - I would have been OK with it since my car and catalytic converter were fine otherwise, and isn’t that the point? (to make sure you are not polluting).  But not being able to read all the lettering on the converter and failing me for that - it seems silly.   How does that impact pollution?

Totally agree. I would be really pissed too.

And that's what I hate about "safety" and "emissions" tests.
If they'd check my car's safety, it'd be great, If they'd check my car's tail pipe emissions that'd be alright.
-
But it's rarely about that, Most of the time you just end up replacing things you really don't need like rear electric windows, perfectly good catalytic convertors, and O2 sensors or all your injectors because "your car isn't operating at max fuel efficiency, even-though the emissions data is good",
-
And with the complexity of modern cars, I often see them fail inspections because of things that are just normal operation for those models (like not being able to reach normal operation temperatures on a Niro Hybrid, or not being able to make the gas engine stay running for long enough, or within the required RPM range, to gather tailpipe CO measurements)
The people sitting there and the folks who mandate what checks should be done are just incompetent, and that's a worldwide theme.

I can't open it. "This resource is available to all members or available for sale to non-members."

Did you actually read this like I did? It's a short read, and they really limited themselves as to what they used for their evidences.

They used data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) from 2006-2008, for vehicles 10,000lbs and under.

I've really got you going now trying to prove your point.

I have to say, after all of the additional articles I've read I'm even more against these state run inspection programs now.

It's just to easy for them to manipulate the data into how they want to represent their findings.

Have you seen the views on this thread?? We are really putting on a nice show here.

but only the viewpoints you disagree with are manipulated right?

I wouldn't say its a nice show. You actually have me agreeing with @mmj on a political topic. That's how off-base you are on this discussion. That's some end-of-times stuff right there.

Yes, the nut behind the wheel is really the most dangerous component of all. We had this little gift left on our front lawn yesterday when some young yahoo decided it was a good idea to take a 35 mph curve at (according to withnesses) about 80 mph. Tore up our lawn really good but fortunately no injuries. No amount of state car inspections will prevent this kind of thing from happening.

I'm sorry to see that. A 3,000lb unwanted lawn ornament.

I'm sure you filled out a police report, his insurance should cover the damage. (I hope)

It was dripping all kinds of fluids on the lawn as well. They grazed a telephone pole and careened through several properties before coming to rest on ours. It's not clear whether they had insurance or not. The guys had out of state tags and did not speak English. When I kept asking "insurance" the driver just shook his head, don't know yet if that means no insurance or he didn't understand. Plenty of police on the scene (I think they had an interpreter) and neighbors were eye witnesses to their excess speed. We'll see when we get a copy of the police report whether they had insurance or not.

Scotty's so called "statistics" don't really add up to much. His sample sizes are irrelevant.

1) he's making a big deal over a 0.003% difference in fatal accident rates. That is not statistically significant, and it doesn't rule out other factors.
2) he's only talking about fatal collisions. What about non-fatal ones?
3) he cherry picked a few states. What about the rest of them?
4) he cherry picked one particular year
5) he is comparing per capita rates. Accident and safety analysis is normally calculated on a per mile driven basis.

Why didn't he crunch the number for the entire country, spanning a decade let's say?
That's the problem with statistics. You can tweak the numbers to make any argument you want.
I don't buy it.

Your response is a very easy one to make. Your rebuttal does provide any evidence to the contrary, you are simply discrediting all of the arguments in Scotty's video.

Your arguments against statistics, are valid. Numbers can always be twisted to prove a point from a certain point of view.

So in essence, you are making a guess based on your own personal views. Just like I am.

You posted this as evidence.
It is not.

It is evidence, and his personal opinion. That's why Scotty created the video.

statistical blips would never pass as "evidence". But I can play that game too:

"South Carolina and Mississippi eliminated their safety inspection program in 1995 and 2015 respectively. The result? The two states had the highest traffic deaths per 100,000 in population in America at 20.4 and 22.2 fatalities. In the 11 years after eliminating the program, South Carolina experienced a 29.04% increase in traffic fatalities. The year before eliminating the safety program, there were 607 traffic fatalities in Mississippi. The year after, traffic-related fatalities increased to 677."

"Since eliminating its program in 2000, Florida has experienced a 63.4% increase in its total traffic crashes. In 2000, Florida had 2920 traffic related accidents. The year after the program was eliminated, that number increased 21% to 3,533"

most of the data you posted it is from AutoCare Association - that’s one of the groups interested in selling more parts (it’s not a safety institution)
-
“represent approximately 150,000 businesses that manufacture, distribute, sell and install motor vehicle parts, accessories, tools, equipment, materials, supplies, and services. Representing suppliers, distributors, retailers, service providers, program groups, manufacturers’ representatives”
-
This association’s “government affairs department represents the industry's complex set of interests before federal and state legislators and regulators, and advocates for policies that are favorable to member businesses”

-

this is exactly the lobbying I was talking about and how people who are interested in selling more parts are pushing for more inspections and stricter inspections.

also what NHTSA didn’t post if the safety inspections actually prevent crashes - usually beginning to inspect vehicles has a short them effect that fully disappears after a decade or so…

that is an interesting observation, but it doesn't disprove the numbers. Autocare is simply presenting data researched by someone else.

@mmj It’s not, its lobbying - let me demonstrate why all of this is just lies (let’s take the first “fact” they show):
They take the overall true fact that during the time Mississippi had safety inspections, they had 1.54 deaths per 100 million miles driven - today it’s 1.63.
BUT they fail to mention that at the same exact same thing happens in states with the most rigorous safety tests - Cali went from 0.92 to 1.02 (11% up)
-
So they misrepresent a ~10% rise on average in pretty much all states, regardless of if they have car inspections (from 2014 to 2021)
As something unique to the states without inspections.
In other words, getting rid of the safety inspection has changed nothing.
-
Basically they don’t exactly lie but they force you into the wrong conclusion.
That’s genuinely dangerous because they pump out a lot of numbers while each of them should be analyzed to understand what’s the actual cause and if that has anything to do with the truth.
-
10% rise in Cali and Mississippi? That’s just inline with the national average, from 2014 to 2018 (roughly half the previous period) there was a 4% rice with the national total (roughly half of the increase over 10 years.)
I’ve checked multiple other facts, and that’s the case for all of them.
I think any person should know that if a paper doesn’t have an organization standing behind it / has been published by lobbyists should be ignored (or fact checked it with extreme caution) as in 99% of the cases it’s deception and propaganda.

For cars, California does not even have safety inspections. Imagine that?! For gasoline vehicles, all they have is SMOG test every other year.  For model year 2000 and newer for SMOG test besides passing SMOG inspection for the actual test it just needs to have OBDII monitors complete - except they allow EVAP to be incomplete - so not even a sniff test.  Not sure about Diesels what is required.