Utah Lawmaker Introduces Bill To End Vehicle Safety Inspections! (Orem: sale, home)

[griffin]

Yesterday Rep John Dougall introduced HB 298 to end periodic passenger vehicle safety inspections in Utah. Its been long known these inspections don't reduce accident rates, but they remain because of the economic benefits car dealers and mechanics enjoy by having motorists forced into their private businesses once a year or more so they can "sell repairs". You can find the original article on Rep Dougall's proposal here:
Utah lawmaker looking to loosen safety inspection requirement | Deseret News

So those of you in Utah that would support ending this program, here's your chance to back Rep. Dougall. You can find your own Representative's email address at:
Utah State Legislature Home Page.
Send your representative an email in support of Rep. Dougalls bill if you'd like to be free of these inspections-forever.

I have put together a small website with links and articles about periodic vehicle passenger vehicle safety inspections (and why we should abolish them) at http://safetyinspections.tripod.com/

It's about time a lawmaker stepped up and tried to end these unnecessary and ineffective inspections (not to mention time consuming and expensive).

Here is where you can read his bill as its introduced:
H.B. 298 Bill Documents - 2012 General Session

Go Representative Dougall! He's our man.

[dcisive]

Oh yeah, we should have MORE people driving around with cracked windshields (as they are now allowed to do in Colorado) and lights that don't work let alone the more serious stuff. Yeah this makes perfect sense.....NOT. Just like allowing older polluting pickups on the road adding to our already serious pollution problem. I'm sorry can't back such a thing

[Chango]

Less government in our lives = better lives. PLEASE PASS! PLEASE PASS!

We'll let the cops keep writing a million equipment violations so the naysayers can sleep at night.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by dcisive

Oh yeah, we should have MORE people driving around with cracked windshields (as they are now allowed to do in Colorado) and lights that don't work let alone the more serious stuff. Yeah this makes perfect sense.....NOT. Just like allowing older polluting pickups on the road adding to our already serious pollution problem. I'm sorry can't back such a thing

Cracked windshields and broken headlights are a policing problem. Let the police write tickets like they do for speeding. If the problem is not fixed in a certain amount of time, revoke the license/registration.

The inspection thing is a joke. I know when my windshield is broken or my headlight doesn't work. I don't need someone charging money to tell me that I need a headlight. How about I just spend that money on the headlight and call it good?

Originally Posted by Chango

Less government in our lives = better lives. PLEASE PASS! PLEASE PASS!

Truer words have never been spoken.

[dcisive]

Apparently most people (perhaps yourself included) DO need to be reminded to get that light or windshield fixed. I've seen more than a share of one eyed cars driving in the mornings. What do they need....to be pulled from their cars and pummeled to be reminded to GET IT FIXED. They act as if it's no big deal......I IS a big deal....it's called visibility and it is a safety hazard. They ignore it like it's going to go away. In some minor way it seems sometimes government has to remind us to start thinking again and use our brains. Very sad....

[griffin]

Colorado, with no safety inspections has a lower accident rate than Utah, which has safety inspections. This was discovered in a letter from Wayne Welsh, Utah State Auditor, to Martin Stephens, Speaker of the House, and I quote " "Among western states, Utah is the only one with a mandatory safety inspection for passenger vehicles. . . .Utah’s fatality rate, per 100 million miles traveled, is 1.9 . . . Colorado’s lower rate (1.7 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled) without a safety inspection program implies there are other variables involved in accident rates."

Besides, as another pointed out here, if a driver doesn't take personal responsibility to fix his car, the police can and should stop a driver and give him or her a fix-it ticket to get such things as cracked windshields, headlights, and tail lenses fixed, which makes more sense, than letting that person drive another year until an inspection, and then half the time getting it passed without fixing the items because they had a buddy that was an inspector. As far as brakes, I had a safety inspection a couple of years ago, the brakes passed, and within a month I heard a squeaking sound, had my mechanic pull the wheels, and discovered the brakes were worn out and the squeaking was from the brake wear warning indicators that brake pads come with now. Now I go to my mechanic once a year, and ask him to pull the wheels so I can see the brakes. He's very happy to do this-and doesn't even charge me for it. He knows if I need brakes he'll get the job. Some of the studies of safety inspections found that safety inspections lead people into a false sense of security, so they are less likely to fix things because a safety inspector told them they are good, rather than be responsible themselves.

I expect the car dealers and mechanics are going to break out the sack cloth and ashes over Rep. Dougalls bill.

[griffin]

Here's something else I don't like about the safety inspection laws-they're rigged by the car dealers. Did you ever notice that if you buy a car from another person the previous safety inspection is only good and transferable if its two months old or less?

If you buy a car from a small car dealer, the previous safety inspection is good and transferable for up to six months.

If you buy a car from a large car dealer with more than 101 cars, or someone with a "fleet" of cars, then the safety inspection on those vehicles is transferable for 11 months. Guess who wrote that law for the large car dealers? Dan Eastman, Representative from Bountiful. He used to have a large car dealership in Bountiful, Dan Eastman AMC Jeep before he sold it and became a politician. He was also a former president of the Utah Auto Dealers Assn.

So it looks like as a private individual, your safety inspection is only good for two months should you buy or sell a car, and the dealers get a break. Doesn't seem fair or honest.

I remember prior to the 80's a safety inspection came with a decal, and wasn't tied to the inspection. You could register your vehicle if the decal was still good, and it was good for a full year for everybody.
You could also purchase a car, and if you had the title in hand, legally drive that car to the inspection station if it needed an inspection, or drive it to the DMV and register it. It didn't need to have plates on it or anything. If you were stopped, and showed the title, you were on your way. This was before the car dealers started monkeying with the laws.

Nowadays you can't move a car legally that's not registered or with current plates unless all four wheels are off the ground on a tow truck, anywhere. If it needs an inspection, and most do (thanks to the short time an inspection is transferable for a private individual), to be legal you have to have it towed on a truck to the inspection station, or go down to the DMV in another vehicle, pay full registration and buy a ten day temporary tag so you can drive the car to an inspection station to get the inspection, then back again to the DMV to get your permanent tag. All this ads up to a lot of expense, time wasted, and extra incentive to buy from a dealer. Cozy situation.

A few years back one of the State Reps from Orem wrote a bill to give the individual's inspection the same duration should the car change hands as the small dealers-6 months. (HB0048 2005)
The car dealers lobbyists had a fit about this bill, and did everything they could to see that it was defeated. So why is it a car dealers business to defeat a bill that doesn't affect the duration of their inspections? Think about it. They know more inspections means more money for them, and if the laws make it harder for you to sell a car yourself or buy one from a private individual, that's even better.

[TCAS007]

He wants to go the wrong way. No safety inspection is scary. More crap can be hidden and some lives are at risk. The right way would be to have stricter inspections, emission tests in ALL countys and higher fines for violators.

People should be responsible enough to keep their cars in shape but they're not. Some cars in Utah look like third world cars and that needs to be changed.

I can only imagine how mad everyone would be if the police would ticket more than they do now, stop you because your truck smokes and rattles... The same people would post and complain

What some don't understand is that it's about their life and their families safety. Same with texting while driving, speeding, tailgating,...

[irman]

Originally Posted by TCAS007

The right way would be to have stricter inspections, emission tests in ALL counties and higher fines for violators

Now you're talking !
I am sure that most people will not gripe about something or anything they *buy*, when they get their monies worth !

If you have a *newer* car, then it has this plug thingy, that can be used to find out what the condition is of the car is.
OK ... , so now we know what the people who designed the car thought what the mechanic who might be working on the car, needs to know where to start to look for problems.

That is where the problem starts, in case of Mandatory Safety Inspections.
Not every car has sensors for, for instance, tire pressure, or brake pad thickness, or brake disc condition, or loose steering function, or loose wheel bearings, etc, etc, etc.
How do we know if that/those *computer/sensor* thingy(s), there are 7 in our van (!), are really reporting the correct values ? IF it is inoperative, you may get a value of OK, while the truth maybe completely otherwise.

If I have to pay for a Mandatory Inspection and thus have to fork over 45 hard earned dollars, than I would like the person doing the Inspection to give me 45 dollars worth of work performed.

When we lived and worked in Germany, we had to get our car inspected at regular intervals. When it is all done, we received a two page check list and it showed what was checked. Those inspection points were 2 or 3 items that were related to what the *computer plug* read-out was, and the rest were true visual inspection points.

Some of them I remember were, tire thread depth, speedometer accuracy, brake pad thickness, disc brake condition, headlight aiming, rust-thru spots, wheel bearing looseness, wheel alignment, etc.

I remember it took quite a while for the technician to get it all done.
I do not remember what the final cost was, but I do remember that it was not cheap !

As I said before, If I get my monies worth, and it tells me for real what might be wrong with my car, I am willing to pay for it. It is like getting a second (or should I say *first*) unbiased opinion, other than the one I would get from the *Factory Trained* dealer mechanic.

Will it reduce accidents on our roads ? I sincerely doubt it. Accidents are probably caused mainly by something not quite working well with an item between the ears of the driver, and not because of a *faulty* car that has the engine running crappy and polluting the air we breath.

So, if the Inspection Methods stay as they are now, I would say abolish that requirement. They get my vote !
IF they will change their methods, and the situation that was described above, that you can pass your car at the next Inspection Station, because you failed at first, then keep the requirement.
But ..., require stricter Inspection methods and stricter training requirements for the people who will do the Inspections.

All I get today is, they run my car over some doohicky plate then drive into the building, and plug in that cord, and one minute later, I get this silly computer print out that *says* my car is OK.
Heck yeah ... , my car is only two years old !!!
And I have to fork over 45 dollars for *THAT* ????

So, I am ticked off already when he presents me with the bill.
And then to put more salt in my already hurting head-wound, he asks me if I am willing to pay him 10 dollars for my license sticker in addition what the State already charges me for ...
Dang, 45 bucks for three minutes of *work*, PLUS 10 bucks more for what ??? The bloody DMV is 15 minutes away !!! It cost me less to drive there and wait at the drive-by window !

I think, we proved it again.
The government, any government, will not be happy, until we are unhappy!

Nuff sed.

[griffin]

"And then to put more salt in my already hurting head-wound, he asks me if I am willing to pay him 10 dollars for my license sticker in addition what the State already charges me for ...
Dang, 45 bucks for three minutes of *work*, PLUS 10 bucks more for what ??? The bloody DMV is 15 minutes away !!! It cost me less to drive there and wait at the drive-by window !"

Your raise a really good point about On-the-spot. This is another program to jam more money out of individuals to help the inspectors make more profits. I looked into this program a few years back, and what I found was kind of annoying. It's a program added to inspections by another private business that processes the registration, keeps a dollar (may be more by now)for themselves, and the inspector gets the rest- however much he can charge Here is a link to the website promoting it:
http://www.nascio.org/awards/nominat...PSI%202009.pdf

It seems like a totally commercial racket, with things in their promotion like (from their website):

" Up-sell opportunities: Complementary programs such as On-the-SPOT to provide additional revenue streams.
In 2006, both Jiffy Lube and Just Emissions (two large inspection chains) sent direct mail to their customers highlighting OTS; an estimated 2 million impressions at no cost to the DMV
• According to station data, approximately 50% of citizens, when offered, select the OTS option
• Some stations incent employees to sell the OTS option; these stations see an 85% OTS sale rate
The state of Utah pays no annual operation costs for The Utah Highway Patrol Safety Inspection because Utah Interactive, the state’s PRIVATE(!) partner in electronic government, absorbs the ongoing costs of the system in exchange for passing the cost onto the vehicle owner." (end of quote)

So you can see On-the-spot is just another way for private business to get in on the act of safety inspections, making more profit for inspectors, and grab a buck or two for themselves with every transaction. I love the part where they say "some station incent employees to sell the OTS option, these stations see an 85% OTS sale rate. It sums it up when they say all of this is paid for by " passing the cost onto the vehicle owner."

This is just another private business that benefits when the inspector tries sell their so called service (OTS)to the person forced to undergo an inspection, and then some bucks are collected for everyone in between. Sounds kind of like ebay. The upsell of repairs is bad enough, I wish they'd give us a break. When they promote this they try to make it seem like registering your vehicle any other way is so difficult. A couple of minutes on the internet, a stamp and a check, or a short drive to the DMV drive up window is all it takes-and none of these ways costs anything.

The company that came up with this scheme believes it should get an award for this, and I think they should, "The Golden Fleece!"