they officially are done, but only in the major citys and people living pretty much everywhere else is given exceptions. Safety inspections seem like a weird idea anyway, how does the government know what is safe for my usag of the vehicle. Is a lack of coolant a safety issue? What about a missing bumper? A half rotted frame?
For most people yes. My perspective is that I really don’t want government inspecting every car on the road because those kinds of issues aren’t a meaningful part of the risk I undertake on the road which is dominated almost entirely by incompetence, failure to follow traffic laws, old people who shouldn’t be driving anymore, and morons using their phones while driving.
Perfect performance thus isn’t meaningfully expected to improve my safety but it will cost me money.
You say that living in a world where the government at least actively controls what can be sold as a roadworthy vehicle, and unsafe cars can be taken off the street.
“I don’t want government doing what they’re currently doing because I never see any instances of the problem they’re trying to prevent”.
“We don’t need vaccines because I never see any of the diseases doctors are always wanting to vaccinate for”.
We used to sell cars where the steering wheel was solid steel and a low speed collision caved your face in. Industry only started to sell safer cars when they were forced to do so.
There’s being pissy about government abuse, and then there’s being upset about safety standards.
One can be pro manufacturer and seller facing regulation which ensures a vital baseline level of safety when there is a strong incentive for sellers to sell cheap unsafe cars without wanting government to do individual inspections on the consumer level. The logical argument is that the benefit of the former is massive and accrues to everyone whilst the benefit of the latter is very modest.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office found the benefit too small to quantify for example. Even when the US withheld highway funds based on rolling out such a policy only 31 states implemented. Now that that stick no longer exists only 16 states do so. Washington which does not has a better safety record than 10 of the 16 which do. Furthermore WA is considering in HB 1513 forbidding police offers from making traffic stops for equipment violations, except to “protect against an immediate, serious threat” to safety. No more hurr durr you have an issue with your car that’s why I’m stopping you and searching you for drugs cause I smelled something funny.
they officially are done, but only in the major citys and people living pretty much everywhere else is given exceptions. Safety inspections seem like a weird idea anyway, how does the government know what is safe for my usag of the vehicle. Is a lack of coolant a safety issue? What about a missing bumper? A half rotted frame?
Yes, those all seem like safety issues to me.
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-300-1949-VI-EQUIPMENT
Is this your first time encountering the notion that vehicle safety is regulated by the government?
For most people yes. My perspective is that I really don’t want government inspecting every car on the road because those kinds of issues aren’t a meaningful part of the risk I undertake on the road which is dominated almost entirely by incompetence, failure to follow traffic laws, old people who shouldn’t be driving anymore, and morons using their phones while driving.
Perfect performance thus isn’t meaningfully expected to improve my safety but it will cost me money.
You say that living in a world where the government at least actively controls what can be sold as a roadworthy vehicle, and unsafe cars can be taken off the street.
“I don’t want government doing what they’re currently doing because I never see any instances of the problem they’re trying to prevent”.
“We don’t need vaccines because I never see any of the diseases doctors are always wanting to vaccinate for”.
We used to sell cars where the steering wheel was solid steel and a low speed collision caved your face in. Industry only started to sell safer cars when they were forced to do so.
There’s being pissy about government abuse, and then there’s being upset about safety standards.
One can be pro manufacturer and seller facing regulation which ensures a vital baseline level of safety when there is a strong incentive for sellers to sell cheap unsafe cars without wanting government to do individual inspections on the consumer level. The logical argument is that the benefit of the former is massive and accrues to everyone whilst the benefit of the latter is very modest.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office found the benefit too small to quantify for example. Even when the US withheld highway funds based on rolling out such a policy only 31 states implemented. Now that that stick no longer exists only 16 states do so. Washington which does not has a better safety record than 10 of the 16 which do. Furthermore WA is considering in HB 1513 forbidding police offers from making traffic stops for equipment violations, except to “protect against an immediate, serious threat” to safety. No more hurr durr you have an issue with your car that’s why I’m stopping you and searching you for drugs cause I smelled something funny.
https://www.thenorthernlight.com/stories/road-rules-should-washington-state-have-vehicle-safety-inspections,24288
https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/wa/2023-2024/bills/WAB00019790/#actions
The government doesn’t know what’s safe but it can certainly know what is UNsafe.
It’s insanity that your government allows 2 ton death machines to race around in public without safety inspections.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office found the safety benefit too small to quantify that it exists.