Maybe add to this a minimum level of car inspection? Many places require an inspection for emissions and safety, but not all. I've never had a car inspection. Too many things are treated as rights without exception when they should be earned privileges.
I'm with you on this one, Steve. When the GOVERNMENT gets involved in SAFETY, then things quickly get out of hand. Classic cars? Gone. Custom cars? Gone. Aftermarket parts? Gone. "Non-standard" anything? Gone. Art cars? Gone. Concept cars? Gone. Bespoke automakers (even something like Brabus)? Gone. Having a "safe" vehicle on the road is definitely important. But truly unsafe vehicles die, and are scrapped. Unsafe DRIVERS can be disincentivized to drive, thereby eliminating them from driving ANY vehicle: safe, or unsafe. The socially-constructed idea of "safe" is a moving target that, over time, moves in a more and more regressive direction. Putting that responsibility in the government's hands is what has led plastic bag manufacturers to printing "NOT A TOY" on the bag your TV came in. And that's stupid, not safe.
Cars here need a good inspection every year, with older cars excempt. You're telling me US cars don't get checked regularly? I'm genuinely astounded. You go ride whatever vehicle you want on a closed track, but on the open road, I feel much safer knowing the human-controlled boxes hurtling around me are actually capable of performing the task they need to do.
Required vehicle inspections do not improve safety. That's my somewhat unpopular opinion based in part on living in a state that requires annual safety inspections, N = 1. First hit for "effectiveness of vehicle safety inspections" says "We found no evidence that inspections significantly reduce fatality or injury rates." The second hit says "inspections should continue" but only looks at test pass/fail rates and not safety.
The EU requires vehicle inspections every 2 years. We all grumble every time our EU-kontroll comes due but dutifully take our cars in to find out there's a light burned out and a shock-absorber that's worn. We pay up, people complain but generally agree that it is nice to know that your car has everything fixed and every other car is in good condition. I actually like getting everything fixed on my car every two years. Folks that don't like the inspections quote the studies that say required vehicle inspections do not improve safety. But that doesn't seem to make sense. Google will give you stats favoring both side. I do know I see almost no cars broken down on the road, which I used to see often when in the US. How do cars on the side of the highway affect safety, both for the driver and passengers of that car and of the other cars? It is not zero. The question seems to be of cost-effectiveness: what is the cost of these inspections vs. the costs of repairs after failure/accident, hospitalization and funeral expenses related to vehicle failure, and is it worth this cost?
Thanks, I agree with most of your comments, especially the last paragraph acknowledging the trade-off between costs and benefits of an inspection policy. The choice of inspections every two years itself represents a decision to give up potential benefits of more frequent inspections. This sounds like wishful thinking. In order to have "everything fixed" we have to assume that every possible safety defect is included in the inspection standards, that every inspector does a perfect job, and that no one evades or cheats the system. Even so, two years is plenty of time for things to go wrong between inspections. Obviously the costs would be too high to aim for perfection, so we live with a balance of costs and benefits of imperfect inspections. One possible unintended cost might be encouraging drivers to assume their vehicles are safe as long as they pass inspections, so they are less inclined to look for problems on their own. The fact that we can find arguments for both sides online doesn't mean that both arguments are equally strong. If inspections significantly improve safety, it should be possible to measure that improvement in states with inspections. If we can't find clear evidence of a net benefit, we should not claim that there is a net benefit. I also wonder why I no longer see broken down cars at the side of the road in the U.S. It used to be common to stop and see if stranded motorists needed a hand. I think cars are generally more reliable, drivers are less inclined to try and fix problems, and most people can quickly summon help with a mobile phone. Flat tires used to be common. In the 1970s, "typical bias ply tires lasted less than 20,000 miles and were only expected to be in service for about two years" but today's tires are "approaching 80,000 miles of treadwear."people complain but generally agree that it is nice to know that your car has everything fixed and every other car is in good condition.
Lots of good points there. goobster makes the point about what vehicle safety inspections look like in Europe and Scandanavia. I live in Norway, where as he says the inspections take over an hour (and cost about $80). We don't have to be able to diagram engine parts for our driver's licenses, but it's not easy to get one. There are different requirements for immigrants based on the the country you're coming from. I got off easy because I moved from the US with a valid driver's license. I only had to take a 45 minute road test. One problem with Norwegian driver's licenses -- they are valid until you're 100 years old, although you have to a driving fitness test every 5 years starting at age 80. My driver's license expires in 2068.
I don't see the problem. I hope to be able to drive at that age, and read a magazine at the same time. My license expires every eight years. Last time I renewed it online. Paid the fee with my credit card and got my new license in the mail. If I renewed in person I would have to pay a $5 additional fee, wait in line for a new photo, and take a vision test. Easy choice! (Next time I will have to go in for the vision test, and again every eight years starting at age 75.) The obvious intended effect of stricter requirements is to improve skills and safety. But a possible unintended effect is to discourage people who might have jumped through fewer hoops from bothering to get licensed at all.One problem with Norwegian driver's licenses -- they are valid until you're 100 years old
I don't see the problem. I hope to be able to drive at that age, and read a magazine at the same time.
I can help with that. Add ride your bike to the tennis court to the goal.
You would be blown away by what a "vehicle safety inspection" looks like in the EU. I've been through a number of them, and it ain't some schlub with a clipboard and a pen. It is a TEAM of people, who swarm your vehicle for an hour(?), and check everything, right down to whether the bolts for your seatbelts are tight. Vehicle inspections in Nordic countries are even MORE thorough. Shit. To get a driver's license in Italy you used to have to be able to diagram and describe how a clutch, gearbox, and internal combustion engine WORK.
Yeah, I have never lived in a state that required regular vehicle inspections. Emissions testing? Sure. But checking your brakes work? Or your lights work? Or your bushings aren't worn and your wheels about to fall off? Nope. However, every single race track I have been on has required DETAILED inspections before racing. I have actually driven a vehicle to a race, failed inspection and denied access to the track, and drove the vehicle home. That's freedom American-style. (Completely illogical.)
My dad has an old truck in the twilight zone of pre-OBD but not antique (emissions exempt) yet. The equipment for emissions-testing those cars is expensive and fragile, and every year fewer have working test equipment.