Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

manofsticks t1_j1x67k4 wrote

>The laws aren't that strict or unreasonable

It comes down to what you believe the purpose of the inspection is; IMO the primary purpose of the inspection is for safety reasons, not environmental.

For example my last car had an air injection valve get stuck occasionally. All it did was make the car run a little rougher, and use more gas for a month or two until it got un-stuck. But that was enough to fail inspection, so I would postpone my inspections for a month or two until it would pass.

While dealing with environmental issues is important, IMO it's not worth it if it would cause people to postpone safety checks (like it does in Vermont). Make it a separate sticker or something so people can still get their safety check and then deal with emissions later.

5

notfornswf t1_j1xbkgd wrote

Go to other states the inspection is strictly emissions, so be glad they check safety in vt

1

lantonas t1_j1xxquy wrote

What percentage of car accidents are caused by faulty cars and not faulty drivers?

8

Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_j20h57f wrote

Far more are likely caused by faulty drivers, but that's just because people don't pay attention.

Just because a ton of accidents are caused by faulty drivers doesn't mean we should let safety issues slide on vehicles (especially in a state that salts their roads profusely).

2

smokeythemechanic t1_j1xdqvo wrote

Yeah I mean you can have entirely missing lower control arm rear suspension bushings which on a Subaru for example can be 1.25" of play on just one tire both steering and braking are super impacted but it passes. Same Subaru has a failed intake air temp sensor which is a redundant sensor as it measures at the mass air flow sensor but trips the check engine light that fails. It's important to keep in perspective that our laws are largely made with media shock and awe tactics and law makers reactions to the emotional voting public, not based on experts in the field.

0