increasing number of vehicles with nonfunctional stuff on them?
I can't believe I'm actually posting this message, but I am going to
have to say that I'm becoming more and more in favor of annual safety inspections for vehicles. It seems like more and more people just don't maintain their rides. I have heard, in the last week, a vehicle with a terminal-sounding rod knock; seen a vehicle with an obviously blown head gasket, and finally one with no lights on the rear of the vehicle at all except for the third brake light. Now if these are the *obvious* issues immediately identified by a cursory glance from a passing vehicle, what else is being neglected? Brakes? Suspension? Critical drivetrain parts like the driveshaft that could actually pose a safety risk should it fail? It seems fairly likely... The scary thing is, I live in a fairly affluent area. I am probably on the very bottom end of the salary range for this area, it's not like people are scraping to get by - or if they are, they don't show it. My 16 year old car is the exception, anything over 10 years old is highly unusual. It would appear that people just don't care, or don't have enough mechanical knowledge to even identify serious problems... nate |
"N8N" > wrote in message oups.com... > I can't believe I'm actually posting this message, but I am going to > have to say that I'm becoming more and more in favor of annual safety > inspections for vehicles. It seems like more and more people just > don't maintain their rides. I have heard, in the last week, a vehicle > with a terminal-sounding rod knock; seen a vehicle with an obviously > blown head gasket, and finally one with no lights on the rear of the > vehicle at all except for the third brake light. Now if these are the > *obvious* issues immediately identified by a cursory glance from a > passing vehicle, what else is being neglected? Brakes? Suspension? > Critical drivetrain parts like the driveshaft that could actually pose > a safety risk should it fail? It seems fairly likely... Around here, such an inspection would get about 1/3 of the cars off the road for safety violations and another 1/3 for illegal modifications (illegal mufflers - or maybe non mufflers would be a better word, illegal lighting etc...). Hmmmmmm, maybe such an inspection program would not bu such a bad idea if run properly..... > The scary thing is, I live in a fairly affluent area. I am probably on > the very bottom end of the salary range for this area, it's not like > people are scraping to get by - or if they are, they don't show it. My > 16 year old car is the exception, anything over 10 years old is highly > unusual. It would appear that people just don't care, or don't have > enough mechanical knowledge to even identify serious problems... Or they just don't give a damn. Kinda hard for them to afford the health club to drive to and insipid toys for their over indulged children (not to mention the gobs of $$$ they throw away into college investment schemes so some tenured red-bag can fill said children's heads with useless crap in 20 years or so) if they were required to actually *maintain* their automobiles for the safety of the rest of us.... |
"N8N" > wrote in message oups.com... > I can't believe I'm actually posting this message, but I am going to > have to say that I'm becoming more and more in favor of annual safety > inspections for vehicles. It seems like more and more people just > don't maintain their rides. I have heard, in the last week, a vehicle > with a terminal-sounding rod knock; seen a vehicle with an obviously > blown head gasket, and finally one with no lights on the rear of the > vehicle at all except for the third brake light. Now if these are the > *obvious* issues immediately identified by a cursory glance from a > passing vehicle, what else is being neglected? Brakes? Suspension? > Critical drivetrain parts like the driveshaft that could actually pose > a safety risk should it fail? It seems fairly likely... Around here, such an inspection would get about 1/3 of the cars off the road for safety violations and another 1/3 for illegal modifications (illegal mufflers - or maybe non mufflers would be a better word, illegal lighting etc...). Hmmmmmm, maybe such an inspection program would not bu such a bad idea if run properly..... > The scary thing is, I live in a fairly affluent area. I am probably on > the very bottom end of the salary range for this area, it's not like > people are scraping to get by - or if they are, they don't show it. My > 16 year old car is the exception, anything over 10 years old is highly > unusual. It would appear that people just don't care, or don't have > enough mechanical knowledge to even identify serious problems... Or they just don't give a damn. Kinda hard for them to afford the health club to drive to and insipid toys for their over indulged children (not to mention the gobs of $$$ they throw away into college investment schemes so some tenured red-bag can fill said children's heads with useless crap in 20 years or so) if they were required to actually *maintain* their automobiles for the safety of the rest of us.... |
On 17 Jan 2005 06:39:17 -0800, "N8N" > wrote:
>I can't believe I'm actually posting this message, but I am going to >have to say that I'm becoming more and more in favor of annual safety >inspections for vehicles. It seems like more and more people just >don't maintain their rides. I have heard, in the last week, a vehicle >with a terminal-sounding rod knock; Not a safety problem. >seen a vehicle with an obviously >blown head gasket, Not a safety problem. >and finally one with no lights on the rear of the >vehicle at all except for the third brake light. Doesn't need an inspection, just a cop that will pull it over. >Now if these are the >*obvious* issues immediately identified by a cursory glance from a >passing vehicle, what else is being neglected? Brakes? Suspension? >Critical drivetrain parts like the driveshaft that could actually pose >a safety risk should it fail? It seems fairly likely... I live in Virginia which as an inspection system. Its a hassle and is useless. You'd have thought that they'd have told me that the brakes were within a year of needing replaced, but no - mine failed about 5 months later. They don't wear that fast, so the inspectors _should_ have known it, but didn't bother to mention it. Driveshaft problem won't be picked up in an inspection - they don't drive 'em in order to be able to feel the vibration. >The scary thing is, I live in a fairly affluent area. I am probably on >the very bottom end of the salary range for this area, it's not like >people are scraping to get by - or if they are, they don't show it. My >16 year old car is the exception, anything over 10 years old is highly >unusual. It would appear that people just don't care, or don't have >enough mechanical knowledge to even identify serious problems... > >nate Some states have had inspections and abandoned them. Indiana. Ohio. North Carolina. Those are just the ones I know about. Wasting time and money on this simply diverts effort that could be expended on more effective remedies, like adding lanes to existing roads and building new roads. This would lower congestion and save a lot more lives than are lost from mechanical problems. |
On 17 Jan 2005 06:39:17 -0800, "N8N" > wrote:
>I can't believe I'm actually posting this message, but I am going to >have to say that I'm becoming more and more in favor of annual safety >inspections for vehicles. It seems like more and more people just >don't maintain their rides. I have heard, in the last week, a vehicle >with a terminal-sounding rod knock; Not a safety problem. >seen a vehicle with an obviously >blown head gasket, Not a safety problem. >and finally one with no lights on the rear of the >vehicle at all except for the third brake light. Doesn't need an inspection, just a cop that will pull it over. >Now if these are the >*obvious* issues immediately identified by a cursory glance from a >passing vehicle, what else is being neglected? Brakes? Suspension? >Critical drivetrain parts like the driveshaft that could actually pose >a safety risk should it fail? It seems fairly likely... I live in Virginia which as an inspection system. Its a hassle and is useless. You'd have thought that they'd have told me that the brakes were within a year of needing replaced, but no - mine failed about 5 months later. They don't wear that fast, so the inspectors _should_ have known it, but didn't bother to mention it. Driveshaft problem won't be picked up in an inspection - they don't drive 'em in order to be able to feel the vibration. >The scary thing is, I live in a fairly affluent area. I am probably on >the very bottom end of the salary range for this area, it's not like >people are scraping to get by - or if they are, they don't show it. My >16 year old car is the exception, anything over 10 years old is highly >unusual. It would appear that people just don't care, or don't have >enough mechanical knowledge to even identify serious problems... > >nate Some states have had inspections and abandoned them. Indiana. Ohio. North Carolina. Those are just the ones I know about. Wasting time and money on this simply diverts effort that could be expended on more effective remedies, like adding lanes to existing roads and building new roads. This would lower congestion and save a lot more lives than are lost from mechanical problems. |
In article .com>, N8N wrote:
> Now if these are the > *obvious* issues immediately identified by a cursory glance from a > passing vehicle, what else is being neglected? Brakes? Suspension? > Critical drivetrain parts like the driveshaft that could actually pose > a safety risk should it fail? It seems fairly likely... > > The scary thing is, I live in a fairly affluent area. Ditto for my observations in similiar areas. People with money who won't spend a couple of bucks to replace tail lamps. In the poorer areas I am more likely to hear things like rod knock, obviously bad suspensions and other horrors, but generally I find that the one-working-tail-lamp vehicles are somewhat less common. My only guess is because of enforcement. Nobody is going to pull over the 65 year old white woman driving the '00 mercedes for burned out brake lamp. However, the 22 year old black male in the '84 oldsmobile delta 88..... |
In article .com>, N8N wrote:
> Now if these are the > *obvious* issues immediately identified by a cursory glance from a > passing vehicle, what else is being neglected? Brakes? Suspension? > Critical drivetrain parts like the driveshaft that could actually pose > a safety risk should it fail? It seems fairly likely... > > The scary thing is, I live in a fairly affluent area. Ditto for my observations in similiar areas. People with money who won't spend a couple of bucks to replace tail lamps. In the poorer areas I am more likely to hear things like rod knock, obviously bad suspensions and other horrors, but generally I find that the one-working-tail-lamp vehicles are somewhat less common. My only guess is because of enforcement. Nobody is going to pull over the 65 year old white woman driving the '00 mercedes for burned out brake lamp. However, the 22 year old black male in the '84 oldsmobile delta 88..... |
In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2005 06:39:17 -0800, "N8N" > wrote: >> I have heard, in the last week, a vehicle >>with a terminal-sounding rod knock; > Not a safety problem. I think a rod coming through the block would be.... >>seen a vehicle with an obviously blown head gasket, > Not a safety problem. Ever been behind a vehicle with an obviously blow head gasket? There is this HUGE amount of steam coming out of the tailpipe. It's like driving in a thick fog with a sickly-sweet smell of coolant. >>and finally one with no lights on the rear of the >>vehicle at all except for the third brake light. > Doesn't need an inspection, just a cop that will pull it over. HAH! Maybe if the driver is 20, it's 2am, and he's obeying the speed limit. Anyone they don't want to check out or harrass will not be stopped for it. |
In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2005 06:39:17 -0800, "N8N" > wrote: >> I have heard, in the last week, a vehicle >>with a terminal-sounding rod knock; > Not a safety problem. I think a rod coming through the block would be.... >>seen a vehicle with an obviously blown head gasket, > Not a safety problem. Ever been behind a vehicle with an obviously blow head gasket? There is this HUGE amount of steam coming out of the tailpipe. It's like driving in a thick fog with a sickly-sweet smell of coolant. >>and finally one with no lights on the rear of the >>vehicle at all except for the third brake light. > Doesn't need an inspection, just a cop that will pull it over. HAH! Maybe if the driver is 20, it's 2am, and he's obeying the speed limit. Anyone they don't want to check out or harrass will not be stopped for it. |
Dave Head wrote: > On 17 Jan 2005 06:39:17 -0800, "N8N" > wrote: > > >I can't believe I'm actually posting this message, but I am going to > >have to say that I'm becoming more and more in favor of annual safety > >inspections for vehicles. It seems like more and more people just > >don't maintain their rides. I have heard, in the last week, a vehicle > >with a terminal-sounding rod knock; > > Not a safety problem. It is if it blows on the road. > > >seen a vehicle with an obviously > >blown head gasket, > > Not a safety problem. Sure it is, if a vehicle is running without one or more cylinders having compression, it's very down on power. > > >and finally one with no lights on the rear of the > >vehicle at all except for the third brake light. > > Doesn't need an inspection, just a cop that will pull it over. > Why are these vehicles so common then? > >Now if these are the > >*obvious* issues immediately identified by a cursory glance from a > >passing vehicle, what else is being neglected? Brakes? Suspension? > >Critical drivetrain parts like the driveshaft that could actually pose > >a safety risk should it fail? It seems fairly likely... > > I live in Virginia which as an inspection system. Its a hassle and is useless. > You'd have thought that they'd have told me that the brakes were within a year > of needing replaced, but no - mine failed about 5 months later. They don't > wear that fast, so the inspectors _should_ have known it, but didn't bother to > mention it. > They should have picked up on it, you're right. > Driveshaft problem won't be picked up in an inspection - they don't drive 'em > in order to be able to feel the vibration. > They don't? Ought to... they do here (MD) problem is, the inspection is a once-only deal when you buy the car so once it passes it can turn into a festering POS and nobody's the wiser, so long as you don't get pulled over. > >The scary thing is, I live in a fairly affluent area. I am probably on > >the very bottom end of the salary range for this area, it's not like > >people are scraping to get by - or if they are, they don't show it. My > >16 year old car is the exception, anything over 10 years old is highly > >unusual. It would appear that people just don't care, or don't have > >enough mechanical knowledge to even identify serious problems... > > > >nate > > Some states have had inspections and abandoned them. Indiana. Ohio. North > Carolina. Those are just the ones I know about. > > Wasting time and money on this simply diverts effort that could be expended on > more effective remedies, like adding lanes to existing roads and building new > roads. This would lower congestion and save a lot more lives than are lost > from mechanical problems. I dunno, I think nonfunctional signals are quite the problem... then again, I see lots of vehicles with apparently functional lighting and the drivers can't be arsed to use their signals, and they don't get pulled over either... nate |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AutoBanter.com