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....

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:35:29 -0500, "Paul" <Laura Bush murdered her
boyfriend is a > wrote:

>
>"N8N" > wrote in message
roups.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.....
>

And is there any data that shows these inspections actually make the
road safer?

--
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . .
Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House
of Representatives, August 17, 1789

"AZGuy" > wrote in message
...

> >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.....
> >
>
> And is there any data that shows these inspections actually make the
> road safer?

Dunno, but removing the idiots with the fart cans and mis-aimed fog
lights and such would remove a major annoyance factor on the streets
around here.

But ofcourse, when southern police logic is applied to a situation,
anything but the problem is addressed, witness the following where
complaints about idiots on 4-wheelers on a semi-rural road leads not to
a crackdown on the idiots, but instead gives the police an excuse to set
up a "papers check." http://tinyurl.com/5mtwy

"AZGuy" > wrote in message
...

> >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.....
> >
>
> And is there any data that shows these inspections actually make the
> road safer?

Dunno, but removing the idiots with the fart cans and mis-aimed fog
lights and such would remove a major annoyance factor on the streets
around here.

But ofcourse, when southern police logic is applied to a situation,
anything but the problem is addressed, witness the following where
complaints about idiots on 4-wheelers on a semi-rural road leads not to
a crackdown on the idiots, but instead gives the police an excuse to set
up a "papers check." http://tinyurl.com/5mtwy

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:35:29 -0500, "Paul" <Laura Bush murdered her
boyfriend is a > wrote:

>
>"N8N" > wrote in message
roups.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.....
>

And is there any data that shows these inspections actually make the
road safer?

--
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . .
Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House
of Representatives, August 17, 1789

"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.

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.