increasing number of vehicles with nonfunctional stuff on them?

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

>>> terminal-sounding rod knock

>> Not a safety problem.

> It is if it blows on the road.


Or if the people swirling around him run into each other as he goes
uphill at 30 mph on the freeway, making noises like there's a midget
trapped inside the engine and trying to pound his way out with a
hammer. Or if it quits running in the ensuing tunnel. Fortunately, in
the example I saw yesterday, the former didn't happen and the latter
was downhill.

However, many problems such as this, a blown head gasket, etc. have
only a small chance of being caught by an annual inspection. The
timescale between the appearance of symptoms and the "don't worry, he
won't get far on foot" stage is far too small. Long-term wear-and-tear
issues like brakes and ball joints and whatnot, and defects like
cracked windshields and bent-up suspension parts, are about all that
they can catch in that fashion.

I also suspect that lots of people going down the road with a
questionable car
are aware that there's something wrong and none too happy about it,
but are in a state of fiscal checkmate: they can't afford to fix it,
replace it, or do without it, and are just hoping things look better in
some way when it finally quits for good.



> 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...

....and don't forget the ones who think turn signals are intended to
commemorate a maneuver rather than to announce it.

--Joe

>>> terminal-sounding rod knock

>> Not a safety problem.

> It is if it blows on the road.


Or if the people swirling around him run into each other as he goes
uphill at 30 mph on the freeway, making noises like there's a midget
trapped inside the engine and trying to pound his way out with a
hammer. Or if it quits running in the ensuing tunnel. Fortunately, in
the example I saw yesterday, the former didn't happen and the latter
was downhill.

However, many problems such as this, a blown head gasket, etc. have
only a small chance of being caught by an annual inspection. The
timescale between the appearance of symptoms and the "don't worry, he
won't get far on foot" stage is far too small. Long-term wear-and-tear
issues like brakes and ball joints and whatnot, and defects like
cracked windshields and bent-up suspension parts, are about all that
they can catch in that fashion.

I also suspect that lots of people going down the road with a
questionable car
are aware that there's something wrong and none too happy about it,
but are in a state of fiscal checkmate: they can't afford to fix it,
replace it, or do without it, and are just hoping things look better in
some way when it finally quits for good.



> 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...

....and don't forget the ones who think turn signals are intended to
commemorate a maneuver rather than to announce it.

--Joe

Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:

>>>>terminal-sounding rod knock
>
>
>>>Not a safety problem.
>
>
>>It is if it blows on the road.
>
>
>
> Or if the people swirling around him run into each other as he goes
> uphill at 30 mph on the freeway, making noises like there's a midget
> trapped inside the engine and trying to pound his way out with a
> hammer. Or if it quits running in the ensuing tunnel. Fortunately, in
> the example I saw yesterday, the former didn't happen and the latter
> was downhill.
>
> However, many problems such as this, a blown head gasket, etc. have
> only a small chance of being caught by an annual inspection. The
> timescale between the appearance of symptoms and the "don't worry, he
> won't get far on foot" stage is far too small. Long-term wear-and-tear
> issues like brakes and ball joints and whatnot, and defects like
> cracked windshields and bent-up suspension parts, are about all that
> they can catch in that fashion.
>
> I also suspect that lots of people going down the road with a
> questionable car
> are aware that there's something wrong and none too happy about it,
> but are in a state of fiscal checkmate: they can't afford to fix it,
> replace it, or do without it, and are just hoping things look better in
> some way when it finally quits for good.

I just find it hard to believe that the people that are driving shiny,
late-model cars are in that situation. If they are, it's their own damn
fault - monthly upkeep on the Fabulous BeaterPorsche is far less than
the payment on a new car, and that's one of the more expensive cars I've
owned. So what if it doesn't have shiny paint or perfect carpet... I'm
not eating bologna sandwiches for every meal the week the car note is
due every month, and I still get to work every day (well, except for the
CV joint incident, the car has impeccable timing, December 23rd and my
CV joint goes. WTF over?)

>
>>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...
>
>
> ...and don't forget the ones who think turn signals are intended to
> commemorate a maneuver rather than to announce it.
>

Yeah. Those guys. Even better is when they pull up next to you in a
lane that suddenly turns into a turn-only lane and pull that trick, not
realizing that since they're directly beside you you can't see their
signals and have no idea whether they're trying to muscle you out of the
way or just taking the corner hot until they actually start coming over.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:

>>>>terminal-sounding rod knock
>
>
>>>Not a safety problem.
>
>
>>It is if it blows on the road.
>
>
>
> Or if the people swirling around him run into each other as he goes
> uphill at 30 mph on the freeway, making noises like there's a midget
> trapped inside the engine and trying to pound his way out with a
> hammer. Or if it quits running in the ensuing tunnel. Fortunately, in
> the example I saw yesterday, the former didn't happen and the latter
> was downhill.
>
> However, many problems such as this, a blown head gasket, etc. have
> only a small chance of being caught by an annual inspection. The
> timescale between the appearance of symptoms and the "don't worry, he
> won't get far on foot" stage is far too small. Long-term wear-and-tear
> issues like brakes and ball joints and whatnot, and defects like
> cracked windshields and bent-up suspension parts, are about all that
> they can catch in that fashion.
>
> I also suspect that lots of people going down the road with a
> questionable car
> are aware that there's something wrong and none too happy about it,
> but are in a state of fiscal checkmate: they can't afford to fix it,
> replace it, or do without it, and are just hoping things look better in
> some way when it finally quits for good.

I just find it hard to believe that the people that are driving shiny,
late-model cars are in that situation. If they are, it's their own damn
fault - monthly upkeep on the Fabulous BeaterPorsche is far less than
the payment on a new car, and that's one of the more expensive cars I've
owned. So what if it doesn't have shiny paint or perfect carpet... I'm
not eating bologna sandwiches for every meal the week the car note is
due every month, and I still get to work every day (well, except for the
CV joint incident, the car has impeccable timing, December 23rd and my
CV joint goes. WTF over?)

>
>>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...
>
>
> ...and don't forget the ones who think turn signals are intended to
> commemorate a maneuver rather than to announce it.
>

Yeah. Those guys. Even better is when they pull up next to you in a
lane that suddenly turns into a turn-only lane and pull that trick, not
realizing that since they're directly beside you you can't see their
signals and have no idea whether they're trying to muscle you out of the
way or just taking the corner hot until they actually start coming over.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

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

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

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:54:27 GMT, 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.
>
>>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.
>

Add Arizona to that list. We had them back in the early 60's. A big
waste of time and money. The only people in favor of these
inspections are the usually do-gooders who are always ready to tell
everyone else how to live their life and of course the auto repair
places who are only too happy to separate you from your money for
unneeded repairs.

>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.

--
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

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:54:27 GMT, 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.
>
>>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.
>

Add Arizona to that list. We had them back in the early 60's. A big
waste of time and money. The only people in favor of these
inspections are the usually do-gooders who are always ready to tell
everyone else how to live their life and of course the auto repair
places who are only too happy to separate you from your money for
unneeded repairs.

>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.

--
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:
> 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...

In my country they have six-monthly inspections (or annual
if the car is less than 6 years old). I have heard that these
are the toughest inspections in the world. It usually takes
20 - 30 minutes and requires a hoist.

A rod knock, blown head gasket, driveshaft, etc. would NOT cause
a fail, unless the inspector deemed it dangerous (Most inspectors
just go through the official checklist).

Leaking oil doesn't fail either(unless it is a lot). However,
leaking PS fluid, brake/clutch fluid, or water-pump causes a
fail (as it should). Also causing a fail is worn tyres
(including the spare), any suspension play, cut springs (if
the inspector is sharp), worn shocks, non-captive springs,
weak brakes, worn suspension ball joints, insecurely-mounted
battery, fraying or not tensioning correctly seatbelts, airbag
diagnostics failing, structural rust, and the usual crap:
lights not working, horn not working, etc.

Officially the car can be failed for having an exhaust
noticeably louder than the OEM, but usually this doesn't
happen because it's easy to challenge in court and the
inspectors can't be bothered.
They are trying to bring in emissions testing in a few
years' time too, but there is opposition from the testing
stations (it will add quite a bit to their costs).