increasing number of vehicles with nonfunctional stuff on them?

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).

In article .com>, Old Wolf wrote:

> 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).

leaking PS fluid is no big deal. When i put the winter beater back on the
road initially I just kludged a leaking PS line. The kludge didn't hold.
Even with a fairly rapid leak, the PS worked just fine. Simply had to
keep it toped off until I did a proper repair making a new line segment
with flares and fittings to replace the leaking section. Even with this,
lines that I made before (I couldn't quite duplicate the factory flare)
weeped slightly. If I cleaned off the area with a rag it would take 2-3
weeks before it dripped on the ground again. I would top off the PS
fluid every 2-3 months.

In article .com>, Old Wolf wrote:

> 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).

leaking PS fluid is no big deal. When i put the winter beater back on the
road initially I just kludged a leaking PS line. The kludge didn't hold.
Even with a fairly rapid leak, the PS worked just fine. Simply had to
keep it toped off until I did a proper repair making a new line segment
with flares and fittings to replace the leaking section. Even with this,
lines that I made before (I couldn't quite duplicate the factory flare)
weeped slightly. If I cleaned off the area with a rag it would take 2-3
weeks before it dripped on the ground again. I would top off the PS
fluid every 2-3 months.

Brent P wrote:
> Old Wolf wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> leaking PS fluid is no big deal. When i put the winter beater back on
the
> road initially I just kludged a leaking PS line. The kludge didn't
hold.
> Even with a fairly rapid leak, the PS worked just fine. Simply had to

> keep it toped off until I did a proper repair making a new line
segment
> with flares and fittings to replace the leaking section. Even with
this,
> lines that I made before (I couldn't quite duplicate the factory
flare)
> weeped slightly. If I cleaned off the area with a rag it would take
2-3
> weeks before it dripped on the ground again. I would top off the PS
> fluid every 2-3 months.

Right. Same goes for all the other leaks I mentioned. I suppose
the theory is that your average moron ("Cars need oil????") will
do nothing about it, and in 6 months time it might have leaked
enough to cause a steering failure.

If you do get failed here for one of these leaks, you can usually
just go back a few days later, wipe off the leak just before you
get to the testing station, and say you fixed it.

Brent P wrote:
> Old Wolf wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> leaking PS fluid is no big deal. When i put the winter beater back on
the
> road initially I just kludged a leaking PS line. The kludge didn't
hold.
> Even with a fairly rapid leak, the PS worked just fine. Simply had to

> keep it toped off until I did a proper repair making a new line
segment
> with flares and fittings to replace the leaking section. Even with
this,
> lines that I made before (I couldn't quite duplicate the factory
flare)
> weeped slightly. If I cleaned off the area with a rag it would take
2-3
> weeks before it dripped on the ground again. I would top off the PS
> fluid every 2-3 months.

Right. Same goes for all the other leaks I mentioned. I suppose
the theory is that your average moron ("Cars need oil????") will
do nothing about it, and in 6 months time it might have leaked
enough to cause a steering failure.

If you do get failed here for one of these leaks, you can usually
just go back a few days later, wipe off the leak just before you
get to the testing station, and say you fixed it.

On 17 Jan 2005 06:39:17 -0800, "N8N" > wrote:

>and finally one with no lights on the rear of the
>vehicle at all except for the third brake light.

I saw one of those the other day and the 3rd brake light was half out.

I'm sure they just weren't aware of it - the car didn't have a scratch
on it. I thought about trying to tell them at the next traffic light,
but they were old and probably too hard of hearing to understand what
I was talking about.

On 17 Jan 2005 06:39:17 -0800, "N8N" > wrote:

>and finally one with no lights on the rear of the
>vehicle at all except for the third brake light.

I saw one of those the other day and the 3rd brake light was half out.

I'm sure they just weren't aware of it - the car didn't have a scratch
on it. I thought about trying to tell them at the next traffic light,
but they were old and probably too hard of hearing to understand what
I was talking about.

"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

Olaf Gustafson wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2005 06:39:17 -0800, "N8N" > wrote:
>
>
>>and finally one with no lights on the rear of the
>>vehicle at all except for the third brake light.
>
>
> I saw one of those the other day and the 3rd brake light was half out.
>
> I'm sure they just weren't aware of it - the car didn't have a scratch
> on it. I thought about trying to tell them at the next traffic light,
> but they were old and probably too hard of hearing to understand what
> I was talking about.

I actually did tell a driver of one of these vehicles about his
condition, he just shrugged and said "I know." This was in Pittsburgh,
I wouldn't try that in DC.

nate

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