2016 Bills

HB 319: Repealing Vehicle Safety Inspections

This bill was not considered by the legislature.

Libertas Institute supports this bill.

Over the past few decades, several states have repealed the requirement for drivers to have their vehicles annually tested for safety; at present, just 16 states mandate it. According to a study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, there is no evidence to indicate that mandatory safety inspection programs reduce accidents. The report demonstrates that crash rates are roughly the same in states that have them as in those that do not.

Building on this momentum, Representative Norm Thurston has sponsored House Bill 319 to eliminate the requirement to perform safety inspections on vehicles as a condition of legally driving in Utah.

A previous attempt to eliminate safety inspections in Utah was met with fierce opposition by the Utah Highway Patrol and the Department of Public Safety which argued that the safety inspection program was essential and necessary. The final version of the bill, which was signed into law, reduced the frequency of required safety inspections.

In the absence of any data indicating that safety inspections result in a clearly positive increase in driver safety, the requirement should be eliminated. Drivers—especially the poor demographic operating older cars, who may struggle to afford the inspection—should not be compelled to finance an unnecessary government program.

  • john

    Tara,
     
    Based on your article titled “News Brief: study
    finds State Vehicle Safety Inspections should continue” I thought you might be
    interested in reading an accurate depiction of this law.
     
       In your article you make reference to the need
    to keep the inspection process based on an actual higher rate of failure/passed
    based on required repairs than state legislators are using to assess the
    effectiveness of this law.
     
       The article below addresses your statistical
    analysis and also provides an argument pertaining to the constitutionality of
    the law that you may want to investigate.
     
     
     
    —– Original Message —–
    From:
    To:
    Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 3:12 PM
    Subject: State Vehicle Inspections
    Bobby,
     
       I was reading your article titled “Pennsylvania
    may again consider scrapping annual vehicle inspections” dated
    11/02/2014.
     
       Let me start by saying that I have over 20 years
    experience in the automotive repair industry. I possess numerous ASE
    certifications, an IMACA certification and even an HVAC license.
     
       So I, at least, think I know what I am talking
    about when I discuss the issues pertaining to state vehicle safety
    inspections.
     
       I am amused by the comments of repair shop
    owners like the one you interviewed, Bo Malacki of Mt. Lebanon Auto Service,
    when he states that you regularly see brakes that are metal to metal at
    inspection time because people won’t have repairs performed until they are
    required by law, and that it is a safety issue.
     
       Does Mr. Malacki expect us to believe that these
    vehicles passed an inspection the previous year but are now in deplorably
    dangerous condition or is he suggesting that the previous inspector over looked
    these dangers? If he is suggesting the latter then what does that suggest about
    the program. Maybe he is suggesting that his inspectors are the only ones doing
    their jobs. Or maybe he thinks a vehicle owner will take his primary form of
    transportation and intentionally run it into the ground, indicating the previous
    inspector and Mr. Malacki’s inspectors are not using the law to extort money
    from citizens, and will turn the radio up to overcome the screeching sound from
    the squeelers on the brake pads allowing them to wear down to the point of metal
    to metal as he claims.
     
       While it is true that bulbs can burn out at any
    time, is Mr. Malacki suggesting that the state and local police officers sit
    around eating doughnuts or that no good samaritan would inform a driver that a
    light is out?
     
       Does Mr. Malacki offer “FREE” courtesy checks
    like every shop I have ever worked for does so that owners can be advised of
    their vehicles condition regularly? Or is he exploiting the law because his
    patrons take his recommendations to another shop for a second opinion and a
    better price?
     
       In my area the inspectors are attempting to
    bolster the rejection percentage so that they, the state police and state
    legislators can claim that a real safety issue exists. However, they know that
    if the item a vehicle is being rejected for is expensive then a customer may
    leave, having the repair done elsewhere and return for the re-inspection
    only.
     
       The rejection percentages will rise but at the
    expense of their technician’s time. So they reject ALL vehicles here for wiper
    blades.
     
       People use wipers and/or washer solvent
    regularly: to remove condensation, bird droppings, pollen as well as rain. Do
    these inspectors believe that a vehicle owner will not know about the condition
    of these wiper blades from this usage or are they suggesting that , as Mr.
    Malacki would, owners would not pay $15.00 for replacement wiper blades until
    that have destroyed a $350.00 windshield?
     
       I posted a comment on your website and am going
    to include it here again for you.
     
     I’ve read comments from state inspectors claiming that numerous
    vehicles are severely in need of repairs when they are inspected. However, this
    claim goes more to prove my argument for the law being unconstitutional than it
    does for the safety that these inspections provide. If these vehicles are so
    unsafe then what can we assume about the condition of vehicles crossing state
    boarders from states that do not require an inspection, but are here based on
    state legislators need for tourism. Federal legislators claim that it is a state
    issue. However, if my claim is correct and the program does discriminate between
    state residents and the treatment of vehicle owners entering the state then it
    is a federal issue which also involves interstate commerce. Don’t we expect
    individuals crossing our state boarders to comply with our state’s speed limit
    laws, and don’t we provide weigh stations for large trucks entering our
    highways. If state legislators want to claim state’s rights then someone should
    remind them of the courts decision on the gay marriage ban. And if the program
    were to be fair to all residents of all states to comply with a required safety
    issue then it would be a federal mandate, not a state mandate.

    Please read my argument below:
    Subject: Eliminate the State Vehicle Safety Inspection Mandate.
    CAN WE PLEASE MOVE INTO THE
    21st CENTURY?!!!!!
    http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/PED/Reports/documents/VSI/VSI_Exec_Summary.pdf

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States

    http://articles.dailypress.com/2013-08-11/news/dp-nws-street-smart-0811-20130811_1_paperwork-drivers-inspection

    The Virginia State Vehicle Safety Inspection Mandate is unconstitutional
    because it discriminates against all of Virginia’s vehicle owners by requiring
    that they submit to having their vehicles certified annually or lose the
    privilege of driving on the very roads that their tax dollars are used to
    maintain while allowing vehicles that are not registered in Virginia to enter
    our boarders and travel upon the very same roads unencumbered by this mandate,
    potentially putting the lives of the individuals that submitted to the mandate
    and proved compliance in peril from vehicles that are not regulated and may be
    deemed unsafe based on the same Virginia Safety Inspection criteria.

  • john

    Tara,
     
    Based on your article titled “News Brief: study
    finds State Vehicle Safety Inspections should continue” I thought you might be
    interested in reading an accurate depiction of this law.
     
       In your article you make reference to the need
    to keep the inspection process based on an actual higher rate of failure/passed
    based on required repairs than state legislators are using to assess the
    effectiveness of this law.
     
       The article below addresses your statistical
    analysis and also provides an argument pertaining to the constitutionality of
    the law that you may want to investigate.
     
     
     
    —– Original Message —–
    From:
    To:
    Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 3:12 PM
    Subject: State Vehicle Inspections
    Bobby,
     
       I was reading your article titled “Pennsylvania
    may again consider scrapping annual vehicle inspections” dated
    11/02/2014.
     
       Let me start by saying that I have over 20 years
    experience in the automotive repair industry. I possess numerous ASE
    certifications, an IMACA certification and even an HVAC license.
     
       So I, at least, think I know what I am talking
    about when I discuss the issues pertaining to state vehicle safety
    inspections.
     
       I am amused by the comments of repair shop
    owners like the one you interviewed, Bo Malacki of Mt. Lebanon Auto Service,
    when he states that you regularly see brakes that are metal to metal at
    inspection time because people won’t have repairs performed until they are
    required by law, and that it is a safety issue.
     
       Does Mr. Malacki expect us to believe that these
    vehicles passed an inspection the previous year but are now in deplorably
    dangerous condition or is he suggesting that the previous inspector over looked
    these dangers? If he is suggesting the latter then what does that suggest about
    the program. Maybe he is suggesting that his inspectors are the only ones doing
    their jobs. Or maybe he thinks a vehicle owner will take his primary form of
    transportation and intentionally run it into the ground, indicating the previous
    inspector and Mr. Malacki’s inspectors are not using the law to extort money
    from citizens, and will turn the radio up to overcome the screeching sound from
    the squeelers on the brake pads allowing them to wear down to the point of metal
    to metal as he claims.
     
       While it is true that bulbs can burn out at any
    time, is Mr. Malacki suggesting that the state and local police officers sit
    around eating doughnuts or that no good samaritan would inform a driver that a
    light is out?
     
       Does Mr. Malacki offer “FREE” courtesy checks
    like every shop I have ever worked for does so that owners can be advised of
    their vehicles condition regularly? Or is he exploiting the law because his
    patrons take his recommendations to another shop for a second opinion and a
    better price?
     
       In my area the inspectors are attempting to
    bolster the rejection percentage so that they, the state police and state
    legislators can claim that a real safety issue exists. However, they know that
    if the item a vehicle is being rejected for is expensive then a customer may
    leave, having the repair done elsewhere and return for the re-inspection
    only.
     
       The rejection percentages will rise but at the
    expense of their technician’s time. So they reject ALL vehicles here for wiper
    blades.
     
       People use wipers and/or washer solvent
    regularly: to remove condensation, bird droppings, pollen as well as rain. Do
    these inspectors believe that a vehicle owner will not know about the condition
    of these wiper blades from this usage or are they suggesting that , as Mr.
    Malacki would, owners would not pay $15.00 for replacement wiper blades until
    that have destroyed a $350.00 windshield?
     
       I posted a comment on your website and am going
    to include it here again for you.
     
     I’ve read comments from state inspectors claiming that numerous
    vehicles are severely in need of repairs when they are inspected. However, this
    claim goes more to prove my argument for the law being unconstitutional than it
    does for the safety that these inspections provide. If these vehicles are so
    unsafe then what can we assume about the condition of vehicles crossing state
    boarders from states that do not require an inspection, but are here based on
    state legislators need for tourism. Federal legislators claim that it is a state
    issue. However, if my claim is correct and the program does discriminate between
    state residents and the treatment of vehicle owners entering the state then it
    is a federal issue which also involves interstate commerce. Don’t we expect
    individuals crossing our state boarders to comply with our state’s speed limit
    laws, and don’t we provide weigh stations for large trucks entering our
    highways. If state legislators want to claim state’s rights then someone should
    remind them of the courts decision on the gay marriage ban. And if the program
    were to be fair to all residents of all states to comply with a required safety
    issue then it would be a federal mandate, not a state mandate.

    Please read my argument below:
    Subject: Eliminate the State Vehicle Safety Inspection Mandate.
    CAN WE PLEASE MOVE INTO THE
    21st CENTURY?!!!!!
    http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/PED/Reports/documents/VSI/VSI_Exec_Summary.pdf

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States

    http://articles.dailypress.com/2013-08-11/news/dp-nws-street-smart-0811-20130811_1_paperwork-drivers-inspection

    The Virginia State Vehicle Safety Inspection Mandate is unconstitutional
    because it discriminates against all of Virginia’s vehicle owners by requiring
    that they submit to having their vehicles certified annually or lose the
    privilege of driving on the very roads that their tax dollars are used to
    maintain while allowing vehicles that are not registered in Virginia to enter
    our boarders and travel upon the very same roads unencumbered by this mandate,
    potentially putting the lives of the individuals that submitted to the mandate
    and proved compliance in peril from vehicles that are not regulated and may be
    deemed unsafe based on the same Virginia Safety Inspection criteria.

  • JohnJackson3

    inspectors claiming that numerous
    vehicles are severely in need of repairs when they are inspected. However, this
    claim goes more to prove my argument for the law being unconstitutional than it
    does for the safety that these inspections provide. If these vehicles are so
    unsafe then what can we assume about the condition of vehicles crossing state
    boarders from states that do not require an inspection, but are here based on
    state legislators need for tourism. Federal legislators claim that it is a state
    issue. However, if my claim is correct and the program does discriminate between
    state residents and the treatment of vehicle owners entering the state then it
    is a federal issue which also involves interstate commerce. Don’t we expect
    individuals crossing our state boarders to comply with our state’s speed limit
    laws, and don’t we provide weigh stations for large trucks entering our
    highways. If state legislators want to claim state’s rights then someone should
    remind them of the courts decision on the gay marriage ban. And if the program
    were to be fair to all residents of all states to comply with a required safety
    issue then it would be a federal mandate, not a state mandate.

    Please read my argument below:
    Subject: Eliminate the State Vehicle Safety Inspection Mandate.
    CAN WE PLEASE MOVE INTO THE
    21st CENTURY?!!!!!
    http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/PED/Reports/documents/VSI/VSI_Exec_Summary.pdf

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States

    http://articles.dailypress.com/2013-08-11/news/dp-nws-street-smart-0811-20130811_1_paperwork-drivers-inspection

    The Virginia State Vehicle Safety Inspection Mandate is unconstitutional
    because it discriminates against all of Virginia’s vehicle owners by requiring
    that they submit to having their vehicles certified annually or lose the
    privilege of driving on the very roads that their tax dollars are used to
    maintain while allowing vehicles that are not registered in Virginia to enter
    our boarders and travel upon the very same roads unencumbered by this mandate,
    potentially putting the lives of the individuals that submitted to the mandate
    and proved compliance in peril from vehicles that are not regulated and may be
    deemed unsafe based on the same Virginia Safety Inspection criteria.

  • constanlyfixingcars

    Inspections are a scam. I don’t mind having someone honestly inspect for safety issues. But the inspections are used as  a means to make a quick easy buck. 
    They charge 50 bucks to do 10-15 minutes worth of work. That is more than $200 an hour. They keep raising the rates every year or two. 
    I would bet that if you eliminated the inspection/emmissions test for two years and compared the pevious years, you would see no difference in air quality or vehicle accidents. 
    Face it, this exists for the sake of making money.
    I just finished replacing the brakes on my van. My wife was trying to do me a favor and take the van in to get the inpection and emmissions done. 
    She went to jiffy lube because I had hoped that since they focus on oil changes, they would not be scamming for other work. No just like other car shops, they see woman walk in the door and they pull every trick in the book.
    First they made her wait 3 hours (for a stupid inspection). Then they tell her the brakes are completly shot. The rotors need to be replaced and the rear pads are running metal to metal. 
    The are pushing her to get the brake job done there for $400. She calls me and she just wants to get it over with (she was tired or the whole thing by then). I told he no and that I would do it on saturday.
    So I get the parts for $70 and replace all of the brake pads front and rear. It takes most of the day. Well the back pads still had half of the original pad.
    New the pad is around 1/4 inch thick. There is at least 1/8 or an inch, or half of the orginal pad left. The brakes were not metal to metal. I knew they were not. 
     When brakes are worn out they squeal like crazy and you know they are shot. Our van’s brakes had been silent and smooth, so I now they were not shot. I have done about 30 brake jobs over the years.
     The rotors were smooth and in great shape as well. But when you fail inspection you have to do something because they know they have you up against the wall.
     So inspections are just a scam to force people to make repairs they really do not need.