How does it feel to have no vehicle safety inspections (I know some states do have them, but others not)? Why do you view it as a commie attack on your irrevocable right to put other citizens' life, health and property in danger?
1. Can feel nervous, especially when some of the drivers around my city drive like shit. 2. Just because it unfairly adds more to the death toll thanks to drivers that can barely drive without acting like a ass compared to drivers that can drive well.
I live in Arizona, we have some of the most relaxed vehicle laws out there and I love it! Mostly because I like fabricating and modifying parts for my car. I don't see it as a commie attack when people argue for it, I get why they do and they have good reasons for it, but accidents from part failure are EXTREMELY rare. Most safety parts fail and can still get your car home. Like a brake line leak, you have your front and rear brakes split, so not all of them will fail at the same time. If the steering rack fails, you can still turn it. If a A arm, or strut bushing blows, it will still hold somewhat together. Plus most failing parts that could cause a wreck will not show up in an inspection. My brother's lower ball joint gave out on his IS300. It looked fine before that, not even the boot was torn. My dad's Pinto body on a Scout chassis had his wheel come right off because his axle was slightly bent, it overheated the inner axle and broke right off. One of my friend's friends had a shop work on his WRX steering rack, they left the "steering wheel shaft" to "rack input shaft" bolt slightly loose and it slipped causing him to crash into a building. That wouldn't have been caught in an inspection either. Basically in short, I don't think inspections will help much and will only annoy the drivers while costing tax payers a ton of money. I am totally up for a discussion, so please feel free to post counter points .
Would help with the horrible recall problems in America to have the government require safety inspections. (coming from someone who has had 8 vehicle recalls canceled then failed because of the recalls being voided by a company inspection.)
Brake lines, steering rack and other parts you named can still function, but they will perform much worse (or fail completely) in an emergency situation. You miss the point of technical inspection. It is not meant to stop you from getting home. It is meant to keep roads clear of people who systematically drive cars in unsafe condition, knowingly or unknowingly. The inspection would have certainly noticed the bent axle (not that a Pinto on a Scout frame would pass it anyway). You might imagine it as visual only, but it also includes putting your car's wheels (first front, then rear) on a stand where it is shaked so violently you might feel bad for it. If anything in the suspension and related parts is about to break, it will break there. The inspection is also very efficient at noticing dangerous corrosion, lights that don't work properly, brake inefficiency or failure, different warning lights on the dashboard, worn tires, broken windshields and so on. It also eliminates ricers, stance and donks. Finally, why would it waste taxpayers money? It would only take money from owners of road-going vehicles. Owning a car comes with costs. You already pay for insurance, fuel and parts and you don't protest it. Would an extra $50/year change a lot?
Yeah but it can be a bloody pain. Like here in the UK handbrake tests are the worst imo, like what do I need a handbrake on an automatic car for? there's a park mode And for manual just leave it in gear, wheels to the kerb and you'll be ok. Yes the handbrake can be useful for hill starts, but otherwise it's a bit un-necessary. I can't really think of any other silly things the MOT tests does, but most of the time I think it's a good idea. You don't want to have the roads littered with cars unable to stop/steer.
@Ytrewq is talking about emmisions and roadworthyness inspections that determine if you can get registration on your car.
