iluvtravel t1_j3lsvbe wrote
I’m OK with 2 plates, and regular emissions, but is there any data that shows the “safety inspection” does anything to enhance safety? Anything at all?
lvalleli t1_j3mdt87 wrote
Meta-analyses show that studies vary between not being able to find a firm conclusion, or pointing to the conclusion that safety inspections make roads safer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8296297/
Much of Europe has much more stringent vehicle inspections than even Mass, (Germany as the most notable example). The most English-friendly single-case study I found was out of Norway, and concludes firmly that inspections reduced the number of unsafe cars on the road, but resulting accidents and fatalities were not reduced by as much as expected, and posits that drivers of cars with faults that would fail inspection know that and adapt around it, to an extent, or are so negligent that they will crash no matter what the condition of their car. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16887091/).
On a more social-contract style argument, many if not all of the things tested for in vehicle safety inspections are directly related to how safe and easy it is to share the road with others in different ways. Front plates make it easier to have accountability for tolls and thefts. Better emissions benefit us all and all of our offspring. Proper lighting make it so I can see your car, and that you aren’t blinding me. Effective brakes and tires mean that you have more power to evade or mitigate a crash whether it’s your fault or not.
Interestingly, the meta-analysis also concluded that all these things that inspections make sure are in “working order” are just givens for newer cars- your 1990 Honda Civic in perfect condition is still horrible compared to a 2016 Honda in okay shape, and the 2016 also doesn’t have nearly as much time to wear out. Because of this, they say it may make sense to cut out all of the cost for the government of running these inspection centers and instead pump that into subsidies to allow people to buy newer, safer cars. (But most dedicated scientists, scholars and enthusiasts in the automobile world will tell you that the last time we tried to subsidize new car sales and get old cars off the road, Cash for Clunkers, was a disaster and had horrible effects on both the enthusiast and general used car market).
fakecrimesleep t1_j3nqywk wrote
There are dumbasses that will not do shit to their cars if it wasn’t for the inspection. Know of people who will ride on bald tires and no break lights for as long as possible until they’re forced to do it because they fail. Same with exhaust systems going bad.
Daily_the_Project21 t1_j3lx44s wrote
Nope. There is plenty going the other way, though. Yearly safety inspections are just poor people taxes. The people who know they won't pass just don't get their car fixed and take their chances with an expired sticker. I see it all the time. Also, if you know a guy and are willing to pay $50, you can get a sticker on anything. There's a guy like that in Taunton, there's three in Brockton, two that I know in Fall River, one that I know in Dorchester. It's still easy to cheat the system even though they keep making it more strict.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j3ngaz7 wrote
>The people who know they won't pass just don't get their car fixed and take their chances with an expired sticker. I
Even if that were true and provable, it's an idiotic move. It gives any cop an automatic excuse to pull you over and it's a moving violation that'll result in a surcharge from your insurance company. It comes out to thousands of dollars out of pocket.
​
>Also, if you know a guy and are willing to pay $50, you can get a sticker on anything. There's a guy like that in Taunton, there's three in Brockton, two that I know in Fall River, one that I know in Dorchester. It's still easy to cheat the system even though they keep making it more strict.
I'm not sure what level of enforcement/checking but inspection shops are required to have cameras recording inspections and they can get fucked over pretty hard for cheating the system. The extra $50 to pass something that'd fail isn't going to be worth it to most mechanics.
Daily_the_Project21 t1_j3nhf54 wrote
It is true. I've done it. I know people who do it. I see it all the time. Making up excuses as to why you haven't gotten it done yet is extremely easy. The sticker on my tahoe is 3 years old. I've been stopped once.
Okay, so I'm lying. I actually made all of that up. I actually don't know any of this people. I definitely 100% get my inspections done legit and only pay the $35 because all my cars absolutely will pass inspection. Ya got me.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j3nppln wrote
Did I say anywhere it doesn't/can't happen that people wait or find a mechanic who will play ball? Cause I think I was just saying that the risk/reward just isn't justified for the majority of people and mechanics alike.
Daily_the_Project21 t1_j3nq7tv wrote
Yeah, I said you were right. Idk what you're going on about.
fetamorphasis t1_j3no0r1 wrote
Let's see...one person saying "yes, inspections improve safety" provides multiple links as sources and another saying "nope" just makes a generic statement with no sources and a few anecdotes. I wonder who is telling the truth?
Additionally, just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean that it is not better than no inspections.
Daily_the_Project21 t1_j3nou8g wrote
I didn't reply to anyone who had sources. They are easy to find, do you know how to use Google?
Additionally, I didn't say no inspections.
fetamorphasis t1_j3npgdg wrote
No, but the other reply to the comment you replied to had multiple sources.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you want people to believe you, you shouldnt be asking them to google your statement. Provide the proof yourself or people will ignore you.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments