# St. Inspections?? your thoughts



## stuckduck (Jan 31, 2008)

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=960&si ... f-the-past

I think this is a horrible Idea to get rid of the program you wouldnt believe me on what kind of junk people drive on down the road.. putting others at risk. the money for the program will be added to your registration so you still have to pay for something. I was told by the UHP that the last state to do away with the program had significant jumps in premium to insurance because of unsafe vehicle accidents. Might be a pain and you think waist of time but the guy driving down the road in the other lane could care less about a maintained car and cause a accident. 
The laws will still be in effect just not required to have one done..

your thoughts?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I would love to see the inspection laws go away. If there are people not maintaining a safe vehicle let the UHP deal with them on a case by case basis. By the looks of it Utah is in the minority on this subject as most states do not do safety inspections. We are the only state in the west and only 17 states in the entire country require them.


----------



## stuckduck (Jan 31, 2008)

Colorado insurance premiums went up 400 bucks a year because of more accedents after canceling the program.. So says the UHP


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Alleged insurance increases are crap. I've lived in several other states without inspections, and paid lower insurance rates than I pay in Utah. That is a scare tactic. This came up a few years ago and they moved to doing inspections every other year, which has been nice. But the biggest proponents of the inspections are the shops that do them. They take 5 minutes, make sure the horn and headlights work, look at the tires and slam on the brakes and boom - you are inspected. Now cough up $20 for my "efforts." Its not often people pay more for less than in the safety inspection. Its a load of crap. 

But once those shops start greasing the wallets of the legislature like they did last time, we'll still have our inspections. They are nothing more than a government mandated money machine for inspection shops. Period.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I will admit that my insurance went up when I moved to Colorado but the explanation that I got from the agent was that Colorado doesn't require mandatory drivers ed before you get your license. But it didn't go up as much of a percentage that the UHP is claiming.


----------



## stuckduck (Jan 31, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> Alleged insurance increases are crap. I've lived in several other states without inspections, and paid lower insurance rates than I pay in Utah. That is a scare tactic. This came up a few years ago and they moved to doing inspections every other year, which has been nice. But the biggest proponents of the inspections are the shops that do them. They take 5 minutes, make sure the horn and headlights work, look at the tires and slam on the brakes and boom - you are inspected. Now cough up $20 for my "efforts." Its not often people pay more for less than in the safety inspection. Its a load of crap.
> 
> But once those shops start greasing the wallets of the legislature like they did last time, we'll still have our inspections. They are nothing more than a government mandated money machine for inspection shops. Period.


Come work in my shop..... the UHP has been pretty good at cracking down on bad shops.. come to my shop and see how long an inspection takes.. not worth the 17 bucks you pay.. I see it every day it boils down to safety!! i have seen some pretty bad cars that fall apart and they want to dive them in the same lane as you... our cars are going to start and look like south Idaho cars... it makes no diff to me... instead of small repair here and there with inspection they will let minor repairs turn into major repairs. either way they will need to be fixed. and the state will still make there tax on it. I just dont trust people to have a safe maintained car.. thats my bark.

I do see you point its a pain in the butt


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

How about inspections on vehicles 10 years or older?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I think inspections shouldn't start until a certain point 7 year 10 years?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> I think inspections shouldn't start until a certain point 7 year 10 years?


15 years...20 years...never...


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Safety inspections have little effect on accident rates as the article states.....and if you weigh that against the overall cost to consumers plus the potential of fraud by less than honest repairmen, it's really a no brainer. Faulty lights, broken windshields, bald tires etc., would still citable offenses and can be enforced by LEO's. I say take that $17.00 we currently pay for an inspection and give it the UHP and other law enforcement agencies to spend on additional traffic enforcement.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

stuckduck said:


> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> > Alleged insurance increases are crap. I've lived in several other states without inspections, and paid lower insurance rates than I pay in Utah. That is a scare tactic. This came up a few years ago and they moved to doing inspections every other year, which has been nice. But the biggest proponents of the inspections are the shops that do them. They take 5 minutes, make sure the horn and headlights work, look at the tires and slam on the brakes and boom - you are inspected. Now cough up $20 for my "efforts." Its not often people pay more for less than in the safety inspection. Its a load of crap.
> ...


In YOUR shop but there are alot of sketchy shops out there. I know one that will pass anything anytime it costs an additional 10 bucks though. They run near 18 cars threw a day for the illegals.


----------



## stuckduck (Jan 31, 2008)

pheaz said:


> In YOUR shop but there are alot of sketchy shops out there. I know one that will pass anything anytime it costs an additional 10 bucks though. They run near 18 cars threw a day for the illegals.


*TURN THEM IN!!* same as poaching report them to the UHP and let them bring the law down on them... if someone rejects your car go get a second opinion.. Is that hard??? To me like I said its safety... when it snows and the roads as like crap I want to know that every ones window wipers and washers work.. to say that safety inspections have little effect is not true.. the truth is there is no data or studies done to see if the do or dont just speculation. I guess if you have seen some of the unsafe cars and trucks run in and out of my shop you would think different.. you wouldn't even want to run across town let alone get on the interstate.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Easy tiger I agree state inspections should be manditory. I to have seen alot of $hit cars/trucks role through my shop. Trust me i'm just the one that doesnt pass them and that second opinion gets them on the road. just sayin..........


----------



## stimmie78 (Dec 8, 2007)

I'm on the side of getting rid of the program. Right now, $15 of the $17 you pay stays at the shop. $2 goes to the state. Currently of all the vehicles that are 2005 or newer, only the even year ones get inspected this year. The proposal is to add $2 to the cost of registration and give $0.60 to the dept of public safety and the remaining $1.40 to the UHP to hire 6 new officers. State revenue would actually INCREASE with this proposal because all of the 2005 or newer vehicles would pay this every year instead of every other year.

Many people (shops) say that there are so many junkers and dangerous cars on the road now, and without the safety inspection program more will be on the road. I spent a weekend in ID and didn't see clunkers all over the road. No wheels fell off, no bumpers, people even used their blinkers so I know those even worked! (unlike in UT). If the LEOs can still give fix it tickets or other citations for you not taking personal responsibility to maintain your vehicle in a safe condition, then what really is the problem?

Those who will fight it will be the shops. Specifically the Safety/IM stations. But I would think since they will still be doing the county run I/M programs the shops still would have the same number of customers. They could still offer a "free" inspection so they can find the extra work to pay the bills. I read on another forum of a place passing the brakes but failing something else. The person took the fixed vehicle to another location to get a passing safety and the second place pulled the wheels and found a rotor worn down to the cooling fins. Brakes were passed at the first shop. So the poster was trying to say that safety inspections aren't done properly as it is. If the first shop had a brake plate machine like all the spiffy lubes do, then they wouldn't have pulled the wheel to see that problem... There are problems with the system. But to me it is a system that needs to end. Works well for other states not to have it. Even the Kommunist state of Kalifornia... 

And yes, I've been a licensed safety inspector for the past 18 years...


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

The shops certainly are not getting rich earning $15. However, they do make it up on the repairs that they get as a result. I personally like having my car checked out every once in a while, but the inspection that most shops do isn't much of a measure of the safety of the car. There are few that actually test tie rods, ball joints, etc. However, those that do really like those repairs. My mom's car was failed on left outer TR and right inner TR and they wanted $600 to replace them. I did them for her replacing both outers and the one inner for $87 and about 45 minutes of work. Some of those shops are as big of scammers as the HVAC guys.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

I had my work truck rejected several years ago during safety inspection because of a broken stud on my exhaust manifold. To gain access, the repairman would have to pull out the engine at a cost of several hundred dollars. Despite the broken stud, there was no exhaust leak and I saw no need to spend the money to make the repair. I ended up taking the truck to another mechanic who passed it no problem. To this day, the broken exhaust stud remains and it still doesn't leak.

Now, I don't think the original repairman was dishonest, the part was clearly broken. But I do think the shop makes it a point to find something, anything, to reject a vehicle so they can initiate a repair. 

A lot of repairs are also subjective to the opinion of the mechanic. Excessive play in ball joints and tie rod ends is one of these. Every vehicle with 20k miles on it is going to have a little slop in the front end, but that doesn't mean there is any danger of imminent failure. At what point the play becomes a concern and a reason to reject a vehicle is left up to the opinion of the repairman. There was a shop here in Logan that specialized in front end alignments where their rejection rates on front ends I'm guessing exceeded 80%......any play at all in the front end was reason for replacement and they made a good business doing just that.

If we did a cost/benefit analysis on money spent vs. improved safety on Utah's safety inspection program, we'd find that we are not getting much bang for our buck. I do think it is a good idea, particularly if someone is not mechanically inclined, to get their vehicle inspected periodically, but I don't think it should be mandated by the state.


----------



## stimmie78 (Dec 8, 2007)

Really all this boils down to is personal responsibility. Do we want to continue to be compelled to maintain our vehicles? Or do we want to have the responsibility placed on ourselves and maintain them on our own free will? I prefer the latter. It works for the majority of the states, so it can work here also.


----------



## SagebrushRR (May 20, 2012)

I like the safety inspections, wish they had them in WYoming. You would be amazed at the kinds of crap people drive around up here. I worked in a shop and people just don't take care of their cars till they absoluly have to. I think it comes down to money. They know they have a problem but don't have the cash they will drive it till it completely breaks. But if they have to get it fixed to get their car licensed they will come up with the money. 

I know there are a lot of crooked shops but the majority are good. I would think that if everyones problem is the bad guys have more enforcement of the shops and a more clearly defined set of rules as what is passable. Take the final say away from the mechanic, they go to a book and it says if x=y then fails then he can fail it other wise it gets passed. Every part of the inspection should have a measurable definition of when to fail and or advise and it should be very clear, there should be absolutely no "in my opinion it fails".


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

SagebrushRR said:


> I like the safety inspections, wish they had them in WYoming. You would be amazed at the kinds of crap people drive around up here. I worked in a shop and people just don't take care of their cars till they absoluly have to. I think it comes down to money. They know they have a problem but don't have the cash they will drive it till it completely breaks. But if they have to get it fixed to get their car licensed they will come up with the money.
> 
> I know there are a lot of crooked shops but the majority are good. I would think that if everyones problem is the bad guys have more enforcement of the shops and a more clearly defined set of rules as what is passable. Take the final say away from the mechanic, they go to a book and it says if x=y then fails then he can fail it other wise it gets passed. Every part of the inspection should have a measurable definition of when to fail and or advise and it should be very clear, there should be absolutely no "in my opinion it fails".


Welcome to the forum!


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

Critter said:


> I will admit that my insurance went up when I moved to Colorado but the explanation that I got from the agent was that Colorado doesn't require mandatory drivers ed before you get your license. But it didn't go up as much of a percentage that the UHP is claiming.


i do believe it also has something to do with this (so i have been told dont take it to heart).... CO has one of the highest, if not the highest, rate of uninsured drivers in the nation. what was happening for a while, again this is all hear say) is that someone would do a quick online insurance purchase, print out the cards, and then go in there and cancel the payment right away. that way they had proof of insurance in their car


----------



## csanchez (Jul 19, 2012)

I currently have my state and IM certifications and it really sucks dealing with really angry people. I got chewed out last week because last year the vehicle passed safety just fine but then i inspected it this year and the ball joints were totally gone plus the front brakes were down to 1/32. The customer only drove 1000 miles since last year and he was blaming me saying i was just trying to take his money. So i'm not saying we should get rid of the safety program but these bad shops are making it harder and harder for the program to work. I personally like the alternating years for the first 7 years. I think the amount of crashes caused by worn parts by bad safety inspections is minimal.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

With the way that some shops do the inspection I don't understand how they have any idea how much brake lining is left or how the chassis controls are working. My mom's car failed due to an inner tie rod and they wanted about $600 for the repair, $25 and 60 minutes later there was no difference with the new ones kind of goofy on both sides of the coin there.


----------

