Classic/Antique Cars Unsafe?

[69DodgeCharger]

Kinda sad to see what the media has become these days.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/watchdog/all-5dog0921.6592257sep21

Here's his "followup"

http://blogs.mcall.com/watchdog/2008/09/car-nuts-going.html

Obviously he is uneducated. Send him an email and help him become better informed about classic cars.....and journalism since he knows little or nothing about either.

[41husk]

Wow! that guy is getting bombarded by car people.  I only read one response that took a semi side with the writer and that was from a guy who does the inspections

[Old Moparz]

The first link says "Page Not Found" but the second one works & has a link to the original article.


I read part of it, & pretty much agree that ALL vehicles should be inspected, including antiques. I guess I'll be in the minority agreeing with this point. The reason I say this, is that it's worth having a second party check over a vehicle that's on the road with other people. Ever hear the expression "A lock will keep an honest person honest"? This is the same thing, meaning that if some people are given the benefit of the doubt that they will inspect their own car, there are some that won't. I've been to shows & cruises, & have seen a lot of older cars rigged with stuff that looks dangerous. While most people into old classics will take care of their old car much better than the average "non-car person" will, there are still many that don't care, or just don't want to spend on certain things.

[451-74Charger]

The first link is PAGE NOT FOUND....
guess he didnt like the replies to his story.
you reap what you sow in these circles....

[moparstuart]

 They are hammering that stupid writer.  We drive our cars so little and take way better care of them , we dont need yearly inspections.

  good link        http://www.mcall.com/news/local/watchdog/all-5dog0921.6592257sep21,0,4055090.story

[MoparManJim]

Where in tar nations did he get his info at? a kid?

[69DodgeCharger]

The first link says "Page Not Found" but the second one works & has a link to the original article.


I read part of it, & pretty much agree that ALL vehicles should be inspected, including antiques. I guess I'll be in the minority agreeing with this point. The reason I say this, is that it's worth having a second party check over a vehicle that's on the road with other people. Ever hear the expression "A lock will keep an honest person honest"? This is the same thing, meaning that if some people are given the benefit of the doubt that they will inspect their own car, there are some that won't. I've been to shows & cruises, & have seen a lot of older cars rigged with stuff that looks dangerous. While most people into old classics will take care of their old car much better than the average "non-car person" will, there are still many that don't care, or just don't want to spend on certain things.

So you're in favor of more regulation and intervention? Kinda how we got to where we are today. Now I don't know about you, but personally I am not in favor of the state stealing any more of the very few dollars I happen to get hold of. They have proven time and again they can't be trusted to do the right thing with them. Who's paying for the inspection stations and the salaries of their employees? I certainly can't afford for them to pile on any more. I'm already going under slowly as it is. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Thankfully Michigan doesn't have any of this BS yet but if Granholm gets her way there will be. Nanny States don't work....never have, never will.

[Joshua]

Saw that on another site....
Author is ignorant (and a bit jealous).....CAR guys maintain and inspect their cars far better than the general public....

[SFRT]

I think modern cars are more dangerous because they do all the driving for you. this leads to everyone driving too fast, tailgating at 85 on the freeway etc. the 'illusion' of control, modern brakes and a smooth ride.i think 'vintage cars' make you a much better driver under adverse conditions.

[MoparManJim]

I think modern cars are more dangerous because they do all the driving for you. this leads to everyone driving too fast, tailgating at 85 on the freeway etc. the 'illusion' of control, modern brakes and a smooth ride.i think 'vintage cars' make you a much better driver under adverse conditions.

Yea, one other thing on your note that I will add about the old cars from the new cars. That is at least our old cars aren't made of plastic but rather with real metal. The plastic ones (newer cars of today) is the kinds that folks gets hurt in all the time. I'll take the metal ones any day. Plus is it just me or is the newer cars getting kinda smaller then what they was? 

Last week my cousin I was was out in town and this kid (in his 20S) in this little small car pulls right out in front of us, looking the other way at two cars coming down the road. He didn't even look "our" way at first until he heard tires squalling then he look then step on it! It's people like this that causes the accidents!

[The70RT]

The drivers are the ones unsafe. There isn't enough old cars on the road to even do asurvey. If you took a 76 Monte Carlo and hit a 06 Monte Carlo head on I would rather be in the early one. Now an older Charger againt a newer model may not far as well.

[NHCharger]

In NH ALL vehicles need to get annual inspections. Just got my Charger inspected Saturday. It was a really brutal process.
I put into the station, Steve the mechanic comes out.
Steve: Wow, looks great.
Me: Thanks.
Steve: Everything works?
Me: Yup.
Steve: Thought so, here's your sticker.

[derailed]

Yea, one other thing on your note that I will add about the old cars from the new cars. That is at least our old cars aren't made of plastic but rather with real metal. The plastic ones (newer cars of today) is the kinds that folks gets hurt in all the time.

I think id take a newer monte with the crumple zones in an accident over the old one. Much rather have my car absorb the impact rather than my internal organs.

[Kevin68N71]

Sure, if you have an older steel dashed car without safety glass and you still have not put in seat belts, you are running a risk. 

But most things in the past 40 years have seatbelts, driven sanely they are just fine.  They don have the benefit of overall greater strength.  Newer cars may drive more stable at 100mph, but that is really a moot point.

Personally, I don't need any other "mechanic" nosing around my car and dicking me for more $$$.

[69DodgeCharger]

"Personally, I don't need any other "mechanic" nosing around my car and dicking me for more $$$."


Bullseye!

[RallyeMike]

I read part of it, & pretty much agree that ALL vehicles should be inspected, including antiques. I guess I'll be in the minority agreeing with this point. The reason I say this, is that it's worth having a second party check over a vehicle that's on the road with other people. Ever hear the expression "A lock will keep an honest person honest"? This is the same thing, meaning that if some people are given the benefit of the doubt that they will inspect their own car, there are some that won't. I've been to shows & cruises, & have seen a lot of older cars rigged with stuff that looks dangerous. While most people into old classics will take care of their old car much better than the average "non-car person" will, there are still many that don't care, or just don't want to spend on certain things.

I could not disagree more, and the writer deserves everything he had coming to him.

That's like blaming software problems on the computer. The fact is, 99.9% of the time it's the operator.

A fraction of a percentage of accidents are caused my defective equipment. There is no discernible difference in the accident rates of states that have inspections vs. those that don't. Its the drivers and their behaviors. If we really want the best bang for the buck, we would channel the effort it takes to do inspections into driver training and education, more frequent driver testing, drug and alcohol training, and fixing a justice system that fails to catch up with and adequately punish/reform habitual problem drivers.

Inspections are a nearly complete waste of time and money, both of which could be put to much more effective uses to control accident statistics.

If they ever try and institute inspections in my state I'll be camping on the capital steps 

[69DodgeCharger]

"Inspections are a nearly complete waste of time and money, both of which could be put to much more effective uses to control accident statistics."

Just another money grab....sort of like booster seats. (Hmmmmmmmm what law can we make up today to steal more money with?)

[Todd Wilson]

I think modern cars are more dangerous because they do all the driving for you. this leads to everyone driving too fast, tailgating at 85 on the freeway etc. the 'illusion' of control, modern brakes and a smooth ride.i think 'vintage cars' make you a much better driver under adverse conditions.

You are exactly right. Between the 2 old Chargers, my 1974 Dodge truck and the 1947 Dodge truck I can agree 100% with you. While I am guilty of driving a little more carefree in my 86 Honda or the 95 Ram  when I get into the old iron you got to drive a different way because if you dont sooner or later you will get tangled up in the new cars.  ON the flip side of this nothing piss's me off more when I am rolling along in my 1947 truck and some little car comes zipping by me on the left or right side to pass me and then once they get around me instantly stop to make a turn. New car drivers dont understand the old iron is different then the new 4 wheel disc abs cars.

Todd

[The70RT]

Kansas use to have inspections. I remember driving around and spending 15 bucks at 3 or 4 places trying to get them to pass a car. Sometimes you could slip them cash to let you slide. A lot of places liked to make up excuses so they could fix your car to pass. Glad that's over with.

[bull]

An excerpt: "Apparently I'm an emasculated, tree-hugging, ignorant, dope, crybaby posing as a journalist because I dared to point out that Pennsylvania's vehicle inspection system is inequitable by not requiring antique cars - those as "new" as 1983 - to be inspected annually."

Sounds like he has described himself quite accurately.

[Todd Wilson]

Kansas use to have inspections. I remember driving around and spending 15 bucks at 3 or 4 places trying to get them to pass a car. Sometimes you could slip them cash to let you slide. A lot of places liked to make up excuses so they could fix your car to pass. Glad that's over with.

When did they do this?

Todd

[The70RT]

Kansas use to have inspections. I remember driving around and spending 15 bucks at 3 or 4 places trying to get them to pass a car. Sometimes you could slip them cash to let you slide. A lot of places liked to make up excuses so they could fix your car to pass. Glad that's over with.

When did they do this?

Todd

Up to early early 80's. Remember the "OK" stickers they gave you to put on the windsheild?

[ChgrSteve67]

legend in his own mind.

Cars don't last more than 10 years if you don't take care of them.
Thus these cars are the most maintained and services cars on the road.

Funny thing is if you did take it down to have it inspected the inspector wouldn't know what they are looking at anyways.
How many of us have department of motor vehicle stories were the person didn't believe that not all cars have their VIN tag riveted to the dash.
Or didn't come with seatbelts or the front parking lights are not on when the headlights are on. and so on.

The only purpose of having these cars inspected are to increase state revenue which apparently he is all for.

I'm done now - time for bed.
Steve

[Todd Wilson]

Kansas use to have inspections. I remember driving around and spending 15 bucks at 3 or 4 places trying to get them to pass a car. Sometimes you could slip them cash to let you slide. A lot of places liked to make up excuses so they could fix your car to pass. Glad that's over with.

When did they do this?

Todd

Up to early early 80's. Remember the "OK" stickers they gave you to put on the windsheild?

No! I been here since 1975 and we never had any cars inspected yearly that I can remember. And theres been no inspections since I have been driving. Sure you havent been smoking some bad weed tongiht?


Todd

[2Gunz]

I think the concept of having cars inspected is a great idea.

But the reality is keeping people honest and establishing rules that
make sense is impossible.

[The70RT]

Kansas use to have inspections. I remember driving around and spending 15 bucks at 3 or 4 places trying to get them to pass a car. Sometimes you could slip them cash to let you slide. A lot of places liked to make up excuses so they could fix your car to pass. Glad that's over with.

When did they do this?

Todd

Up to early early 80's. Remember the "OK" stickers they gave you to put on the windsheild?

No! I been here since 1975 and we never had any cars inspected yearly that I can remember. And theres been no inspections since I have been driving. Sure you havent been smoking some bad weed tongiht?


Todd

Maybe it was the weed you were smokin back in the 70's.    I have been driving since 75 what about you?.....maybe mom and dad never told you or you never paid attention? They looked like a badge and said OK on it. I didn't dig to far but check out the 2ed response on this link......Uncle Jed Knows.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080901144045AAuYJ3Q

[41husk]

I think the concept of having cars inspected is a great idea.

But the reality is keeping people honest and establishing rules that
make sense is impossible.

I would say having cars inspected is not a bad thing.  I lived in Virgina and the inspections were a joke.  The fact is inspections are not a bad thing in theory, as most things I don't believe they opperate as concieved.  As for the classic cars, I believe the majority of the owners keep and maintain there cars above and beyond state standards, leaving no reason to inspect other than financial gain for local shops.

[skip68]

Well, my car is not a show winner but a nice driver and NOT like the Joe Dirt car.  I would imagine if you pulled up in a nice looking car chances are that the owner takes care of it and everything works as it should far as safety goes and most inspectors would not pick it apart.     But on the other hand, some people buy a car that looks nice and know nothing about it or cars and may not know if it is safe.     "AND",  I also think that most of us here would NOT drive our cars if we knew the brakes were bad or steering or anything that would make it unsafe.     Also, lots of the parts may look OK but are 40 years old and may fail at any time so without a frame off resto, how can an inspector really say it is 100% safe ? ? ?  So I guess I'm all over the place on this one.   I think this rule should really apply to the ghetto cruisers, you know, the $500 to $1500 cars with $4000 wheels.       

[Old Moparz]

The first link says "Page Not Found" but the second one works & has a link to the original article.


I read part of it, & pretty much agree that ALL vehicles should be inspected, including antiques. I guess I'll be in the minority agreeing with this point. The reason I say this, is that it's worth having a second party check over a vehicle that's on the road with other people. Ever hear the expression "A lock will keep an honest person honest"? This is the same thing, meaning that if some people are given the benefit of the doubt that they will inspect their own car, there are some that won't. I've been to shows & cruises, & have seen a lot of older cars rigged with stuff that looks dangerous. While most people into old classics will take care of their old car much better than the average "non-car person" will, there are still many that don't care, or just don't want to spend on certain things.

So you're in favor of more regulation and intervention? Kinda how we got to where we are today. Now I don't know about you, but personally I am not in favor of the state stealing any more of the very few dollars I happen to get hold of. They have proven time and again they can't be trusted to do the right thing with them. Who's paying for the inspection stations and the salaries of their employees? I certainly can't afford for them to pile on any more. I'm already going under slowly as it is. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Thankfully Michigan doesn't have any of this BS yet but if Granholm gets her way there will be. Nanny States don't work....never have, never will.

I knew my post wouldn't be popular.   

But I don't see how my post states I'm in favor of more regulation & intervention. I simply stated that "ALL" cars should be included within the inspection process that newer cars already go through. I don't know what your state requires, or whether it mandates any vehicle inspections, but where I live we have state inspections done at local service stations authorized by the state. (NY)

I don't have antique plates & registration for any vehicles & pay only $15 at the inspection station when I go, same as a newer vehicle. I lived in NJ up until 1989 & the state had their own inspection stations that you took your car to. These were a pain in the ass since you basically needed to take a day off work & bring a book for the wait in line. I don't think this is the way inspections should be done, but you didn't have to pay for it when you went. (I'm sure state DMV fees covered it.)

As far as inspections go, I personally make sure that what I own is safe, & not just once each year. That also covers my daily driver, not just the old cars I have. Do you honestly believe that anyone who owns an old car that's considered an antique or a classic maintains it better just because it's an antique or a classic? Just because it's old & it still exists doesn't prove it's safe & not a hazard to other motorists.

I posted that most older car owners do maintain, but I have personally met those that don't. Several years ago I put a friend's 1970 Superbird into a guide rail because of it. The car was just out of winter storage & supposedly maintained by my friend's brother & another friend. They drove the car from PA to NY where my friend (the owner) lived. We took it out & it ran fine, but the first time I had to hit the brakes in traffic at 50 MPH, it pulled to the left & clipped the guide rail.

Later, it proved to be a mechanical problem with the caliper, not driver error. Now I don't believe that just because a car would have to be inspected once a year it automatically becomes a safe car, but if the this Superbird had been required to pass a mandatory state inspection, it would have forced the lazy asses that were suppose to take care of it to at least have the brakes checked. There are people that don't give a rat's ass about what condition the car they drive daily is in, so why would it be any different for their antiques & classics?

[69DodgeCharger]

"I posted that most older car owners do maintain, but I have personally met those that don't. Several years ago I put a friend's 1970 Superbird into a guide rail because of it. The car was just out of winter storage & supposedly maintained by my friend's brother & another friend. They drove the car from PA to NY where my friend (the owner) lived. We took it out & it ran fine, but the first time I had to hit the brakes in traffic at 50 MPH, it pulled to the left & clipped the guide rail."

So you took somebody else at there word on the mechanical condition of a car. Did you verify it's braking and safety items beforehand or at slow speeds? ( I always do) Or did you just point and press the throttle? Not trying to bust your balls here. All I am saying is that Inspection stations are nothing more than revenue generators under the guise of "safety" A "feel good" measure to appease people like Mr. Muschick. Have they been shown to actually increase safety and reduce the number of accidents? If so I would be interested in seeing that data. And again who's paying? I can't afford it. (yeah that's right....not even the $20-$30) Putting the power to pass a vehicle inspection into a local mechanics hands is a poor idea. (I can fix it for $400, or you don't get your sticker) This is the job of the Police. I can tell an unsafe vehicle on the road with poor brakes and tires when I see it. Why can't the cops? That's what they are getting paid for. If they aren't willing,or are unable to do their jobs then replace them. I know the MSP and local counties up here certainly have no problems identifying unsafe vehicles and equipment violations. I won't change your mind on this but I couldn't disagree more with your stance that more Govt. is good. As said before if the insurance companies, DOT and police don't feel it is necassary then I'm siding with them.

[skip68]

Good point 69DodgeCharger, My Insurance "Haggerty" only wanted photo's.    

[moparstuart]

"I posted that most older car owners do maintain, but I have personally met those that don't. Several years ago I put a friend's 1970 Superbird into a guide rail because of it. The car was just out of winter storage & supposedly maintained by my friend's brother & another friend. They drove the car from PA to NY where my friend (the owner) lived. We took it out & it ran fine, but the first time I had to hit the brakes in traffic at 50 MPH, it pulled to the left & clipped the guide rail."

So you took somebody else at there word on the mechanical condition of a car. Did you verify it's braking and safety items beforehand or at slow speeds? ( I always do) Or did you just point and press the throttle? Not trying to bust your balls here. All I am saying is that Inspection stations are nothing more than revenue generators under the guise of "safety" A "feel good" measure to appease people like Mr. Muschick. Have they been shown to actually increase safety and reduce the number of accidents? If so I would be interested in seeing that data. And again who's paying? I can't afford it. (yeah that's right....not even the $20-$30) Putting the power to pass a vehicle inspection into a local mechanics hands is a poor idea. (I can fix it for $400, or you don't get your sticker) This is the job of the Police. I can tell an unsafe vehicle on the road with poor brakes and tires when I see it. Why can't the cops? That's what they are getting paid for. If they aren't willing,or are unable to do their jobs then replace them. I know the MSP and local counties up here certainly have no problems identifying unsafe vehicles and equipment violations. I won't change your mind on this but I couldn't disagree more with your stance that more Govt. is good. As said before if the insurance companies, DOT and police don't feel it is necassary then I'm siding with them.

who's car doesnt put to one side or the other when they brake ?  Mine all do  LOL

[Old Moparz]

So you took somebody else at there word on the mechanical condition of a car. Did you verify it's braking and safety items beforehand or at slow speeds? ( I always do) Or did you just point and press the throttle? Not trying to bust your balls here.

I never thought you were ball busting.....lol

The Bird was actually driven from PA to NY to a rest area where I met them to get the car for my friend. My friend doesn't drive, but that's a long story that's not related & I don't want to get into it here. His friends have done body & mechanical work to the car for him over the years, & had just driven it for almost 90 miles on an interstate to meet us. I drove the car another 40 miles to his house, then locally on streets at various speeds. It felt fine, so I didn't have any reason to think otherwise. It wasn't until we were in heavier traffic later on where I had to slow down in a hurry & then discover the brakes didn't work properly.

All I am saying is that Inspection stations are nothing more than revenue generators under the guise of "safety" A "feel good" measure to appease people like Mr. Muschick. Have they been shown to actually increase safety and reduce the number of accidents? If so I would be interested in seeing that data. And again who's paying? I can't afford it. (yeah that's right....not even the $20-$30) Putting the power to pass a vehicle inspection into a local mechanics hands is a poor idea. (I can fix it for $400, or you don't get your sticker) This is the job of the Police. I can tell an unsafe vehicle on the road with poor brakes and tires when I see it. Why can't the cops? That's what they are getting paid for. If they aren't willing,or are unable to do their jobs then replace them. I know the MSP and local counties up here certainly have no problems identifying unsafe vehicles and equipment violations. I won't change your mind on this but I couldn't disagree more with your stance that more Govt. is good. As said before if the insurance companies, DOT and police don't feel it is necassary then I'm siding with them.

I'll agree partially with you on the false sense of safety & the increase in revenue, but that's only the negative portion of the entire picture. There are always going to be good & bad parts of any program, especially one that is run by a government agency. There are no statistics that I am aware of, for whether old cars exempt from inspections are safer, but the problem is that if there is no standard or minimum to go by & keep things in some sort of balance, all hell breaks loose. By that I am saying that if there are no mandated inspections at all, then some people will never inspect a damn thing.

When I first started driving almost 30 years ago, I didn't have the experience I do now. I also didn't have the mechanical abilities to repair my own car, nor the money it usually took to pay a mechanic. That same scenario exists for others today. If you can't pass inspection, there's nothing forcing you to pay that mechanic $400 to fix it. You fix it yourself, reinspect, & it's solved. Or better yet, make sure it's working first before you get it inspected & you won't have to go back a second time. (Don't ask me how I know that....lol) I'm not into having more government on any level, but it's only the inclusion of a smaller percentage of vehicles to a program that already exists.

Now not to bust your balls, but how can you tell if someone else's vehicle driving past you has good tires & brakes?   

[69DodgeCharger]

"Now not to bust your balls, but how can you tell if someone else's vehicle driving past you has good tires & brakes?"

From a passing glance probably not able top make that determination. But the overall condition of the vehicle and it's behavior on the road are key indicators. As far as the Superbird, I concede. That could have happened to anybody. Myself included. I guess what burns me is that the Govt. is just totally incompetent and couldn't manage a 5 cent lemonade stand with a full pitcher, endless cups and a box full of change. They wold muck it up instantly and just charge more to pay for THEIR mistakes. Without getting too political here people need to stand up and take this country back. I'm taxed, fee'd and regulated to the point of breaking already. These efforts would be better aimed at regulating cell phone usage in a vehicle, eating in the vehicle, yearly testing of ALL drivers, especially the elderly (money better spent) and harsher penalties for not paying attention behind the wheel. The worst issue where I live is red light runners and the obligatory 3 cars through a red on left turn at the light....glued to the bumper of the one vehicle that actually was in the turn zone at the time of the yellow. I guess I just don't see the benefit. If there is any?

[resq302]

I can almost guarantee that 95% of classic car owners have their cars running as good as, if not better, than what todays cars are polluting at.  Hell, some of us probably even keep our classics cleaner and maintained more so than our daily drivers.  I know I don't put 3000 miles on my classic a year and that oil gets changed at a minumum of once a year, sometimes twice.  Beginning and end.  My charger has its tires checked everytime before I take it out on the road for fear of the tires going soft from lack of use and being in a cool garage.  Fluids are always checked before each outing to prevent any lack there of and break down on the side of the road.  Usually it even gets a quick vacuum when it is out at a show. 

As for my daily driver pick up, I dont think it has been washed in the last 3 months just cause of lack of time with the new house and everything going on with my family lately.

[68charger383]

In CA ,they perfrom smog inspections only every two years. As such, there is no need to inspect or test these vehicles since the older cars are exempt from smog checks.

Lets face it, all of our cars would fail inspections unless the tester was used to driving these older cars and used to the steering wheel play, long braking distance etc. that is normal or perfect working order for an older car in comparison to the feel of a newer car.

[41husk]

In some states that rtequire safety inspections the cars are not driven.  The state authorizes certain shops to inspect, distribute stickers and report to the state.  I am sure they are compensated for this service, but they did not drive the car unless you parked it and left it.  In many cases, you drove your car into the inspection bay and they would insure your brake lights, headlights etc worked, emergency brake could be engaged and hold the car and tire tread was ok.  I remember doing the test sitting in the front seat, took all of 5 minutes and I felt much safer when I left   How would that help anyone other than the inspectors bottom line if I was forced to have my classics inspected. 

[69DodgeCharger]

In some states that rtequire safety inspections the cars are not driven.  The state authorizes certain shops to inspect, distribute stickers and report to the state.  I am sure they are compensated for this service, but they did not drive the car unless you parked it and left it.  In many cases, you drove your car into the inspection bay and they would insure your brake lights, headlights etc worked, emergency brake could be engaged and hold the car and tire tread was ok.  I remember doing the test sitting in the front seat, took all of 5 minutes and I felt much safer when I left   How would that help anyone other than the inspectors bottom line if I was forced to have my classics inspected. 

Exactly.....Don't drink the Kool Aid

[Mike DC]

 
I agree that most of these inspections just turn into money-grabs. 

But when's the last time you saw 3 or 4 restored '69-70 Chargers together, and ALL their rear taillight functions were working fine?

And when's the last time all the E-brakes were working fine in a set like that? 




It's true that we maintain the hell out of our cars, but only the things that WE think are important.       

 

[NHCharger]

I think a once a year inspection isn't a bad idea. The problem here in NH is any garage that has a lift, semi-qualified mechanic and can afford a sniffer machine can become a licensed inspection garage. My buddy charges $50.00/inspection. Many shops charge 20-30 per inspection but unless your car is brand new you always need work done to get your sticker. There are plenty of complaints to the state police by people claiming these shops are trying to make unnecessary repairs. The state police will send these people to my friends garage to inspect these failed inspections. So far about 8 or 9 shops have had their inspection license pulled by the state for trying to make unneeded repairs.
The system is far from perfect. But when your sitting at a stop light in your antique car your at the mercy of the driver approaching behind you that his brakes will work properly.
It would be interesting to compare accidents caused by mechanical failure between states that require inspections and ones that don't. My sister-in-law was seriously injured in an accident in a state that requires no inspections after the initial purchase of the vehicle. she said the car that rear ended her (no brakes) wouldn't have qualified as a demo derby car up here.

[472 R/T SE]

Kansas use to have inspections. I remember driving around and spending 15 bucks at 3 or 4 places trying to get them to pass a car. Sometimes you could slip them cash to let you slide. A lot of places liked to make up excuses so they could fix your car to pass. Glad that's over with.

When did they do this?

Todd

I remember the laws changing, eliminating inspections back when I lived in Hays.  I think it was either '88-'90 when I left.  I remember one uncle happy cause he bought and sold cars and another all bent cause he was worried about junk being on the road.

Back in the old days you didn't buy rigs with mileage close to 100k, one for fear of the motor, tranny going tits up & passing inspection.  It used to be the first question asked when buying a rig, "How many miles are on it?"  It's still important today, just not as with certain makes.

We have the smog checks here.  Luckily the year was raised on the old stuff.

[BlueSS454]

NJ doesn't have safety or emissions inspection for cars registered historic.  They probably SHOULD have a safety inspection just for those guys that have these cars and don't know a thing about them except how to wipe them off so I can kind of see that point.  However, on the flip side of the argument, I have a serious problem with someone with a single digit IQ inspecting any of my cars, let alone the Charger or one of the Chevelles.  I see no point to testing anythign registered historic for emissions, it's pointless simply because of how infrequently they are used.

Most of us, as already stated, go extra lengths to make sure our cars are in optimum operating condition, I know I do.  Otherwise, it stays parked until I can make any repairs or changes necessary.  But like I said, for those that just buy the car because they like it, and do not know anything about an old car or how to maintain it, there should be something to keep the car in check.  The only problem with having something like this is finding someone trustworthy to deal with.

Also, I'd still rather take an impact in something 40 years old than a plastic econobox...crumple zones or not.

[bordin34]

The inspection stations in NJ check the brake bias and the strength as well as putting them on a dyno and driving up to 55mph. They caught a bad rear wheel cylinder in my brothers Jeep which we just bought and didn't notice.

[RallyeMike]

If you believe in the value of vehicle safety inspections, you've been duped (along with lots of people):

Taken after a 1 minute google search from a car insurance source:

"CAR ACCIDENT STATISTICS
In 2005, there were almost 6.5 million automobile accidents in the United States. The cost of these crashes totaled more than $230 billion. Almost 3 million people were injured and more than 45,000 died. On average, another person dies in a car crash every 13 seconds in this country - that's 115 deaths per day.

What causes that level of death and destruction? Well, there are four major factors that contribute to vehicle accidents. They are, in ascending order, mechanical failure, road design / maintenance, road condition, and poor driver performance. The latter is, of course, the most significant, and 95% of all accidents involving motor vehicles - worldwide - include poor driver performance in tandem with one of the other three."

So,

95% of all accidents =Driver.

5% = purely road design, road maintenance,  and least most of the 5%? , MECHANICAL FAILURE. !

These are broad-based statistics, so the figures include all of the States without safety inspections. Of most importance, note that tire failure is included in the mechanical failure statistic. My bet is that it is a large percentage of the mechanical failures that are counted.

The millions of man hours and $$ spent on safety inspections is, at best, unwisely spent money. States should cease safety inspections and put the money toward driver education and training where the real problem lies, and a much larger percentage of lives can be saved.

[Old Moparz]

Another Google search found this story.   

Study indicates car accidents leading cause of dropped cell phone calls

http://www.derfmagazine.com/news/lifestyle/175.html

WASHINGTON D.C. - Study results released by The Department of Transportation this week indicate car accidents often result in the additional misfortune of dropped cell phone calls.

Other regrettable aftermaths seen as direct results of car accidents include spilled coffee and smudged make-up. In one particularly unfortunate case a driver cleaning his handgun was killed when the weapon discharged due to a head on collision. 

To prevent such unfortunate outcomes government officials urge drivers to avoid car accidents. Roger Stillman of the Ohio Insurance Institute commented, "The evidence strongly suggests incidents such as dropped cell phone calls are easily prevented when drivers strive to maintain a strong driving record."

[69DodgeCharger]

Another Google search found this story.   

Study indicates car accidents leading cause of dropped cell phone calls

http://www.derfmagazine.com/news/lifestyle/175.html

WASHINGTON D.C. - Study results released by The Department of Transportation this week indicate car accidents often result in the additional misfortune of dropped cell phone calls.

Other regrettable aftermaths seen as direct results of car accidents include spilled coffee and smudged make-up. In one particularly unfortunate case a driver cleaning his handgun was killed when the weapon discharged due to a head on collision. 

To prevent such unfortunate outcomes government officials urge drivers to avoid car accidents. Roger Stillman of the Ohio Insurance Institute commented, "The evidence strongly suggests incidents such as dropped cell phone calls are easily prevented when drivers strive to maintain a strong driving record."

Is that the best you could do?

[RallyeMike]

Not unbelievable !

An example of government that does work: They just outlawed cell phone use in WA in a car unless you use a hands-free device. Definitely worthy of support, and apparently statistically supported.

[RallyeMike]

Whaoa. From the same source (Derf):

In one particularly unfortunate case a driver cleaning his handgun was killed when the weapon discharged due to a head on collision.

I bet it was a straight axle pickup truck with bad kingpins      I wonder which event did him in?

[Old Moparz]

Is that the best you could do?

For a dead end argument?

Yeah.   


I'm not going to try to convince anyone that my opinion is better than theirs, just different. I've already pointed out that I feel mandatory inspections are basically the same as locks on doors keeping people honest. I've also posted how I have been at the wrong end of the stick with mechanical failure that caused an accident due to the lack of maintenance, in which a basic state inspection would have likely found the issue before it happened.

[BlueSS454]

The inspection stations in NJ check the brake bias and the strength as well as putting them on a dyno and driving up to 55mph. They caught a bad rear wheel cylinder in my brothers Jeep which we just bought and didn't notice.

The dyno test is only for passenger cars post 1981 and excludes 3/4 ton pickup trucks, and diesel powered trucks.  The whole inspection process in NJ is a joke because it's inconsisent between the state facilities and private garages that do it.

[69DodgeCharger]

"would have likely found the issue before it happened"

It may or may not have found it but I can gaurantee it would have eaten up 30-50 dollars of hard earned money. Set up inspection stations that are voluntary then and give the drivers a cut on their registration renewal. But don't nanny state me. I don't need it and neither do my vehicles.

[jmanscharger]

Inspections are a complete waste of money and time for classic cars. There is more chance of getting your car damaged or having unecessary repairs than any safety benefit. Nothing like getting your classic car inspected and and finding your slap stick shifter in pieces because the inspector jerked on it. "It's old its not our fault." Those of you who want can still have your cars inspected voluntarily, if you have doubts please do. Please no more costly legislation when the really unsafe car usually has a dead inspection sticker anyway or an incompetent inspector or driver already breaking the law.

[Mike DC]

I just hate the fact that it can be used to make money off people. 

I have a 1995 Dakota.  The last time I had to get it inspected, I went to 3 different shops, got 3 failures, and got 3 estimates of $200-600 in work to make it legal.  And not a single one of the cited "problems" matched from one shop to the next! 

I finally got it to an honest shop recommended by a friend, and they passed this same truck just as it was.   

[Todd Wilson]

Kansas use to have inspections. I remember driving around and spending 15 bucks at 3 or 4 places trying to get them to pass a car. Sometimes you could slip them cash to let you slide. A lot of places liked to make up excuses so they could fix your car to pass. Glad that's over with.

When did they do this?

Todd

I remember the laws changing, eliminating inspections back when I lived in Hays.  I think it was either '88-'90 when I left.  I remember one uncle happy cause he bought and sold cars and another all bent cause he was worried about junk being on the road.

Back in the old days you didn't buy rigs with mileage close to 100k, one for fear of the motor, tranny going tits up & passing inspection.  It used to be the first question asked when buying a rig, "How many miles are on it?"  It's still important today, just not as with certain makes.

We have the smog checks here.  Luckily the year was raised on the old stuff.

We moved to Kansas in 75 and the inspections were not going on then. I been driving since about 1985 and we havent had inspections since then for sure. My father in law said it was early 70's for a few years and ended up being a big hassle as garages didnt want to go to all the trouble to do a proper inspection because they were only able to charge a certain amount and it wasnt worth their time to do it. He said you had to pull a front and rear wheel. Put the vehicle on  a lift and check lots of stuff out all for like 10-15$. I've looked at a lot of old family photos and there isnt an OK sticker on any of the windows.

Todd

[The70RT]

I remember buying and selling cars ....well it had to be back in the early 80's because of the location I was at and you had to have them inspected. No I wasn't a dealer, you could sell up to 5 a year. Maybe it was just Shawnee Co. then? But 472 RT/SE sid Hays had to too. I am also thinking the OK was a Highway Patrol inspection was earlier then the shops took it over later. The saftey inspections were at most any garage's. Sears, Goodyear, hell even Penny's Dept Store in whitelakes mall (topeka) even sold tires and did inspections. I specifically remember them rejecting the exhaust because of leaks on a 69 Charger I had. I ended up putting a whole new system on it just to sell it