> You'll excuse me but your comment come off as if you don't trust the government and any regulation to achieve its goal. It's almost a satirical US view. Alth

> You'll excuse me but your comment come off as if you don't trust the government and any regulation to achieve its goal. It's almost a satirical US view. Although it's true that I'm generally skeptical of this form of regulation, primarily because there's plenty of evidence of its ineffectiveness, in addition to plenty of undesirable unintended consequences, I'm not categorically against [1] regulation. More importantly, I fear you've missed some nuance, in your haste to apply that uncharitable characterization. Even if the regulation is successful in its goal, that goal still differs from my own. In this situation, I want neither what (I think) the regulation purports to achieve, nor what it actually achieves. > The regulations works fine here. I'm sure you think that, because that's what you're accustomed to, if I may paraphrase your earlier comment. > It's simple and it's much better than not having any inspections or inspections run by the repair shops. You say this, but you don't back it up with credible evidence or even reasoning. I'm not, of course, suggesting that prohibiting any inspection would be better, merely not requiring the "simple", mandated process you've described. I've explained why it's worse than buyer-chosen inspection. You certainly haven't explained why inspections run by repair shops would be worse, other than alluding to a conflict of interest. As I mentioned, I only saw such a conflict with the seller, not me, the buyer. > It ensures that problems can be detected and acted upon. This is an example of a goal that I don't have. An arbitrary definition of "problem" on someone else's car I, at best, don't care about. > The seller should provide the history with the cars, although there is no legal requirement for it. If it's not included/mandated, then it's safe to assume it's not going to happen (often enough that it cannot be relied upon). "Should" doesn't enter into it. It means that the forced repair prior to certification is tantamount to a cover-up. This is an example of, at best, an unintended consequence, and certainly a goal I don't want. > The few expensive tasks like the belt are definitely things to watch out for both parties. That was neither a particularly expensive example, nor is it particularly rare. Clutches and suspensions can easily be more expensive and have the same OOM of wear-out time, for example. Their remaining life is also generally unknowable from inspection, so proxies that are visible, like the timing belt, are critical to me. As I said, the repair-before-certification part of the inspection process can make it impossible for me, the buyer, to "watch out". [1] Trust is an entirely different matter. It has to be earned. Better yet, don't resort to trust in the first place or "trust but verify". We can measure outcomes of regulation. There's no excuse for me (considering myself intelligent, informed, and scientifically-minded) blindly accepting "trust us! we know what's good for you!" from any group of humans, be it politicians, civil servants, corporations, or individuals.