4 ms·

For emissions there is often nothing visually wrong with the car. So you’d essentially be giving up on enforcement if you didn’t require everyone to get their

by Retric 5mo ago

For emissions there is often nothing visually wrong with the car. So you’d essentially be giving up on enforcement if you didn’t require everyone to get their car checked at least every few years. Doing it every year is IMO overkill. As to safety inspections it’s not a very large effect, but they do save lives and the expense is generally rather small. Yes it impacts the poor more, but that’s because getting unsafe vehicles fixed or off the road is kind of the point.

retatop 5mo ago
I have never met anyone who properly fixed an emissions problem, and I think that's what GP meant by willful violations. Any car old enough to have emissions problems isn't worth enough to fix properly, so you cheat it by doing things like buying a spacer for the O2 sensor. Personally I'd be shocked if emissions inspections had a significant effect on total vehicle emissions, and I think that the most effective things are done at the manufacturer
- inquist 5mo ago
  I'm just one person, but I replaced the catalytic converters on my FJ Cruiser so it would pass the emissions test
  - normie3000 5mo ago
    How old was the car? Was the old one faulty? Thinking of getting an FJ but not sure the thought is coming from a sensible place.
- Retric 5mo ago
  I can personally name 3 people who had their catalytic converter replaced to pass an emissions inspection. Trying to cheat the system when they stick a hose on your tailpipe and test the emissions isn’t trivial.
fc417fc802 5mo ago
> So you’d essentially be giving up on enforcement Yes, that is precisely what I was suggesting. At least in the general case. Spot enforcement of notable cases when witnessed (such as the aforementioned coal rolling) seems like a good idea to me. It comes down to the cost benefit tradeoff. Most cars will be used as sold, will be kept in good repair, and will eventually be scrapped due to a failure unrelated to the emissions system. I'm entirely unconvinced that regular testing leads to an overall improvement large enough to matter assuming sufficient requirements were imposed on the vehicle at the time of manufacture. > it impacts the poor more, but that’s because getting unsafe vehicles fixed or off the road is kind of the point. That's not what I meant. Try getting a safety inspection in a poor neighborhood. The places are booked out and you probably can't afford the time off work even once you do manage to reserve a slot. Or you end up waiting in line for a few hours. At least that was my experience. On top of that I doubt it catches many worthwhile violations. People are quite good at looking out for their own lives and pocketbooks. And again there's spot enforcement. I've lived in states without safety inspections and never felt unsafe. The police would issue "fix it" tickets if they saw anything they thought was truly unsafe after which it was on you to sort it out with the court.
- Retric 5mo ago
  > I'm entirely unconvinced that regular testing leads to an overall improvement large enough to matter assuming sufficient requirements were imposed on the vehicle at the time of manufacture. Only ~95% of cars pass emissions tests last year (it varies by state). As each car is tested several times over its lifespan you’ll find the majority of IC cars eventually need something fixed to reduce smog. This isn’t some wildly inefficient system it’s actually quite effective at improving air quality.
  - temp8830 5mo ago
    But that's 95% of cars that didn't need to be tested. All that the testing requirement does is reinforce the (correct) public's perception that it's a free money scheme. If the "check engine" light is not on in a modern car it's pretty much good to go. When cars do need an emissions related fix, it's almost always that little charcoal canister that people flood with gas because nobody told them why it's a bad idea to top off the tank after the first click.

by Retric 5mo ago

retatop 5mo ago

I have never met anyone who properly fixed an emissions problem, and I think that's what GP meant by willful violations. Any car old enough to have emissions problems isn't worth enough to fix properly, so you cheat it by doing things like buying a spacer for the O2 sensor. Personally I'd be shocked if emissions inspections had a significant effect on total vehicle emissions, and I think that the most effective things are done at the manufacturer

inquist 5mo ago
I'm just one person, but I replaced the catalytic converters on my FJ Cruiser so it would pass the emissions test
- normie3000 5mo ago
  How old was the car? Was the old one faulty? Thinking of getting an FJ but not sure the thought is coming from a sensible place.
Retric 5mo ago
I can personally name 3 people who had their catalytic converter replaced to pass an emissions inspection. Trying to cheat the system when they stick a hose on your tailpipe and test the emissions isn’t trivial.

fc417fc802 5mo ago

> So you’d essentially be giving up on enforcement Yes, that is precisely what I was suggesting. At least in the general case. Spot enforcement of notable cases when witnessed (such as the aforementioned coal rolling) seems like a good idea to me. It comes down to the cost benefit tradeoff. Most cars will be used as sold, will be kept in good repair, and will eventually be scrapped due to a failure unrelated to the emissions system. I'm entirely unconvinced that regular testing leads to an overall improvement large enough to matter assuming sufficient requirements were imposed on the vehicle at the time of manufacture. > it impacts the poor more, but that’s because getting unsafe vehicles fixed or off the road is kind of the point. That's not what I meant. Try getting a safety inspection in a poor neighborhood. The places are booked out and you probably can't afford the time off work even once you do manage to reserve a slot. Or you end up waiting in line for a few hours. At least that was my experience. On top of that I doubt it catches many worthwhile violations. People are quite good at looking out for their own lives and pocketbooks. And again there's spot enforcement. I've lived in states without safety inspections and never felt unsafe. The police would issue "fix it" tickets if they saw anything they thought was truly unsafe after which it was on you to sort it out with the court.

Retric 5mo ago
> I'm entirely unconvinced that regular testing leads to an overall improvement large enough to matter assuming sufficient requirements were imposed on the vehicle at the time of manufacture. Only ~95% of cars pass emissions tests last year (it varies by state). As each car is tested several times over its lifespan you’ll find the majority of IC cars eventually need something fixed to reduce smog. This isn’t some wildly inefficient system it’s actually quite effective at improving air quality.
- temp8830 5mo ago
  But that's 95% of cars that didn't need to be tested. All that the testing requirement does is reinforce the (correct) public's perception that it's a free money scheme. If the "check engine" light is not on in a modern car it's pretty much good to go. When cars do need an emissions related fix, it's almost always that little charcoal canister that people flood with gas because nobody told them why it's a bad idea to top off the tank after the first click.