One of the periodic comments that emerge when seeing a vehicle on these pages having corrosion, cracked glass, and so forth is speculation about it passing a safety inspection.
In researching this, it’s quite safe to say each political subdivision (state or province) has it’s own take on the matter. What’s the case in one area may not be in another so taking personal experience and extrapolating it globally will often provide an incorrect assessment.
Examination of every variation out there would be tedious. Thus in a less than random sampling of variations, I’ve picked out those locations in which contributors live. These will more than illustrate the differences that exist.
Let’s start in the United States, where there is no national drivers license nor is there a national safety inspection. That has always been an issue left to the states, with states rights having been a very large consideration when our Constitution was written in the 18th Century. To help give readers elsewhere in the world a more comprehensive picture of things, I am including population and geographical size with each state and province.
Oregon
Population: 4,143,000
Size: 98,381 square miles
If you live in Oregon, no vehicle safety inspection is required. If you move to Oregon, you do have to have the serial number (or VIN – vehicle identification number) checked out to ensure your buggy is indeed what you say, it’s not stolen, etc. before it can be licensed there.
There is an emissions check, but it is only for those in the Medford and Portland areas with excessively smoking vehicles denied testing. Cars model year 1996 and newer are automatically denied if the “check engine light” is lit. Repairs must be made prior to retesting. These cars can be repaired by a shop or the owner, so long as it passes the test.
Cars made during, or prior to, 1975 are exempt from smog testing.
Indiana
Population: 6,667,000
Size: 36,418 square miles
The only persons in Indiana whose vehicles must undergo emission testing are those in Lake and Porter Counties near Chicago. This must be done every two years.
Safety inspections are required and these must be performed at authorized stations. Cars made prior to 1976, and vehicles over 9,000 pounds are exempt from safety inspections. Like Oregon, bringing a car in from out of state requires a VIN check.
Illinois
Population: 12,802,000
Size: 57,914 square miles
Safety and emissions testing is only required for those living in specific zip codes within the Chicago and St. Louis metropolitan areas. For those living there, this is required ever two years. The safety and emissions tests for these two areas are waived if the car is less than four years old or older than 1967, is diesel or electric powered, or is a special use such as shows, parades, etc.
For the rest of the state, there is no safety or emissions testing.
Massachusetts
Population: 6,860,000
Size: 10,565 square miles
In Massachusetts there are annual inspections for both safety and emissions. This is also one of the few states in which a vehicle can fail the safety inspection if the factory ride height has been altered more than a certain amount either up or down.
Vehicles less than 15 years old have an OBD11 test while those older have a visual opacity test for smoke.
The inspections are $35 and details about what is included can be found here.
Colorado
Population: 5,607,000
Size: 104,094 square miles
There is no safety inspection in Colorado although there is emissions testing in specific counties; this is primarily any county containing I-25 plus the Denver area not serviced by I-25.
Like Oregon and Indiana, somebody moving into the state is required to have a VIN verification for licensing.
Virginia
Population: 8,470,000
Size: 42,774 square miles
If you bring a vehicle into Virginia, and you have a current safety inspection from another state, it is exempt from a Virginia inspection until your current one expires.
Emissions testing is required in some counties and cities, particularly around Washington D.C., although this only applies to vehicles less than 25 years old that are under 10,000 pounds and are powered strictly by fossil fuels.
Annual safety inspections are required, the list of items inspected can be found here, and the program appears to be administered by the Virginia State Police.
Missouri
Population: 6,114,000
Size: 69,714 square miles
Like most of the other states seen so far, emissions checks are only performed in a few counties and those are all limited to the St. Louis metropolitan area.
Safety inspections are good for two years but there is a caveat; it’s good for two years if, for instance, your even-number model year vehicle is inspected during an even-number year. Otherwise it’s only good for one year with similar being the case for odd-numbered models and years.
Somewhat like Massachusetts, there are parameters for bumper height deviations from factory settings with a maximum height of 22 inches for cars and 27 inches for light trucks.
The inspection is $12 with the list of what is inspected found here. What constitutes an inspection is overseen by the Missouri State Highway Patrol.
Over the last few years there has been talk within the legislature about eliminating the safety inspections, which would put is in line with Oregon, Illinois, and Colorado, among other states. The concern has been inspection stations also perform service work so if a person replaces brakes for a living but also inspects cars, there is the potential conflict of interest by generating additional business.
Such was attempted with upper and lower ball joints about a month ago when I got my Ford van inspected. This is only mentioned to paint a comprehensive picture.
The states of Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Michigan, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and South Carolina require neither safety nor emission testing.
Let’s go to Canada.
Alberta
Population: 4,067,000
Size: 255,541 square miles / 661,848 square kilometers
Like in Missouri, Alberta’s inspections are performed by the private sector. Researching on the Government of Alberta’s website, there is nothing requiring an inspection other than if one brings a vehicle into the province or if a car is re-registered.
Fees for the inspection are not fixed but are determined by the labor rate of the shop chosen, although Alberta does provide guidelines for roughly how much time an inspection will require.
Interestingly, it is perfectly acceptable to import a right-hand drive vehicle into Alberta and get it licensed, provided it meets all other requirements of a vehicle entering the province.
Ontario
Population: 13,448,000
Size: 415,598 square miles / 1,076,395 square kilometers
Acquiring license plates requires a safety standards certificate that is obtained via an inspection administered through an agent of the Ministry of Transportation (MOT). The only exceptions are trailers, off-road equipment, and when transferring a vehicle to one’s spouse.
The cost of the certificate is not regulated by the government, so prices will vary as they will in Alberta. The items examined to acquire the certificate can all be found in this 90-plus page document.
Let’s head south to Australia.
Queensland
Population: 5,000,000
Size: 715,309 square miles / 1,852,642 square kilometers
A safety certificate in Queensland, unlike most of the other jurisdictions discussed so far, requires a safety certificate prior to sale or transfer of registration. It is also required when an unregistered vehicle is being re-registered or if bringing a vehicle into Queensland.
The inspection is $82.85 for vehicles up to 8,500 kg GVM. It includes the expected items such as tires, brakes, suspension, and glass. Scouring the Queensland website, nothing was immediately found regarding frequency of inspection. Perhaps then it is possible for a person to own a vehicle for years upon end without the need of periodic inspections. If somebody from Queensland can shed more light on this, it would be greatly appreciated.
This is only a small sampling of all the variations that exist in just the English speaking world when it comes to requirements for motorized vehicle safety inspections. Just as with people, it seems no two political jurisdictions are alike.
There is no VIN check in Michigan when you transfer title on a car purchased elsewhere. All you need is proof that you paid the sales tax.
Are cars in states with mandatory inspections any better than those in the states that don’t inspect?
That would likely be hard to quantify although I may (emphasizing may) have a tiny (and I also emphasize tiny) bit of insight into that.
For a long time I worked in a highway safety capacity. I frequently looked at collision reports and I was near a state line adjacent to states having no safety inspections. Never did I see a report indicating the subpar condition of a vehicle as being the primary contributor. Driver error was the primary contributor the vast majority of the time.
Could the driver error be attributable to neglect? Perhaps, but most of the time it was simply a bone-headed action the driver made – like driving too fast for conditions or being drunk.
That said, I cannot even pretend to think I’m an expert on any of this. My goal here was simply to highlight the differences for everyone to gain a better understanding of the differences that exist.
Are cars in states with mandatory inspections any better than those in the states that don’t inspect?
Probably. But are the drivers any better?
Realistically and logically, a good argument can of course be made for safety inspections, especially in salt country where rust can eat at brake lines and structural elements. Some badly rusted cars are at risk of catastrophic structural collapse. But as Jason said, finding the statistics to back that up might be difficult.
It would be interesting if a state would document some of the more egregious examples of cars failing the test. Our feelings on the subject might change…
Other than brakes, rust in the salty states is what would concern me. I saw a Chevy Silverado on I35W in Minneapolis last week, driving at speed, and it appeared to have rusted in half, as in it looked like a burst couch.
It’s not just catastrophic failure that’s a problem though – every day I see cars in Minnesota with sharp, serrated rust (or metal where rust has been amateurishly cut off) which would slash a pedestrian or cyclist in an accident, or conceivably could cut the likes of my 18 month old son who might decide to grab a Buick LeSabre (official car of Minnesota, with rocker delete option) wheelarch as he passes.
I also see lots of people driving at night with one and a half bulbs still functional. Obviously the cops could pull them over, but they can’t be everywhere. People drive badly enough here that they ought to drive cars in luminous bubble wrap, not sharpened stealth cars.
In Minnesota, we had emissions checks until Jesse “The Body” Ventura decided that we no longer needed them. I remember having my Nissan Stanza checked for emissions. The state was not concerned about how rusty it was, and it always sailed right through the emissions check.
Rust nowadays wasn’t as bad as it used to be, as most cars can get to the 10 year mark with little or no visible rust, and even at 15 years most cars just have some cosmetic rust around the wheel wells and bottoms of the doors. Compared to when I had the Stanza it was just accepted that a 10 year old car could be quite rusty. Though it’s not uncommon to see older, rusty cars that have no business being on the road bombing about – just today I saw a rusty late 80’s Ford Ranger that very visibly was sagging in the middle driving over the Cedar bridge. I realize that inspections would result in a few less curbside classics around, but on the other hand some of those cars no longer have any business being on public roads.
I kind of have mixed feelings about the safety inspections. On one hand, there would be the hassle of having them done and the possibility of an unexpected repair. On the other hand, I see a lot of cars driving around with one or two brake lights out, non-functional headlights, and significant (more than cosmetic) accident damage. Plus it would force my neighbors (and their friends and relatives) who collectively don’t believe in ever doing exhaust work to get noisy cars fixed. And it might also get some of the more obnoxiously modded vehicles off the road too.
I will say that even though we have road salt to deal with, some of the scariest vehicles I’ve seen driving around are still from when I’ve visited the Pacific Northwest.
Given the amount of road salt Oakland road commission and Wayne country road commission in Michigan dumps, smog and safety inspection aren’t feasible. Some cars will fail within warranty, or some cars will go to junkyard around the time of warranty expires.
When I lived in Michigan, I strongly believed that the excessive use of road salt was a form of planned obsolescence.
If your car rots out from under you, you need to buy a new one. At one time, that pretty much meant you were spending money on something that profited Michigan companies.
So the more salt they used, the more taxes they could collect from car companies. It sort of felt like a big scam.
I’ve always felt the lack of vehicle inspection in Michigan is because it would be considered an affront to the automakers to put any restriction at all on their products. And I’m right onside with Evan about road salt as a means of funnelling money to the automakers.
Either your car rots away from salt being spread or you crash it because salt wasn’t spread. I’ll put up with the rust.
That’s not actually so. Salt is not the only option. Years ago Ontario and Colorado (for two examples) used slag, sand, or a mixture and people seemed to get along fine, even in mostly RWD cars with primitive tires.
It’s the only option when that is what they spread. Sometimes reality just sucks.
Salt will melt snow and ice; sand will only provide traction. Slag, if black, may absorb enough sun to help melt but it’s primarily used for traction.
If you are talking coal slag, there’s two problems with that. First, if burned to a certain point it can create an air quality issue. Second, the availability of it isn’t what it was even twenty years ago.
Be careful to not confuse traction (sand) with melting (salt).
Oakland county uses so much salt that it provides traction. I think it’s too excessive ( so much salt that it doesn’t all melt down, so there is some traction )
I’m on the fence as far as emission testing goes but a safety inspection of some sort should be mandatory as far as I’m concerned. Just yesterday here in British Columbia an older motorhome lost its brakes heading down a steep hill in Kamloops hitting several cars. Nobody was killed but it could have been much worse!
Many years ago there used to be a yearly safety inspection in and around the Vancouver metro area. As I was employed in the city transit system maintenance dept. we regularly took the buses in for inspection. The things I saw on other vehicles would scare the hell out of you! Many vehicles were condemned right on the spot and the plates were pulled until it could be fixed there or towed.
Exactly. I also recall an tragedy circa 1980 at the BC Ferries Horseshoe Bay terminal, when the brakes failed on a truck going down the steep hill. There were many fatalities. The government of the day had cancelled all safety inspections for ideological reasons, even for commercial vehicles.
Here in the Lower Mainland, anyway, emission testing is now gone, and I am not in favour of it-because it means we are getting crapheap beaters on the road yet again. Aircare may have annoyed people, but at least it kept the worst of the junk off the road.
Yup, that was a bad accident for sure, lived in the area then and it was a real mess as it was a dumper filled with asphalt. Not pretty. Here in the BC fruit belt, its always amazing the array of totally rusted out heaps that somehow make it from Quebec to BC for “fruit picking”, with some seeming to pick up Alberta plates and a stolen dog along the way. A stunning array of relatively recent vehicles that are littered with holes in every make and model.
At least in BC its a one stop shop for everything vehicle wise, from title transfer, registrations, insurance and personal licences. Unless your bringing in something from away, your golden. No inspections, emissions or concern for noise, ride modifications, damn near anything. Unless a cop actually sees a MOVING violator, with something really outrageous, it will roll on here with impunity. Almost diplomatic immunity impunity!
However, one always must have title, or its a royal pain in the butt. Unless its a small trailer, then one can reg it as a “u-built” and get a registration, plates and insurance in a jiffy without any docs at all!
In the UK, trailers under 3500kg have no inspection, no registration, just carry a plate with the reg of the towcar. (often handwritten in ballpoint, which is obviously illegal)
You see some comedy home built efforts out on the road.
I’m not seeing old crapheap beaters in Vancouver so much as I’m seeing (smelling, hearing) recent-model vehicles that have had the catalytic converters removed because the ѕhіtferbrains owner thinks that’s going to give him moar horsepowerz. For my own cars I actually miss the Aircare test a little. It wasn’t very difficult or costly, and provided a good way to keep year-to-year track of the running condition of the car.
I vividly remember my first experience with safety inspections in Maryland. There were none in Iowa, and my first car, a ’63 Corvair, was licensed there. I moved back to MD. for a few months in 1973, and bought a very nice ’64 VW to replace the ailing Monza (I should have just fixed it). The deal was for $400. But the deal was that it had to pass the inspection before it could be sold, and it turned out to need new king pins, which cost some $150, to the seller. He was not happy, as he just lost almost half of what he was going to get for the car.
My understanding was then that the seller had to sell the car with a valid current inspection certificate. I suppose that’s actually negotiable.
My first and last safety inspection experience. Now I live in Curbsidelandia, where if it runs, it can be on the street.
When researching this yesterday morning, I thought of you when I encountered the requirements for Maryland. While I won’t say they are currently on the most stringent end of the spectrum in this country, it seems they were getting there.
Maryland really is not that stringent when you think about it.
If I buy a car car and have it tagged in the state of MD, the car is subjected to a stringent safety inspection initially. However once it is done it is done. Plus if I had a car inspected and tagged and then 2 years later I turn the tags in and park the car in the garage and then 5 years after that, I decided to re tag it, I can simply take the title to the MVA (or a tag and title service) pay money and get tags with no safety inspection needed because the car was originally inspected upon ownership of the car and the car was owned by the same person (me) without transferring to another owner and back again.
The car can also be transferred to my son, daughter or from my parents to me without a safety inspection as long as they live in Maryland.
There is a a 2 year emission inspection but that is just a OBDII test for 96-Present and a tailpipe test for older cars. The dyno test(which was to simulate driving at 30mph and 60mph) was dropped a few years ago for pre OBDII cars and light trucks because of both the inability of the staff to do the test properly and the fact that cars were getting damaged due to untrained staff(especially stick shift vehicles)
Dealerships in Maryland have to sell used vehicles with MD inspections (New cars are exempt) A dealer cannot sell a car to a Maryland resident unless it is inspected except if that person possesses a whole seller license. A private seller selling his/her car is not required to get a MD inspection for it before sale. The car is considered as is.
In a way MD has a better system then VA with cars. In VA you have to get it safety inspected annually and there is a half assed emission setup (half of VA requires it and the other half does not
Plus vehicle owners have to pay a tax every year on their car. Not only do you have a car payment you also have to pony up extra money for a tax on your car. In Maryland they just bone us up front when the vehicle is purchased and first registered.
Theres a lovely little clause here that a car must be sold with a WOF less than 28 days old, or the vendor is responsible for repairs at next WOF inspection and its enforceable.
Since about 2005 there is no emissions check on vehicles older than 1996 in Illinois, it’s only OBDII.
Saw that boot-heel, and knew instantly this would be a Shafer classic!
Don’t forget emissions testing in Ontario. The drive clean test started out in 1999 as a full exhaust sniffer test, requiring shops to purchase expensive equipment. The test was required every two years, if you failed you had to spend some money to try and comply (I think it was $300?) and if you still failed you got a conditional pass. After the next test if you still failed you were out of luck.
The initial benefit was tremendous as a lot of the smoky old cars came off the road. After that it became very rare to hear of someone’s car failing the test, and in 2014 they changed it to a happy OBD check only. Bit of a boondoggle for all the shops that had purchased the sniffer test equipment I think.
Those signs are a rash in this state, so I had to include one.
Doug, if memory serves the sniff test was explained in the 90-odd page book – but that was yesterday and I will happily admit I didn’t scan beyond the table of contents, so I could be remembering incorrectly. 🙂
Great article Jason. I am pretty familiar with Ontario’s rules so I will expand on what you and Doug said so far.
Drive clean is Ontario’s emission compliance program. It is administered through the Ministry of Environment and is separate from vehicle safety standards. It used to be required with change of ownership and every other year but now they eliminated the test at change of ownership. Cars made prior to 1988 are exempt. 1988 is when Canada updated its emission standards to the US levels. Prior Canada had much lesser standards. The MOE can do random roadside checks but I haven’t seen them do that in more than 15 years around here.
The northern part of the province is exempt from emissions testing for all cars. But all heavy duty vehicles regardless of age or location must pass.
As for the vehicle safety standards, they are basically only required at ownership change. If it never gets sold, it will never require another safety certificate. These standards are set by the Ministry of Transportation. They also issue licences to private garages allowing them to issue safety certificates. The MTO can pull these licences if necessary.
The reality is that since private garages do the checks there is a lot of variation from one garage to another. Some will really scam customers because its “required for the certification.” There are also garages around that will take a payment for a certificate without even seeing a car.
The MTO and police can pull your car over for a safety inspection or do road safety blitzes but the reality is they usually focus mostly on commercial trucks. Ontario did have a big problem years ago with commerical truck safety.
Also worth noting is that 90 page document is relatively new. The safety checks in Onrario used to be much less stringent but were heavily revised and made much more strick a couple of years ago. It really removed any discretion on many things. It also means many older cars are getting junked because they are not worth bringing up to the standards.
I am not sure what happened, but this sentence as supposed to be the first line “Great article Jason. I am pretty familiar with Ontario’s rules so I will expand on what you and Doug said so far. ”
If you read this Jason, can you edit my post to move that to the first line? Thank you.
Done. And thank you for expanding upon that. Looking at various jurisdictions websites is great but your working knowledge is even better.
My two states:
Wyoming: No safety inspection. No emissions inspection. Yes out of state VIN & stolen car inspection.
Arizona: No safety inspection. Emission inspection only in Phoenix & Tucson metro areas, not elsewhere. No out of state VIN & stolen car inspection.
I would be interested in a similar story/study on the costs of buying, titling, registering and re-registering a car in various states. This would include sales tax obligations (or not); annual license fees; property tax fees (usually administered at a declining rate over years of age of a vehicle); title fees on first registration; various inspection fees; collector car plate fees (if issued).
I know Montana/Oregon are cheap (no sales tax, reasonable registration costs) and California is outlandishly expensive.
From my experiences in living in both Illinois and Missouri, your curiosity is likely a bigger rabbit hole than the one outlined here! 🙂
In a nutshell, for those two states, Illinois has no property tax fees but license are/were $72/year regardless of what it is (I’m talking passenger cars and light trucks). Cannot remember what sales tax is.
In Missouri sales tax is around 4% if you live outside the city limits and it jumps up to your cities sales tax rate if you live within the city limits. That’s why in 1996 I paid sales tax in the county where my grandparents lived (Scott) instead of where I was at the time (Cole) to save roughly 4%. There is annual property tax (and it’s county based, not state based) which doesn’t make a lot of sense as my ’07 F-150 has a bigger property tax bill than does our ’07 VW Passat. License fees are rather reasonable, especially in comparison to Illinois, where a two-year registration on our E-150 was recently around $50 or less.
If looking at my Galaxie, property tax is like $3 per year and with historic plates it was $20 to acquire them and they are good forever – without an inspection to receive or to keep.
I’ve also recently heard Missouri is about the lone state still using taxable horsepower in license fees. Not sure about the validity of that, but that’s what I have heard within the last two weeks.
Nevada charges value tax via registration, but the same insurance was cheaper there than AZ for me.
AZ doesn’t charge tax, pretty cheap to get it all done. But they have income tax.
Anything brought into NV gets a VIN inspection first, they do it at DMV.
AZ prints a title right there and hands it over. NV mails it.
NV has emissions around Vegas and Reno, otherwise no other inspection after VIN.
PA has yearly inspection and authorised indie shops can do it. I took my cars to a shop that knew that I kept things up and they still went over it, which I prefer since I’m paying for it, they might spot something I missed. Not that hard like an MOT or TUV would be, but if the brakes or lights or something critical doesn’t work, or the body is too far gone with rust it won’t pass.
In my native Kentucky the actual cost of a license tag is the same for any passenger vehicle; it used to be $13.50 annually but it could be more than that now. Motor vehicles in Kentucky are considered to be personal property and are valued by the Property Valuation Administrator for the county of residence. In theory you have to provide proof of paying these taxes in order to license a vehicle but, at least when I lived there, this wasn’t stringently enforced.
My adoptive state of Indiana collects vehicular taxes in the same manner as most other states; there is a basic licensure fee and then a variable excise tax based on the age and value of the car. This system at least means you can’t get a valid license tag without paying the taxes.
Both Indiana and Kentucky collect the appropriate sales tax when the registration/title is transferred to the new owner. I haven’t lived in Kentucky for a long time but in Indiana these taxes are generally collected when you visit the BMV to transfer ownership. If you purchase a car from a dealer it is possible that the taxes will be part of the overall purchase price but then, if you finance the purchase, you will be paying interest on the tax money.
I live in Lake County Indiana and have never been required to have a safety inspection. Only emissions post-1975 model year. Love the site!
I have lived in Vanderburgh County Indiana for more than 30 years and I have never been required to have any vehicle subjected to a safety inspection. If you bring a vehicle in from out of state you must have the VIN verified by some police agency but that’s it, no real inspection.
I grew up in Kentucky and 50-60 years ago the Commonwealth did require an annual vehicle inspection. This was uniformly unpopular and the requirement was eliminated at some point in the early seventies. Private repair facilities were licensed as inspection stations and it was widely understood that many of these wouldn’t pass a vehicle without some sort of “repair” being made upon it. If you owned an old, worn out car (raises hand) it behooved you to find a friendly inspector, one who might be inclined to just “pencil whip” the entire process.
Interestingly, in the 4 states I’ve lived in (PA, NC, MD & VA), the safety/emissions regimen has been roughly similar. In Maryland, however, the emissions inspection had to be done at a state-owned facility, rather than at a private garage, which of course meant long lines, etc.
The exemptions are interesting as well. Like you mentioned, Virginia cars over 25 years old don’t require emissions inspections, so this coming year will (hopefully!) mark my ’95 Thunderbird’s last emissions test.
When I lived in Pennsylvania (20+ years ago), cars driven less than 5,000 mi. per year were exempted from emissions tests. I don’t know if that’s still the case, but it was a nice exemption — created to benefit older people who drove infrequently and who presumably had little extra money to deal with emissions repairs. I wonder if that exemption is still in effect.
Yes, PA still has the 5,000 mile exemption.
Maryland has a very comprehensive safety inspection, but it’s a one-time thing (new cars are exempt). When I brought in my old Civic, I had to do some paint-and-bondo work in the door openings, replace the dented tailgate, and have the windshield replaced (although the only crack was behind the rear-view mirror and couldn’t even be seen from the driver’s seat). However, there are no safety inspections after that initial one, just emissions every 2 years, for which the state charges $14.
I forgot about that. I moved into Maryland from North Carolina, and had to go through the one-time inspection process… I recall both of my cars were flagged with some sort of minor, picky “problems” and I remember the process as being expensive.
The only other detail I recall was that the shop in Silver Spring where I had my Contour inspected told me I needed new wiper blades, and they really ripped me off for them (the option was to go somewhere else, buy them, install them, and then wait in line at the service station again). Definitely a Grrr moment.
Interesting to see the variety of requirements.
In BC, I remember taking my 510 through the the provincial run safety inspection stations. If you had tools with you, they would align your lights which was really nice since I was running Bosch headlights and both fog and driving lights. That went away as government started to get out of that type of service. Now there is no mandated safety inspection for cars already here. I seem to recall like AB out of province vehicles need some sort of inspection. All commercial vehicles need inspections.
The Lower Mainland area use to have AirCare emission testing but even that has gone away.
Also don’t forget the title transfer tax which used to be just the provincial sales tax on a used vehicle 7 percent I seem to recall. Now it is both the GST and the provincial sales tax making it a 12 percent hit on a used vehicle. If the vehicle was previously registered in BC there is no safety check if it was from another province it requires an out of province inspection and if from another country requires a out of country inspection which is more rigorous and requires the addition of day time running lights. My experience with out of province inspections both here in BC and Alberta have been my wallet being $500 lighter after said inspection. In Alberta the inspection was $250 and work required to pass another $250. In BC the inspection was $150 and another $350 in parts an labour to get a pass. You can however do the repairs yourself but then have to pay again for the inspection. I agree that in some scenarios an inspection required every couple of years might get some clunkers off the road but compared to 20 plus years ago when I started driving in Alberta there seems to be far less dangerous vehicles on the road (by appearance anyway). The big problem I have with the shops doing the inspection work is they are biased to not pass your car and make some extra money on questionable repairs.
In Victoria, Aus, bottom of mainland Aus map above (pop 6.3 million, 91,000 square miles), you must get a Roadworthy Certificate if you want to sell the car (unless traded to a dealer). It’s strict now, done privately, and standard cost is about $220. Once done, you can drive the car forever as long as you pay your yearly registration fee (of $800). Police can order you to get one if they suspect car is unroadworthy (or they pull you over but can’t prove any misdeed!). Definite limits on suspension drops, window tints. You must both get a roadworthy and go for inspection at DMV-type govt place as well if car has not been registered for more than about 3 months (more like 6-12 in practice). Rather incredibly, no emissions tests ever, (unless someone complains to the EPA because your old banger is belching out enough smoke to make it on the weather news).
That sounds about the same as in Queensland. If you don’t get a safety/roadworthy certificate for your car when you’re selling, you can only sell it unregistered. Otherwise, no need for certification beyond that.
$800! I recall about $200 in WA on a Falcon, which included insurance, and no inspection, although beater drivers quaked in fear of the dreaded yellow sticker and having to “go over the pits”.
IIRC the rego fee was based on weight, so it would’ve been cheaper if I’d bought a Laser or something.
That is ~$300 of registration fee (which seems like it has increased a lot), $475 third party insurance, $45 insurance duty, then GST on top of the lot!
The RWC now has to have photographs taken and stored (digital) by the business that does it. This would also protect them against the sort of people that borrow a set of wheels or remove the modifications to pass.
New South Wales has an annual safety inspection with the usual private garage issues, and I’d assume it has some sort of emissions check as part of it.
South Australia is similar to Queensland and Victoria. One difference is that if you want a certain type of personalised registration plate (eg a word) you pay an annual fee. I don’t think other states have that, just a one-off fee.
I should add that heavy vehicles and particularly buses have entirely different requirements.
Years ago I went on the Ridge Top Tour at Arkaroola in the middle of the desert in South Australia. They had a fleet of Land Cruisers that only left the property to go for inspections, I assume they were registered as part of liability insurance for the business. The tracks they used for the tour were so demanding that they would wear out a set of tyres in 5,000 miles.
Ah, Victorian country towns! I gained a new appreciation of the garage that serviced my Cortina when I tried to sell it and it failed a roadworthy. They knew the rear suspension bushes were shot (RWC fail), but had never mentioned to me – they must’ve assumed I was short of cash as I was driving a 25 year old car.
Common fault on those things. Panhard bushings were a annual replacement to get a NSW pinkslip on my VH Commodore at least theyre cheap and easily replaced
Here in New York, drivers have both an annual inspection for safety and emissions. The total fee is $21 dollars for “upstate” counties and $37 for Suffolk (except Fisher’s Island), Nassau, Kings, Queens, Richmond, New York, Bronx, Westchester and Rockland (basically all of Long Island, NYC, and the two counties immediately north of the city on both sides of the Hudson). All vehicles 1996 and newer require an OBDII test.
On January 1st, 2017 New York mandated that tinted windows be evaluated as part of the safety inspection. The new provision is not well liked but as far as I can tell it seems reasonable: front windshield and front side windows cannot block more than 30 percent of light, and that also applies to rear side windows. The rear window is exempt if you have outside rear view mirrors on both sides. Shops have gotten around these requirements by simply removing illegal tints at inspecting time, passing the car since it lacks any tints, then applying any tint specified by the customer. I have no idea if that practice is widespread or not.
I have no problem with vehicle safety or emissions inspections and think they’re justified in high population states that use salt during the winter.
I’m a noo yawka and never gave a thought how some guys get away with very darkly tinted windows until I just read your post. Removing and re-applying the tint after the inspection is obviously what they’re doing.
I think they had to allow the rear window tint because a lot of cars do come with the rear windows tinted from the factory and as the tint is a part of the window, it is not viable to replace the window because the automaker does not make an untinted window for the car and it is USDOT approved (which invokes the supremacy clause)
I live in Maryland and I was once given a ticket for the tint on the drivers door window on my Scion XB. It apparently did not meet MD’s tint law. I chose to fight it in court. Maryland tint law states that tint that is applied to the window must not exceed a certain light level.
I took the window off of my Scion, parked the car in my folks garage in the meantime. Then took the window to court along with a letter from Toyota stating the window was tinted at the factory and that it meets USDOT requirements. I took the window into court and took a tool that was sharp enough to tear into tinting but not sharp enough to scratch the window and demonstrated that the tint was not applied to the window but was a part of the window from the factory.
I won that case
Wow, that’s impressive. I wonder if that traffic judge had ever had a window brought into court as Exhibit A.
It’s a good thing you weren’t ticketed for a tinted windshield, though!
Well I would never have that issue with a windshield as I don’t tint my windshield nor do I buy a car (new or used with one because it is pain to see out of in some situations.
The closest I have come to having one is on my 1997 Trans Sport which has that weird GM orangish tint on the windshield that a lot of GM cars had in the late 1980’s to late 1990’s. It is annoying but I live with it because I don’t want to disturb a 21 year old windshield and mounting parts if i don’t have to.
I will join Mike Bajda on the lack of safety inspections in Indiana. I had wondered if that might be a Lake/Porter County thing, but Mike cleared that up.
We did have them for awhile in the 70s, but the requirement was repealed by 1980, give or take.
Safety inspections were required in Indiana in the summer of 1969 when I bought a new VW Beetle. When the salesman at Auto World VW in Fort Wayne backed my brand new car out of the garage bay one of the back-up lights was not working but – as my Dad pointed out rather loudly – the windshield wore a passed safety inspection sticker (I think these cost only couple dollars at the time!). It’s just as well that the requirement was later dropped as IIRC there was a lot of “corruption” going on at the time and you pretty much could “purchase” the safety inspection sticker from most service stations without much of an “inspection.”
I paid $4 for the inspection on my 67 Galaxie in 1977. I may have paid for one other inspection but that was it. That was my understanding too – that too many mechanics doing inspections succumbed to the temptation to fail a car to sell stuff.
The flip side is a story my wife tells. Her father ran a VW repair shop. A guy came in and had a light bulb out that had to be replaced before getting an inspection sticker. He agreed to have the bulb replaced. Then when the sticker was on the windshield the owner demanded that the bulb be taken off and refused to pay for it. When Mrs. JPCs dad started to scrape the sticker off the guy relented and paid.
Thanks for putting this together for us, Jason–and for your personal perspective in the highway safety biz. By happenstance I’ve only lived in non-inspection states/counties. Growing up in Ohio (none), however, I heard tell of generally roadworthy 60s-70s Pennsylvania cars that failed inspection due to fender rust-through that were then just wholesaled to Ohio. Again, just “the word on the street,” so who knows.
The exhaustive PA code is here for the curious: https://www.pacode.com/secure/data/067/chapter175/chap175toc.html
The Wiki article is pretty dense with info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States
This all seems to be a political football, and I’m reminded of the great U.S. license plate divide between one-plate and two-plate states each of which has strong proponents.
This is indeed a political football. I hope I’ve been as objective as possible on this.
I have my personal opinion on it but for the record all I’ll say is there is a mixture of good and bad regardless of what route a state or province takes.
George, I find it puzzling in a country where the cops seem to have so much power, that illegible or non-existent license plates are deemed acceptable, but then trailers and kayaks(!) need registration numbers.
In Minnesota you can pay a bit extra for a Critical Habit plate with an artistically dubious picture of a loon with little black digits over it. I have better than 20/20 vision and can’t read them from any kind of distance.
It seems I just got the wrong tester on this occasion…
That’s how it is just about everywhere in North America (and actually, many countries permit wrong-hand-drive vehicles). The bugbear is in what constitutes “meeting all other requirements”; we see a lot of technically and legally unsafe Japanese-market private imports in BC that have been shrugged through what should’ve been a properly rigourous inspection (and that’s just for the lights; who the hell knows what other safety-related faults are shrugged through). See the second-to-last paragraph of this post and its “unscrupulous dealers” link.
Lack of proper headlamp inspection is also how it is just about everywhere in North America. Lamp aim is by far the main thing that determines how well you can (or can’t) see at night—it’s much more important than what kind of headlamps are on the car—but hose few jurisdictions that claim to check lamps mostly pass vehicles with a pair of headlamps that turn on and off. Those even fewer that claim to check lamp aim tend to use a uselessly lax pass/fail criterion that might reject for a lamp up in the trees or down on the bumper, but won’t get anywhere close to checking for correct aim. For example, a popular criterion is an old SAE one that considers low beams acceptable if they’re aimed anywhere from 4″ above to 4″ below horizontal at 25 feet. Worthless! We have names for those lamps; a low beam aimed 4″ above horizontal is in effect a high beam, and one aimed 4″ below horizontal is a fog lamp.
Many pedestrians die as a result of this “meh, whatever” attitude—yes, it’s quantified—but lamp aim is (was) one of the first things to get axed from inspection protocols when people start(ed) complaining about long wait times; even a sloppy shine-it-on-the-wall method, to say nothing of the right way, requires careful setup and more time than just looking at a light and going “Yep, it turns on, so that’s a pass”.
I wondered about the RHD thing, I had only heard of Australia restricting LHD and some Balkan states restricting RHD due to a flood of cheap cars from the UK.
The Alberta RHD portion was included due to being specifically mentioned – I saw that nowhere else. I never said it wasn’t an option elsewhere. 🙂
Maybe they once had an influx of weird Britishers bringing their Reliant Regals or whatever.
It’s because of the Western provinces’ proximity to Japan, and Canada’s rule that vehicles over 15 years old can be imported regardless of noncompliance with Canadian safety and emissions standards, so private imports of Japan-spec vehicles is popular.
New Zealand – there is no specific emissions testing per se, but excessive smoke will result in a fail. However we have regular safety tests, called Warrant of Fitness, first at three years from when a car is sold new, then every year thereafter. Vehicles made before 2000 have to be tested every six months, a bit of a pain for classic car owners. A Warrant of Fitness is required to register a car.
The safety test for a Warrant cover tyres, brakes, structural rust or damage, lights, windscreen and other glass, windscreen washers and wipers, doors, belts, airbags if fitted, speedo, steering and suspension, exhaust and fuel system (no leaks in either). Testing is either at VTNZ or AA stations, which tend to be more stringent, or some private garages which are generally less stringent, but will still fail you for any safety defect.
I had a car failed a few years ago because the front frame rail was kinked from long existing accident damage forward of the suspension mounts, so if you ask me not a safety issue. Would have challenged it or got a WOF elsewhere but the car was knackered anyway, burning oil and the transmission was on its way out.
Have had fails at VTNZ stations for some other pretty ridiculous stuff, like a barely visible bend in a front wheel which I fixed myself with a mallet. Now use a garage for both my cars that I trust
Yes its a pain in the arse I circumvent the six monthly requirement on my classic by getting it a WOF this month and registering it for twelve months in October its worked so far I use a local garage VTNZ failed to pick up badly worn lower control arm bushings on my 406 Peugeot at three inspections the muppet working the seem to only understand Japanese systems, my garage guy repairs everything from 20s Rolls Royces thru to motorcycles, he knows from experience anything he fails on my cars reappears quickly for retesting within days fixed properly. This is a bad month actually the car I gave my daughter has its WOF expire in two weeks so that will be two inspections to get done.
Heavy vehicles in NZ over 3500kg require a COF certificate of fitness at six monthly intervals it is a very rigorous inspection done by VTNZ only.
I’m not against either of them on the surface, but when you get the draconian rules of a state like Massachusetts failing you based on something as innocuous as ride height changes, I’d absolutely prefer nothing at all. Same goes for potentially failing emissions in a CARB state because you put an engine from a “truck” into a car, regardless of tailpipe emissions being clean or even cleaner than the factory engine it replaced.
I also feel everybody’s money would be better spent in figuring out a less harmful solution to road salt in snowy regions of the country.
Less harmful? Beet juice.
CA does not require safety inspections but emissions testing is required every two years for automobiles older than six years (some zip codes in some counties are exempt). Vehicles built in 1975 or prior are exempt. The average cost for the certificate plus testing is around $60+. For some reason this year my 2010 Infiniti G37 required an emissions test at a STAR testing station (these stations must meet higher standards) because it was identified as a possible “high volume polluter.” As usual it passed with flying colors and the tester said that he did not understand the requirement in this instance as the G37s he’s tested always pass with very low emissions results. In 2016 the DMV only required testing at a regular testing station for the same car.
The requirements are a little complicated and are posted here:
https://www.dmv.com/ca/california/emissions-testing
My Miata has the same STAR testing requirement, California assigns this status based on their data for that model, which includes every vehicle tested in the state. Nowadays, stock vehicles tend to pass the emissions test regardless of overall tune, so certain models are put on the STAR list for other reasons.
Because both the Miata and the G37 are popular with the tuner crowd, I expect the failures in the Californian data base are related to engine modifications. There are probably areas where a test center fails every car that rolls in, but your test center is probably located in a neighborhood where these modifications are less common.
Thanks, Dave – that explanation is helpful and makes sense. And there wouldn’t have been negative test data for the 2010 model in 2016 because no emissions test was required during the previous six-year “new car” time period and hence only a regular test center was specified that year. I was fortunate in that my regular neighborhood test center happened to be STAR certified so no additional effort on my part was required and the certificate/test price was the same.
In some areas of California, where pollution is more severe, the two-year requirement applies. In lower-pollution areas, emissions inspection is required only at transfer of ownership/title.
We did have to register a “salvage” title car recently. Grandson’s Civic was hit and insurance company totaled and we bought it out. California requires an inspection by a licensed brake and light station.
Once I bought a British motorcycle previously registered in Michigan. There was no VIN on the frame, only an engine serial number, which was on the title. I had to take it to a Highway Patrol office where they inspected it for hidden or altered numbers. A California assigned VIN tag was riveted to the frame.
Does any other state or provence add a significant surcharge for a light truck? Any cargo van or pickup has to pay a “weight fee” and wear commercial tags.
But you get to park in a yellow zone which is a HUGE bonus if your cargo van or pickup is actually used for work. Or even if not, perfect if you need to dash in to your jeweler off Union Square in San Francisco the day before Christmas….Twenty minute yellow zone, well worth the added fee at registration time.
Some vehicles choose to pay this even if not required, such as minivans and station wagons may do so by choice. I assume SUV’s can also but not positive. The Sienna van we had in CA came with commercial plates, I switched them over to regular ones as I planned my jewelry purchases in advance.
In WA on a truck you pay a weight fee based on GVW. The truck plate thing used to allow you to park in a loading zone/alley for free, w/o a time limit none the less. So you had people who licensed their cars as trucks to take advantage of that loophole. However the city of Seattle put an end to that and now require their own commercial loading zone permit and there are time limits on many locations. Because it is based on weight it isn’t a big cost on a car as it will go in the 5,000 lb and under, or at least most cars anyway.
I would also note that in CA, a VIN must be verified when registering a car from out of state, regardless of any other rules.
Nevada has no safety inspections whatsoever.
Emissions tests are required annually in certain parts of Clark County (the Las Vegas Valley), as well as parts of the Reno & Carson City areas.
All vehicles under 8,500 GVW are required to pass the emissions test in order to get a “daily driver” license plate. This includes any vehicle 1968 and newer(!).
Exemptions are available if you choose a “Classic Vehicle”, “Classic Rod”, or “Old Timer” license plate, which limits the vehicle to 5,000 miles/year. However, mileage is declared by the owner on an affidavit, and not actually checked by the DMV.
A VIN inspection is required on all vehicles brought in from out of state.
Interestingly, if you bring in your own car from out-of-state, Nevada does not require you to re-title your car. When I moved here, I drove my Volvo 245Diesel for several years on a Nevada plate with a Michigan title.
Very surprised by the lack of a national safety inspection in the US, I would call it negligent as it is just not acceptable to cause injury or death to someone with a defective car. Perhaps it explains why there have been pictures of some really scruffy cars on US roads posted here
Since 1960 it has been law in the UK to have an annual test certificate required by the Ministry of Transport, known as the MOT,
It is quite tough, sound quite similar to the NZ test covering all areas of a cars safety operation – rust, sharp edges , suspension, belts , airbags, CV boots ( no splits) , steering, tyres and TPS if fitted (min tread depth, no sidewall damage) brakes (no fluid leaks, each wheels efficiency is tested and must be balanced, the hand brake as well) , fuel system (no leaks) , windscreen ( no cracks or deep scratches in the wiped areas, the washers must work) , wiper blades (not frayed) exhaust (no blowing) lights (all exterior lights must work and headlight beam must have correct alignment) and emissions (no smoke and put on a machine to measure CO and HC)
it can go as far as a car failing the MOT because the side indicator light is not amber enough, I kid you not my Dads Volvo S70 failed on that
The repair bills of a failed MOT can be quite expensive for older cars plus you cannot use a car on the road without one, no grace period, I just put my 2001 Peugeot through the MOT last week ,did a quick once over, changed a blown number plate bulb and it passed
It might also be a contributing reason why my attitude to maintenance seems to be considered excessive to US readers
The rest of Europe has similar the German TUV for example , I believe that the EU is or has rationalised the standard
Bizarrely, classic cars over 40 years old do not require an MOT or even road tax, the idea being that they are hobby cars and the owners lavish care and attention on them
If you are interested see http://www.ukmot.com
Lee, I found the MOT was tougher in theory than practice, and varies hugely garage to garage.
For non-UK readers -the MOT tests are conducted by independent repair shops, which leads to valid suspicion of cars being failed to generate business. Lots of fast-fit places will offer MOTs for 19.95 but tend to find it needs exactly the sort of repairs they offer. I used a little garage that charged 50 for a test on my ancient rusty Mazda and the worst bill I ever had was 13 quid for a wiper blade and two sidelight bulbs, fitted. OTOJ, near where I grew up was a branch of a fast fit chain where the staff were taking an extra 50 to pass any car. My high school friend bought a Volvo 343 for 50 quid, payed the bribe and later moved to a tiny island where everyone leaves their keys in the ignition and drove it for years.
A Scottish newspaper took a Golf, doctored by an RAC “expert” to ten garages and got ten different test results, none of which were deemed correct. Some of them were clearly scammers, and some failed it on defects which the RAC bloke admitted were potentially dangerous, but not actually part of the test.
I’ve always heard the TUV is much tougher. I wonder if people’s mules will be emissions tested after Brexit?
I might add that you can get around the corruption because big fleet operators (inc local govt) can get certified to do their own MOTs, and the law requires them to offer tests to the public.
Most people are unaware of this because they don’t advertise or actually want to do this in most cases, but they have no ulterior motive if they don’t offer repairs.
Its not widely known here but the NZ W.O.F. testing regime was introduced at the behest of the RMTA( retail motor traders association) an industry lobby group as an income stream for their members, theoretically old ‘unsafe’ cars would be put off the road in favour of new cars members would gleefully sell or repair to a safe standard, it didnt work as well as hoped but the ridiculous six monthly inspection regime remains in force, My father was a lifetime member of the RMTA he let this gem if information drop many years ago,
“Very surprised by the lack of a national safety inspection in the US, I would call it negligent as it is just not acceptable to cause injury or death to someone with a defective car.”
There’s a key difference between Yanks and Brits. I double dog dare anyone to get Americans to agree on a national standard for car safety inspections. We don’t like national standards for pretty much anything. “Natshunul standerds! Dem’s fightn’ words!”
Here in California we don’t have safety checks. If it rolls it registers. We like it that way. Slammed Civics, sky high monster trucks, rusted out crapwagons with only the back brakes working, it’s all good.
In my five decades of motoring here I’ve never known anyone who was injured or in an accident due to an “unsafe” car, and I’ve usually lived in very poor communities where the cars are old. I trust the average person to keep their ride safe, so far they haven’t let me down. I’m fine with no safety checks.
It’s not just a matter of agreeing. It’s simply not constitutional. The states were given a lot of rights, and since safety inspections and other aspects of motor vehicle registration isn’t about interstate commerce or some other area for the feds to control, it’s a state issue and will remain one.
But the smog inspections are a direct result of the EPA’s federal mandate, but it’s up to the states to decide how to meet clean air standards. Emission checks are an obvious one; no state wants the EPA to sue you.
Same in Australia each state has differing rules from Annual inspections to none at all and different rates and criteria for registration ranging from daylight robbery in NSW to reasonable in Tassie.
Yes, exactly. However, I’d imagine that the Feds could use the interstate commerce clause to impose national standards if the support was there, precedent is there on many other issues.
They’ve also got the clever method of linking federal funds to congressional mandates, like they did with raising the drinking age to 21 nationally, and have done with so many issues. Want our money, do what we say.
But I don’t think there’s any push for national safety standards for cars at all. It’s simply a non issue.
“However, I’d imagine that the Feds could use the interstate commerce clause to impose national standards ”
That’s pretty much what they have done with safety standards for new cars. Before 1966-67 most safety standards were indeed left to states. Enforcement of new car standards is easy as there are only a few manufacturers. I suspect that the Federales do not have the stomach for trying to enforce safety issues on old cars. This would require an entirely new enforcement mechanism than the mostly self-policing mechanism on the new car side.
It’s very common for Brits to underestimate the power of US states, as if they are like British counties. It’s more appropriate to compare the UK to an American state.
British political power is extremely centralized. As my wife said to me (with some justification) many American counties and towns have more power than Scotland or Wales.
I think a good modern analogy to the U.S. system would be the EU. There are individual sovereign countries, but there are areas where the central authority has taken control for the sake of efficiency and uniformity. It is not a perfect analogy, and there will always be tensions in where the dividing line between local/national authority lies.
Texas had a yearly safety test. My truck had a cracked windshield but he told me that wasn’t part of the test.
Jason, (being a resident of Will County) there is no safety inspection for Illinois, just an emissions inspection every two years on a vehicle five years or older for the following counties: Cook, DuPage, Lake, McHenry, Kane, Will, Madison, and St. Clair.
Yep; my parents live in Union County and living in Illinois they have never had any type of inspection, like I mentioned further up.
That was a perk of having grown up there. That said, there used to be inspections on light trucks but that ended around 1980.
“The safety and emissions tests for these two areas are waived if the car is less than four years old or older than 1967, is diesel or electric powered, or is a special use such as shows, parades, etc.”
Not sure where this part came from, but it is indeed incorrect. We have no safety inspections anywhere in IL and pre-OBD2 cars (pre-1996) are exempt from emissions testing in the areas that require it. The test administered once every 2 years is free and just entails them plugging a computer into the OBD2 port to check for codes. Essentially, if the light is off, you pass. It is vastly more convenient than the California style dyno test.
Having lived all over the country, I’ve never noticed any difference in the “hoopty-ness” of cars in states with a safety inspection vs. states without. I’m happy to see data that shows a reduction in accidents, tow truck calls, police tags for tow away off a highway, or… anything… that suggests these safety inspection regimes accomplish something. It’s not obvious to me from basic observation.
No safety inspection in WA but limited emissions inspections.
The emissions are based on zip codes but there are a whole host of loopholes and confusing even-even, odd-even testing requirements. With the state doing the bare minimum required to make the EPA happy.
So cars are tested every other year, there is a 25 yr rolling cut off and certain vehicles have other exemptions. For example Hybrids with an original rating of 50 mpg or more have always been exempt. 2007 and later diesels are exempt. 2006 and earlier diesel cars are exempt.
They have also attacked it from the other end. Originally new cars were exempt but then they stretched it to 5 years old or less and eventually exempted 2009 and newer vehicles.
So at this point every year fewer and fewer models years are required to be tested and I’m just wondering when the current 3rd party contractor’s contract will expire. I assume that when it does they won’t want to bid nor would anyone else. For tabs that expire(d) in 2018 there were only 7 model years tested. Thanks to the change from even-even to odd-even there will be 8 model years that need testing in 2019. They already closed a couple of stations but at this point instead of 3-5 lanes being open with long lines, like it was 5 or so years ago, there are 2 lanes open and a short line if any.
December 31st, 2019 is the last day for emission inspections in WA State.
https://www.columbian.com/news/2017/may/05/state-vehicle-emission-tests-to-end/
Thanks, good to know one more time on my Crown Vic this year and the F-250 next year and I’m done.
New Jersey used to have annual inspection. Now it’s every two years, except for cars 1997 and older, which are exempt.
————————————————————————————————————
Some actual N.J. inspection rules:
“There must be no more than 3 inches play in the steering wheel at the rim.”
“If a vehicle is 10 years old or older and a windshield wiper is not operating properly, it shall not be rejected. If the vehicle is less than 10 years old, it shall be rejected.”
“A vehicle manufactured before July 2, 1954 may be equipped with one tail lamp.”
“Every vehicle shall have an exhaust system equipped and maintained so that exhaust gases cannot injure any person or animal.”
“License plates must be displayed right side up and right side out – Must be securely fastened – Must not be bent, cut, or mutilated – Mounted in a horizontal position, and in such a way as not to swing.”
“No front wheel, when free of the ground shall be so loose that it can be rocked in and out for an abnormal distance. . .more than 1/4 inch will be considered abnormal.”
“Wheels shall turn freely when the brakes are in the released position. Feet to stop from twenty miles per hour: 30. Vehicles without brakes on all wheels: 45.”
“Every motor vehicle operated upon a highway shall be equipped with a horn in good working order. . .but no horn shall emit an unreasonably loud or harsh sound or a whistle.”
“No person shall drive any motor vehicle manufactured on or after July 1, 1935 unless it is equipped with approved safety glazing material [glass] wherever glazing is used in doors, windows, and windshields.”
“Every vehicle, other than a motorcycle or passenger vehicle manufactured before July 2, 1954 shall be equipped with approved turn signals.”
———————————————————————————————————–
On some of these you have to wonder what circumstances gave rise to these specific restrictions.
I’d love to know the logic behind the wiper rule.
That’s an interesting list. Some of the items are headscratchers (nonworking wipers aren’t a failure item if the car’s over 10 years old?!) while others are in accord with what was happening in the wider automotive world (dual taillamps weren’t universal before 1954—think pickup trucks, for example). Some list items appear to be in response to babyish fads (licence plate deliberately mounted at a cockeyed angle), and some are well and truly obsolete, such as the reference to “approved” turn signals; once Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard № 108 came in for 1968, states no longer had the legal authority to grant or withhold approval for vehicle lighting devices—states are required to accept any that meet the Federal requirements.
But yeah, one can almost pick any state, look closely at its vehicle equipment code, and find all kinds of obsolete, dumb, badly-written, thoughtless, inappropriate crap. Somewhere in the relevant New York statute is a bitchy little rant about how the Feds mandated sidemarker lights, but if they think the State of New York is going to flunk vehicles for faulty sidemarker lights, they have got another think coming, etc.
Or take Virginia’s vehicle lighting code, for example. 19VAC30-70-140, or the identical text at 19VAC30-70-510, which is Virginia’s vehicle headlamp inspection protocol, is a thoroughly unenforceable mess, largely preëmpted by the Federal standard, but still on the books to make a big hassle whenever a VA state inspector will choose to interpret VA code literally. My comments in [square brackets]:
=====
Headlamps; except motorcycles.
A. Inspect for and reject if:
=====
2. Headlights are not of the same approved type except sealed beam
headlamps. At least two headlamps are required.
=====
[Guessing they mean it’s OK to have two different-brand sealed beams, but it doesn’t say that. Could easily be interpreted to mean you could have a small rectangular sealed beam on the left and a large round on the right! Also, states haven’t been legally able to “approve” headlamp types since 1967.]
=====
3. In any headlamp the lens is cracked, broken, discolored, or rotated
away from the proper position, or the reflector is not clean and bright.
4. Moisture or water buildup in headlamp is such that it affects the
aimable pattern.
=====
[Nothing wrong with these provisions]
=====
5. Lens is other than clear.
=====
[That’s officially a problem for certain Infiniti SUVs which have a blue
high beam lens from the factory. It’s also a problem for all the
UV-degraded, opacified plastic headlamp lenses, but those pass VA inspection all the time.]
=====
6. Bulbs are not of an approved type (must have DOT stamp and the
manufacturer’s name) or are over 32 candlepower. (Sealed beam lamps
including the ones which permit the use of a replacement halogen bulb are the only lamps approved with over 32 candlepower.) Ordinary lenses and reflectors were not designed for over 32 candlepower bulbs.
=====
[This is ancient language, mostly from the 1930s with a sprinkle of late-1970s mixed in. 32cp = the bright filament of an ordinary 1157 or 3157 turn signal bulb. Headlamp bulbs of this low intensity were last commonly seen on the roads in the 1930s. Headlight bulb types permitted under the Federal reg range from 56 to 255 candlepower…uh-oh, none of the bulbs Federally allowed in car headlamps meets VA’s idea of what lenses and reflectors were designed for!]
=====
7. Any filament or bulb in headlamps fails to burn properly or headlamps are not at the same location or configuration as designed by manufacturer. (Location and type of headlamps can be found in subsection F of this section.)
=====
[Recent NHTSA decision would plainly overturn this if it were written clearly enough to state what it probably means, i.e., that lamps must be grouped and placed as designed by the vehicle manufacturer. Since “manufacturer” is left ambiguous, this could be read to require that the lamps be grouped and placed as designed by the lamp manufacturer, which would mean aftermarket lamps with grouping/placement other than OE would not be illegalised as this section was probably intended to do. As it stands, a NHTSA interpretation still overturns this, but proving it would be a nuisance.]
=====
8. Wiring is dangling or connections are loose; or if proper filaments do
not burn at different switch positions; or if switches, including foot or
hand dimmer, do not function properly and are not convenient to the
driver.
=====
[No objection to this requirement]
=====
9. Foreign material is placed on or in front of the headlamp lens or interferes with the beam from the lamp. No glazing may be placed over or in front of the headlamps unless it is a part of an approved headlamp assembly.
EXCEPTION: A clear impact film known as Headlight Savers produced by Grand Prix Motoring Accessories may be applied to the headlight lens to absorb impact of rocks, etc.
=====
[What is this brand endorsement doing in a state code?!! There are several different vendors of this kind of product. Many of them sell exactly the same material, off the same production line, just packaged to order by each given vendor. I wonder how much GPMA paid for this bizarre, brand-specific exemption. Also, these “clear” films steal about 20% of the light when they’re new, and despite advertiser claims they degrade fast and badly in the sun.]
=====
10. Lamps can be moved easily by hand due to a broken fender or loose
support, or if a good ground is not made by the mounting.
=====
[It’s been many years since any significant number of headlamps grounded via the mounting. Most lamp housings and mountings are made out of thoroughly nonconductive plastic which does not make even a bad ground, let alone a good one. So, officially, not only DOT bulbs, but DOT headlamps are illegal in VA!]
====
I find more fascinating nonsense in VA’s lighting code. Not only are sidemarker lights and reflectors not addressed at all (they’ve been Federally mandated either/or since 1968 and both/and since 1970), but there exist spurious and legally invalid restrictions such as this tidbit from 19VAC30-70-540 (Parking Lamps):
=====
INSPECT FOR AND REJECT IF:
2. Parking lamps have other than white or amber lenses showing to the front. If the lens is clear, then the bulb shall be amber.
=====
[In fact, all parking lamps were white prior to 1963, and white parking lamps have always been permitted by FMVSS108, which means VA is required to permit them. So there are many factory-spec cars on VA roads which, per this provision, are illegal in VA.]
There is no practicable means of measuring illumination at 100 and 200 feet in the field, but VA code specifies illumination requirements at those distances. On and on and on…it’s basically whatever the inspector wants it to mean on any particular day and vehicle.
======
And VA is hardly the only North American jurisdiction with grossly faulty lighting requirements. Oregon rewrote their lighting code about a decade ago. One of the requirements is that a vehicle’s lights be operated such that they do not cause glare. Great! But in a subsequent paragraph, it is stated that low beam headlamps are legally considered not to cause glare regardless of vehicle loading. Of course no headlamp levelling system is required in the US, so most cars don’t have it, so the high-intensity portion of the low beam pattern will be elevated above horizontal, causing dangerous levels of glare which, according to the law, do not exist. Sheesh!
And it’s not just lights, either. When I brought a very low-miles ’91 Dodge into BC from the States, it needed an out-of-province-vehicle inspection. The (private) shop I took it to tried to flunk it for faulty seatbelts: “No matter how sharply we jerk them, they don’t lock, so they’re going to have to be replaced”. Um, that’s wrong, ya dumb bunny; try it again! The car’s belts were in perfect condition; like the ones on zillions of other vehicles, they locked only in response to vehicle deceleration, not belt-tugging. I directed them to the owner’s manual which said so, and they still didn’t want to pass the car. I brought in the factory service manual which specifically said that tugging the belt does not test the retractor locks before they agreed to test it by hitting the brakes hard on an empty road, but they acted like this was some big, nonstandard favour they were doing me. Sheesh!
As you mentioned, reading these older rules brings forth images of a long-gone era–pre-war cars with 2-wheel brakes, sloppy front ends, cars sharing the roads with horses, and hot-rodders and customizers trying to sneak through anything they can (i.e. John Milner in “American Graffiti”).
Two more from N.J.:
“Every motor vehicle with a combustion motor [so your 1902 Baker Electric is exempt] shall at all times be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and annoying smoke. . .No part of the exhaust system shall pass through the passenger compartment.”
“It will be cause for rejection if any accessory or object is mounted on the dash, [or] suspended from the rear view mirror. . .so as to distract the driver or interfere with his view of the roadway.” So fuzzy dice are OUT!
Safety inspection is a at to rip people off for tax money and make money for shops. Many make up fake fails. I had a pep boys in Virginia try to fail me on brand new brakes being to metal.
To avoid inspections find someone who will sell stickers or you can go get one off a car in a junk yard. Use starting fluid and gently peel it off. The numbers will also come off this way so change the year on yours and will still.match Vin.
…and chuckle at how clever you are until you get in a crash serious enough for cops and/or insurance adjustors to take a close look at your inspection. Then ugly words like “fraud” will start being accurately applied, and you will be in deep and costly doo-doo.
In Texas the shop got $10 as legisltated, and they weren’t allow to fix anything. Hardly a money making scheme for them. The mayor of a small town owned the only station in town and he sold the stickers without doing any work. He busted the only good shop in town, but was later found out and put out of business. Town was a slum who extorted money from developers. Honesty is the best policy.
In response to Lee Turner, the company I work for has a tame mechanic who MOTs all of the company and pool cars to a very low standard indeed. I’ve had the dubious privilege of driving some of our -allegedly- legal to drive cars. One of them (Golf) nearly threw me and my youngest son backward off a roundabout because the tyres were basically shiny-slick. Another had never had the transmission oil changed, so the friction plates were damaged and it hunted up and down gears whilst driving, making a godawful noise too. The most memorable one was the Audi A6 that snatched in first gear and then paused while braking, so it was almost impossible to park in our narrow, underground car park, or manoeuvre with precision. I also had a C-class with 256k miles, but that ran well, with only the fact it smelt slightly of damp being a downer.
To answer the question, yes safety is subjective. As mentioned, here in Virginia, we are only subject to a yearly $16 safety inspection, except for the 2 or 3 counties just outside of D.C. which must get an emissions test as well.
VA inspections are regulated by the Virginia State Police and generally there is a trooper assigned in each county (or several for more populated areas) that oversees the inspection stations and reviews their records and inspectors so the inspections are really only as good as the trooper regulating them as station inspectors are notorious for hooking their buddies up with inspection decals. Depending on the county, if its a sparsely populated, mostly rural area, inspections may be a collateral duty for the trooper and he can only get to them when he can get to them. The trooper that does inspections where I live is tough on the stations and I know he has pulled several of their certifications for various reasons but looking around all over the state, there are a LOT of cars that have current inspection decals that probably shouldn’t.
One nice thing in VA is that cars that are 25 years or older and have antique tags are exempt from state inspections and taxes.
Texas has an annual safety inspection. Last session the legislature considered doing away with it because there they found no evidence that it leads to safer roadways. We still have the inspections. Evidence does not always trump politics. In certain counties, like mine, we also have an emissions inspection. Older cars are exempt, and from reading the above comments it appears that this is true in many states. If one were serious about reducing pollution from vehicles we would scrap all older cars. And then where would Curbside Classic be?
What’s older? Scrapping pre-1980 cars presumably wouldn’t make much difference given how few there are and how little they are driven.
Most older cars eventually get scrapped because of their wear and condition anyway. The remaining ones are a negligible factor for pollution. Here in Germany cars with historic plates (presumably the majority of cars over 30 years old as it’s connected to a different usually lower tax) make up less than 1% of the rolling stock, and usually they’re weekend cars with much lower than average mileage put on them. They just don’t matter.
North Dakota had a short-lived vehicle inspection program back in the Seventies; I recall that it was a rather goofy system involving a random drawing of license plate numbers. If you were one of the lucky ones, you had a certain amount of time to get your vehicle in to a state inspection station; theoretically, the drawing would eventually cover all the vehicles in the state over x-number of years, but it ended up being so unpopular that the Legislature overturned it the session after it was enacted. I thought it odd that a rather libertarian-leaning state like North Dakota introduced something like vehicle inspection in the first place…
Here in Colorado the emissions tests, if required, are only for vehicles at least six years of age, after that it’s every two years. All emission tests are performed by state testing stations (for $25), so there is zero conflict of interest potential as was the case in California. The testing stations that I have used are well staffed with polite employees, decent waiting areas with windows to the work areas and overall non-objectionable.
One other thing the state does is have rolling testing stations, usually at on-ramps to I-25. You accelerate past them as normal, they sniff the air, capture your plate and assuming you aren’t in violation, you can skip the biannual test at the station. I believe you still pay the fee, it just shows up on your registration renewal.
The worst was surprise roadblock vehicle inspections conducted by the Highway Patrol. This was sometimes done during morning commute, making people late for work or school. At least you got a date-coded window sticker if you passed. Most failed headlight aim.
I was a longhair driving a VW. Once, they were absolutely determined to fail me, but I was very much one who kept my car in top condition. They crawled underneath and pulled on every steering and suspension part, along with, wipers, lights, horn, muffler. They could not test headlight aim on it, due to the factory glass cover over the sealed beams. Had to give me a sticker.
The next time I happened to have my German Shepherd Dog in the backseat. She was sticking her head out next to me. “Honk the horn” was all they asked me that time.
Gov. Reagan did away with it, saying that he wanted officers on patrol, not doing vehicle inspections.
A former coworker got caught by one of those, which were highly unusual here. They came up with a few issues, having flashing orange lamps on the roof (which are banned unless you need them such as performing work on the roadside, which he did), and having and empty windscreen washer bottle, but I don’t believe there was a fine!
I’m firmly of the belief that the VA state inspection is little more than a repair-shop gouge program. That way they can sell $15 bulbs and upsell you on tires, oil changes, brake jobs, and suspension work. I’m not in the DC area, so no emissions. Thank God.
In WA, it was emissions-only (stolen-car VIN check when re-titling). The WA emissions are for certain counties (King, Snohomish, etc.) and at state run facilities, so long lines and aggravation. But there was a limit to how much you would spend to fix the car before they just waived it. If you are an active-duty military resident living in another state – they title and register you out of Thurston County so you don’t have to drive all the way back every other year. Would be a pain if you were stationed in Virginia, for example.
From day one the emissions test facilities are not run by the state, they are run by a 3rd party contractor that was put to a bid and in fact a few years ago a different company won the contract.
To add further to Vince C and his comments on the 90 page Ontario safety inspections, not only was there a lot less leeway the government put some teeth into enforcement.
Here in my part of the province a young girl was killed when her car was hit by a pick up that had no business being on the road and had just been put on the road with a phoney safety.
The province not only went after the vehicle owner but the garage basically making them accessories to the girls death.
It sent shock waves through the garages around here.
The garage I dealt with was a good case in point. They were strict on their safeties but with a healthy dose of common sense. After that incident, their attitude was if in doubt replace it. One car I tried to safety shortly thereafter I was told to replace all gas and brake lines as if there was ANY rust not allowable. In the salt capital of Canada?
A lot of good cars went to early ends because it just wasn’t financially feasible to do it.
So I still think that the mechanics attitude was,is, and will always be the defining factor on what we drive and how safe it is.
They now have a lot more responsibility and as much as I curse the cost I understand why they need to keep their livelihood and their clients safe to a higher standard than ever before. And I don’t see that lessening as time moves forward.
There needs to be more pragmatism on the legislative level, any tightening of inspection standards must be accompanied by a DRASTIC reduction in road-salt use.
The safety inspection in Louisiana are very basic (head lights, tail lights, brake lights, turn signals, large cracks on windshields, insurance, etc). In a very few areas (Baton Rouge), there is emissions testing. The basic inspections are performed a oil change and independent repair shops. Automobile dealers are not allowed to perform inspections.
A recent addition to the testing is window tint. My car failed the test because the shop had misinterpreted the guidelines for rear windows. All the windows on my car are factory tint. After a 5 minute debate (which I lost); I went to another shop that same afternoon and the car passed with no issues.
It goes to show how hap-hazard the inspection process is!!! I wonder how many other poor souls were caught in this “bureaucratic” nightmare😱😱😱😱
Fact is the way many of the state safety inspection programs are set up they are useless. Those that have a repair shop do the inspections are often used as state endorsed extortion. Too much incentive to sell something profitable and let other things slide. Those that only have it done every other year are also not going to be that effective since a lot of wear and deterioration can take place in a year let alone 2 years.
The only one that really makes sense as actually protecting the public is when a inspection is required to sell/transfer the vehicle, preferably done by a place that only does inspections.
While I was living near Sydney OZ there was a cleanup of inspection stations it was quite simple if police pulled a bomb car over with a recently renewed rego and found plenty of faults the operation who issued the pink slip (inspection pass) would have their records pulled and the last 25 cars they passed found and checked, too many heaps of shit being lety thru and their licence revoked, Pink a Blue slip (new or unregistered or interstate change over) inspections is a lucrative business, the guy I used to frequent Richard Mork motors ran a V8 race car team off the proceeds, The side effect was the $100 no questions asked pinkslip supply dried up ad you had to have a legit vehicle.
Here in Austria it’s no inspection for the first 3 years (new vehicles), then a gap of 2 years and every year thereafter. For cars registered as collectors vehicles it’s every 2 years. They check for rust, emissions, brakes, suspension, wipers, glass and safety belts.
This is all applicable for non-modified vehicles. Modifying a vehicle requires an engineer’s report and entry made in the documents. Not cheap and a pain in the butt.
Certified modifications are something that changed in NZ while I was away in Australia, previously there were no rules at all and all the vehicle had to do was pass a very gentle WOF inspection that included a visual rust inspection no prodding with screwdrivers permitted, Some of the mods and very dodgy repairs done years ago were quite lethal in a crash V8 engines crammed into any old rust bucket were common and though fast were nothing even approaching safe, probably a good idea, you are still allowed to radically modify a car but it has to get passed by a certifying engineer to use it on the public roads.
A lot of Americans voice stark cricitism of the usefulness of safety inspections based on their local regulations which in many cases are flawed. Often they’re simply too easy to pass because stricter tests would deny basic access to cheap driving, wherein lies the first fault. And then there are tons of cases where businesses are allowed to do both inspections and repairs, creating a conflict of interest and a potential for exploitation. But this is not inherent to safety inspections, it’s merely a fault in their local regulations.
For safety inspections to have a positive effect on traffic safety they need to be more extensive than merely checking for the presence of headlights and seatbelts, and for safety inspections to be justifiable on an administrative level they need to be wholly separate from the business of repairing cars. Otherwise they will almost inevitably create doubt and distrust.
“they need to be wholly separate from the business of repairing cars”
Not necessarily unless you have to rectify the fault at the place which issues the certificate – not the case here (Austria). You’re there for the inspection, no more no less. If you choose to rectify anything by them, hell yea they’ll be happy to do it. But nobody expects this.
Having spent most of my driving life in states with rather strict vehicle inspection laws (namely NJ and NY), I still find it shocking at times that Florida has no vehicle safety inspection. In particular during heavy rainstorms (of which there are many here obviously) when I see accidents that clearly should have been avoidable had it not perhaps been for faulty or inadequate tires and/or brakes. Add in the fact that we have very lax laws regarding cell phone use, and Florida’s roadways are substantially more dangerous than need be. No need to have tires, brakes or lights checked, and little to no legislation against hand-held cellphone use (unless it’s proven after the fact that the driver was using the phone at the time of the accident) just nonsensical to me.
No research I know of supports annual safety inspections. The insurance industry doesn’t lobby for them. They are outdated thinking. At one time over 30 states required them, now some 17 do, yet traffic injury and death rates are lower than 50 years ago when a majority of states required them.
The usefulness of smog checks on modern cars is also questionable. Research supports that it was and remains valid for older cars, the 80s and back, but is of little to no use now. Only a small percent of drivers modify modern car engines in any significant way.
This all flies against conventional wisdom, and so safety and smog checks continue.
I recall FL used to have safety inspections (or was it emission inspections?) and they annoyed the vast majority of the populace so when Jeb Bush was running for governor years ago he promised to do away with them. And he did. Pre-1975 automobiles were exempt presumably due to the fact American cars of 1974 and before were not required to have catalytic converters. My Falcon has always been exempt from any kind of state-mandated inspection wherever I’ve lived (lived in WPB, FL until 2008 and in GA since).
As others have said, the UK has an annual test (the MoT) from 3 years old although 40 year old cars are now exempt.
My personal hunch is that an annual check is not a bad idea, but it is not the be all and end all of a keeping car safe, but also that the exemption is not necessarily an ideal situation. Potentially, we are one Rover P4 running out of brakes due to lack of inspection from public pressure for restrictions on the use of classics. My suggestion would be for an insurance surcharge for cars without an MoT, which might guide behaviour.
Never understood the “old cars exempt” thing myself because usually old cars require extra care and attention, not less. Of course you have limits in reading emissions or error codes, but brakes, suspension, there’s tons of stuff that can go badly wrong and is easy to inspect visually.
Got an old Buick to “pass” NH state inspection years ago by greasing the mechanic’s palm. Constantly throwing codes, driver door basically inop, etc.
Whole process was a joke.
GA does not require a safety inspection, but cars in the metro Atlanta area have to pass an annual emissions check. When I registered and titled my Nissan truck (bought new in 2000 in NC) in GA in 2013, I had to title my truck first and pay an ad valorum tax (about 8%) of the current appraised value (about $200 as I recall), then pay the registration fee ($20). The one time tax replaced the yearly property tax on the car, probably one of the few sane things that the Gov and State Assembly did right. When I bought my 2010 Venza in 2014 in NC, the dealership took care of the ad valorum tax issue and sent me my new GA registration and plate in the mail. Vehicle emissions testing are capped at $25, but several stations will do it for less. I found a place in my old neighborhood that does it for $15.
Almost of my adult life before age 40 the license plate on my truck seldom matched the state I was living in. From 1983 to 1990 I had a GA plate, and 1990-1998 I had a Wisconsin Truck plate. Neither state had an inspection, nor at the time any kind of emissions test. I just renewed my registration through the mail, especially the Wisconsin reg as it was fixed fee. It was so easy. I lived in CA, MA and NY before giving away my rust-ravaged Toyota truck as I didn’t think it would make the 1000 miles home to GA after 14 years of dependable service.
When I started working for the State of NC in 1999, I had to get an NC drivers license. At the time I was driving my dad’s 1978 Datsun 810 (a car so worthy of a COAL) which still had a GA registration and title. I kept both of those in GA because NC also had a safety inspection and I knew the Datsun was barely roadworthy (blown shocks and bald tires just for starters) in its current condition (gee, thanks dad); it was already a sinkhole just for emissions testing as it failed the initial test both years I renewed it (I’m still not sure why as it neither leaked or burnt oil and the exhaust was generally clear; except for the occasional vapor-lock or ignition gremlin, it also ran well–it was a great highway car but a so-so intown commuter), and turned it back in to dad just before it was time to renew it again in 2001 shortly after I bought my Nissan truck. I lived in Raleigh at the time, and there was a county (Wake) property car tax which because it was a truck that didn’t cost much, was actually nominal as the years went by. Never had a problem with vehicle inspection which was a fixed cost at ~$25 back then.
Late to the party again .
When I was working in the L.A.P.D.’s Central Garage my buddy was the lone mechanic who inspected crashed cars & light trucks for safety and more than 50 % of them had serious defects .
I don’t think the emissions testing does much as I took classes to get my testing license then changed jobs but making sure clunkers don’t smoke is a good thing I think .
The air here in So. Cal. used to be eye wateringly bad almost the entire year round .
In the 1960’s in rural New England we’d just put some S&H green stamps in the lower right corner of the windshield, I don’t think any cops were fooled but those rusty old beaters didn’t go to town much anyway .
-Nate