On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:32:12 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >
> >> >> There has never been a correlation between the number of accidents = and
> >> >> (safety) inspections, or lack thereof, demonstrated. They are a
> >> >> license to steal, however.
>
> >> > The only advantage to the inspections is that the police have to wri= te a
> >> > lot fewer fix-it tickets, so they can be doing other traffic enforce= ment.
>
> >> > Do any states still have periodic safety inspections? When I lived i= n
> >> > Florida and they started doing them it was every six months at first= .
> >> > Then they changed to every year, then one governor was fed up with t= hem
> >> > and got rid of them entirely. You did notice a lot more cars on the = road
> >> > with burned out lights and rusted out exhaust systems, but as you sa= id,
> >> > there's no evidence that the inspections led to fewer accidents. >
> >> I think states without vehicle inspections are the minority.
>
> >Michigan has neither emissions nor safety inspections. =A0The
> >EPA keeps threatening us with emissions, but I think Lansing
> >knows that they'd be lynched if they messed with people's
> >cars.
>
> >Cindy Hamilton
>
> Your state receives far less Federal Highway funding if you don't have
> an emissions testing program That's okay, because it means that states
> such as mine that do have it are splitting up what you don't get!
We also get less because we can't come up with matching funds.
Well, that explains why our roads are so lousy.
Who'da thunk I'd end up living in a third-world state?
Still, everybody in Lansing knows that requiring emissions/safety inspections would be the end of their political career, so they're willing to forego the money from Washington.
Cindy Hamilton