North Carolina Considers Dumping Vehicle Safety Inspections

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper
north carolina considers dumping vehicle safety inspections

Fourteen state senators want to do away with safety inspections for vehicles in the North Carolina. Led by state Senator Stan Bingham (R-Denton), the group introduced Senate Bill 123 last month in response to a 2008 legislative report suggesting the benefit of imposing the $165 million annual burden on motorists has yielded no measurable safety benefit.

Each year, the state’s 6.1 million vehicles must be taken to a private station for a $13.60 safety inspection. Vehicles registered in half of the state’s counties must also take a $30 emissions test. The state only keeps 85 cents out of the safety inspection fee, with the remainder kept by the inspector who also earns significant revenue by repairing whatever faults he discovers.

The legislative auditors surveyed available data from around the country and concluded that there is no reliable evidence to show that safety inspections reduce accidents. They looked in particular at states that had such programs and later dropped them. Nebraska’s three-year average number of crashes with inspections in place was 1759. After inspections were dumped in 1982, the three-year average dropped to 1486. In North Carolina, vehicle defects only accounted for the cause of one percent of accidents.

The reliability of the tests is also open to question. Pennsylvania officials took a vehicle with thirteen defects to twenty inspection stations. Most found only flagged seven problems, while some stations invented non-existent defects. In North Carolina, 97.7 percent of tested vehicles passed. Cars between ten and thirty years old failed more often, but they comprised a small portion of the state’s vehicles. The reasons cited for failure most often were defective tires, burned out stop lights, inadequate windshield wipers. A total of 30,238 people were failed because of a burned out license plate light. The auditors found this result did not justify the hassles involved.

“In addition to the price of the inspection, motorists also incur other costs associated with getting an inspection,” the report stated. “Travel time, wait time, and time away from work or other activities are costs incurred by individuals who must get a vehicle inspection. The Program Evaluation Division estimates the indirect costs associated with getting an emissions inspection are approximately $21 million.”

Although the air quality in North Carolina has been improving, the auditors had no way to link the improvement to the emissions testing program. Because federal rules handed down by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) govern the operation of the emissions inspection program, state lawmakers are not entirely free to drop the program without first obtaining EPA approval of their plans. The legislative auditors recommended that at least newer vehicles be exempted from the annual hassle.

“Program Evaluation Division analysis shows newer vehicles are less likely to fail emissions inspections,” the report stated. “Analysis also shows exempting vehicles from the three newest model years does not affect the overall failure rate for the state. By exempting vehicles from the three newest model years, the state would relieve the annual emissions requirement for 19 percent of vehicles.”

A copy of the legislative study is available in a 1mb PDF file at the source link below.

Doubtful Return on the Publics $141 Million Investment (North Carolina General Assembly, 12/1/2008)


Join the conversation
5 of 35 comments
  • Golden2husky Golden2husky on Mar 17, 2011

    Inspection programs run out of independent shops have the potential for ripping off the customer, but overall I think both safety and emissions should be mandated in all states. Yes, there are states that do both - like mine - despite what one has said on this site in the past. Ripoffs could be minimized by having ringers sent to shops to detect scammers. Hit them with a serious penalty and the will likely not be tempted to screw the customer. Way too many folks drive with unsafe cars. Some do so out of ignorance, others do so because they don't want to spend any money. Half the cars in the wrecking yard still sport the original struts. It is just an unfortunate fact that some will not pay for safety repairs unless forced to. Sure plenty do, but why should people be exposed to unecessary risks over somebody's cheapness? Rich conservatives shouldn't care; most drive new(er) cars that don't need inspections...

    • See 2 previous
    • Dan Dan on Mar 17, 2011
      Rich conservatives shouldn’t care; most drive new(er) cars that don’t need inspections… That's exactly it. I already inspect my cars. Not because it's the law - which it isn't in this state - but because it's the responsible thing to do. Being ordered to do it again as if I'm a dependent child who would drive on exposed belts without Father Knows Best marching me down to the garage is offensive. Stop punishing me for what other people might do.

  • Beefmalone Beefmalone on Mar 18, 2011

    I see alot of posts from people wanting inspections "for the children." We have only cursory inspections in MS and they only cost $5. However, as with all things, if you really need a sticker then you can usually buy one sight-unseen for $20. The point is that these people riding around on bald tires & dragging mufflers probably aren't doing so out of laziness but of something called BEING BROKE. In their case, they are going to drive with or without an inspection. Having them is just another way for the gov't to milk us for a few more bucks in exchange for a fleeting impression of "safety" that fails to stand up to hard scrutiny.

  • FreedMike I don't know why this dash shocks anyone - the whole "touchscreen uber alles" thing is pure Tesla.
  • ToolGuy CXXVIII comments?!?
  • ToolGuy I did truck things with my truck this past week, twenty-odd miles from home (farther than usual). Recall that the interior bed space of my (modified) truck is 98" x 74". On the ride home yesterday the bed carried a 20 foot extension ladder (10 feet long, flagged 14 inches past the rear bumper), two other ladders, a smallish air compressor, a largish shop vac, three large bins, some materials, some scrap, and a slew of tool cases/bags. It was pretty full, is what I'm saying.The range of the Cybertruck would have been just fine. Nothing I carried had any substantial weight to it, in truck terms. The frunk would have been extremely useful (lock the tool cases there, out of the way of the Bed Stuff, away from prying eyes and grasping fingers -- you say I can charge my cordless tools there? bonus). Stainless steel plus no paint is a plus.Apparently the Cybertruck bed will be 78" long (but over 96" with the tailgate folded down) and 60-65" wide. And then Tesla promises "100 cubic feet of exterior, lockable storage — including the under-bed, frunk and sail pillars." Underbed storage requires the bed to be clear of other stuff, but bottom line everything would have fit, especially when we consider the second row of seats (tools and some materials out of the weather).Some days I was hauling mostly air on one leg of the trip. There were several store runs involved, some for 8-foot stock. One day I bummed a ride in a Roush Mustang. Three separate times other drivers tried to run into my truck (stainless steel panels, yes please). The fuel savings would be large enough for me to notice and to care.TL;DR: This truck would work for me, as a truck. Sample size = 1.
  • Art Vandelay Dodge should bring this back. They could sell it as the classic classic classic model
  • Surferjoe Still have a 2013 RDX, naturally aspirated V6, just can't get behind a 4 banger turbo.Also gloriously absent, ESS, lane departure warnings, etc.