Texas?!? I'm shocked.

[CFerguson]

"...An annual safety inspection is required as a prerequisite to registering a vehicle. Valid out-of-state safety inspection certificates will not be honored on vehicles that are required to be registered. Every motor vehicle, trailer, pole trailer, or mobile home registered in the state must be inspected at an inspection station or by an inspector annually...."

I didn't know TX had an annual inspection requirement for anything. Last I knew, some metro areas had smog inspection requirements, but never this. I had always classified TX as one of the Freedom States.


eta: oops, forgot the link: https://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/emissions-inspection/

[colliehauler]

twodownzero wrote:

monkey44 wrote:
Inspections help keep junk and unsafe vehicles off the road. It's a pretty inexpensive safeguard for the highways.

I would imagine, on the contrary, it's an extraordinary expense to the taxpayers for which the fees do not cover the expense of having the inspections. I also suspect that the social costs it avoids, accidents due to equipment failures, are much more common and cause much less property damage than you might expect. I recall seeing some data on NHTSA's website regarding tire failures and the average amount of property damage caused by tire failures. The average loss was less than what a single tire for my pickup costs. Most people simply do not drive enough or keep an older car long enough for major, catastrophic failures to cause any harm to anyone else. When's the last time you saw a vehicle on the side of the road with a separated tie rod or a broken ball joint that wasn't from an accident? How frequently do you read about a brake failure that causes major bodily injury or property damage? My suspicion suggests that hiring even one more police officer to enforce the laws against distracted driving would be wayyyyy more cost effective than inspecting 100% of the vehicles to catch a fraction of 1% of the vehicles out there that are truly dangerous. Not to mention that the ones who aren't complying are probably strongly correlated with the fraction of 1% we're talking about.

Googling "efficacy of vehicle inspections" returned results that overwhelmingly supported abolishing these inspections; one website says that $600 million alone is spent in a single year dealing with them in Pennsylvania. Another website claimed that insurance rates are no lower in states requiring inspections, suggesting that the actuaries share my view--that these inspections are a wash at best. I am not a statistician or professional economist so I don't know the actual answer. But my intuition suggests as I claim above, that vehicle inspections for personal vehicles are more costly than the problem they seek to reduce or eliminate. I would be genuinely surprised to learn otherwise.

Thanks Twodownzero for more in depth of what I was saying. People are trying to create a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, statistically.

[garym114]

Makes no difference what other states require. To get a registration sticker you have to have proof of the required liability insurance and it has to have passed the safety inspection within 3 months of paying the registration fee.

[twodownzero]

monkey44 wrote:
Inspections help keep junk and unsafe vehicles off the road. It's a pretty inexpensive safeguard for the highways.

I would imagine, on the contrary, it's an extraordinary expense to the taxpayers for which the fees do not cover the expense of having the inspections. I also suspect that the social costs it avoids, accidents due to equipment failures, are much more common and cause much less property damage than you might expect. I recall seeing some data on NHTSA's website regarding tire failures and the average amount of property damage caused by tire failures. The average loss was less than what a single tire for my pickup costs. Most people simply do not drive enough or keep an older car long enough for major, catastrophic failures to cause any harm to anyone else. When's the last time you saw a vehicle on the side of the road with a separated tie rod or a broken ball joint that wasn't from an accident? How frequently do you read about a brake failure that causes major bodily injury or property damage? My suspicion suggests that hiring even one more police officer to enforce the laws against distracted driving would be wayyyyy more cost effective than inspecting 100% of the vehicles to catch a fraction of 1% of the vehicles out there that are truly dangerous. Not to mention that the ones who aren't complying are probably strongly correlated with the fraction of 1% we're talking about.

Googling "efficacy of vehicle inspections" returned results that overwhelmingly supported abolishing these inspections; one website says that $600 million alone is spent in a single year dealing with them in Pennsylvania. Another website claimed that insurance rates are no lower in states requiring inspections, suggesting that the actuaries share my view--that these inspections are a wash at best. I am not a statistician or professional economist so I don't know the actual answer. But my intuition suggests as I claim above, that vehicle inspections for personal vehicles are more costly than the problem they seek to reduce or eliminate. I would be genuinely surprised to learn otherwise.

[Dutch_12078]

colliehauler wrote:
Just add another fee to go along with the new tag upgrade fee and vehicle theft prevention fee that was just added. Far more accidents from stupidity of drivers then from vehicle failures.

Perhaps you can enlighten me to how many deaths from vehicle failure out of the 380 that died last year. Could not find data from the MN state on any mechanical failure fatalities.

I doubt that there's any accurate reporting of accidents caused by worn tires or brakes that prevented a vehicle from stopping the few feet shorter that could have made the difference between a hit and a miss unless the wear is so extensive that it's obvious.

[bobsallyh]

I would suggest you try Pennsylvania State Vehicle Inspection on for size.

[CFerguson]

sayoung wrote:
OP, you moving here or just bashing Texas ? The inspection costs a whole whopping $14 . We also require an upgrade to your DL if your RV's gvwr or combined gvwr exceeds 26001 lbs.

No, certainly not bashing. Just ran across it and it seemed so.....UnTexan to me. Wondering how they slipped that one by you all.

I imagine that it aint the money, its the aggravation of it all. Unless you like giving money to gov and taking time from your off time to do a gov HoneyDo. Glad we don't do it in my state- hope you all can get it changed there.

Also the OP was to give out the link for state comparisons from AAA since you asked my motivation.

[BB_TX]

Texas has required inspections as long as I can remember. And I was born and raised in TX and been driving here since 1962.

[rexlion]

Land of the free, home of the inspected.

[sayoung]

DougE wrote:
My two cargo trailers are no longer required to get inspections in Texas. Don't know about RV's though. Just change 2 years ago I think.

My buddy over at TxDPS says the boat industries lobbiests got the inspection raised to 7700lbs gvwr minimum before inspection needed.

[sayoung]

OP, you moving here or just bashing Texas ? The inspection costs a whole whopping $14 . We also require an upgrade to your DL if your RV's gvwr or combined gvwr exceeds 26001 lbs.

[DougE]

My two cargo trailers are no longer required to get inspections in Texas. Don't know about RV's though. Just change 2 years ago I think.

[wanderingaimles]

TX, I believe has had these for a few years, for the fulltimers, you have 30 days after re-entering Tx, before it becomes an issue. How you prove the 30 days??? I have no idea.

[CFerguson]

down home wrote:
My interpretations is it's about the money. Here in Tn you have to register a canoe or a log if you are going to use it in the water and a boater safety course is mandatory as is flotation devices, and a list of things. In the fifties though the eighties who would ever have thought of this. It is, "there ought to be a law," its about the children, it is about safety and the tally is over a hundred dollars.
And hunting and fishing licenses for deer and trout too approaching 200.00 and what does it get more Rangers to make sure your paperwork is in order....and trails and such for bird watchers etc who don't pay any of the freight.
Sorry drifted a bit off subject but it iss all about the money.

Exactly. Give em time and they'll think of a thousand more ways to get their greedy hands into your pocket. For the children. For safety. For whatever tugs at your heart strings. The gov is like the House in vegas- the more cash that passes thru the system, the more 'off the top' goes to those in control.

[rfloyd99]

I live in Florida, a popular state of domicile for RVers. There is no inspection of vehicles required here.

I lived in Texas until mid 80's, and felt that the inexpensive inspection was a good idea. One thing they looked for was headlights not being properly aimed, or being too bright! I know because I once bought some fancy upgraded headlights for some reason, and they wouldn't pass inspection.

[colliehauler]

B.O. Plenty wrote:
I wish every State had a required inspection. Some of the rotted out junk running around here is an accident waiting to happen.

B.O.

Just add another fee to go along with the new tag upgrade fee and vehicle theft prevention fee that was just added. Far more accidents from stupidity of drivers then from vehicle failures.

Perhaps you can enlighten me to how many deaths from vehicle failure out of the 380 that died last year. Could not find data from the MN state on any mechanical failure fatalities.