Posted on 08/20/2015 1:07:02 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
I agree the inspector should be fired, but charged with manslaughter?
As another poster noted, a guilty verdict leaves repair shops with some bad options:1. Drop out of the state inspection program. People in rural areas would have to drive greater distances to find an accredited inspection site. Inevitably, they would start to bitch about it and the state would step in and force repair shops to participate.
2. Increase the amount they charge for inspection fees. Again, people would bitch about it and some state legislator would get on his soapbox to complain about repair shops “gouging” the poor citizens.
3. Be extra-diligent in documenting repair issues. Mechanics would start to list every little problem with someone’s car to make sure they covered their ass. People would bitch about over-aggressive mechanics trying to sell them repairs that they don’t need. Some state legislator would then think it’s a good idea to regulate the price that mechanics can charge for repairs.
4. Give more cars a failing grade on the inspection. The people who own failing cars would start to bitch about it. Some of them would allege racism, ageism, sexism, etc. “You only failed me because I”m (fill in grievance here).” Some state legislator would jump on the bandwagon and promise to root out the evil racist repair shops.
I don’t live in Vermont, but they have the only Socialist senator in the United States, so I’m going to assume a majority of it’s citizens think more government is always better.
I think state-mandated “safety” inspections of automobiles should be done away with (in any/all states which still have them), and that individual vehicle owners should be responsible for the condition of their vehicles.
Amen! Just another way for the state to grab more of our money.
So you’re OK with dangerous and unsafe vehicles on the road?
I’ve lived in New England (though not Vermont). Most inspection stations up there are fairly strict already, and if they fail you they write it up with the specific item(s) that failed the inspection and why, and you are given a certain amount of time wherein you can correct the defect and reinspect without incurring a new fee. The fees are set by the state, so there would be no accusations of gouging, and if the fee has to go up due to the additional workload, the station owners can band together to make sure it is properly addressed by the state’s fee schedule, while remaining fair.
In New England in particular, rust is the real enemy, not component failures. It’s not a component repair; if the car fails on too much corrosion it’s pretty obvious, and it’s not the kind of thing you can accuse the shop of trying to upsell you on (indeed, most garages and body shops up there refuse to do rust repairs). If you want to negate the “repairs I don’t need” accusation, simply require that any repairs be conducted by someone (vehicle owner’s choice) other than the garage doing the inspection. You could even have state-run inspection stations set up that do nothing but inspections, so you have no choice but to go elsewhere to have any deficiencies corrected.
That’s how it is in Arkansas.
Doucette’s in Melrose, MA 1977. “Is you car somewhere on the planet?” Here’s your sticker.
As mentioned, that is how it is in Arkansas, and while there is the potential for increased risk from other unsafe vehicles, the owner of the unsafe vehicle by default assumes all the extra risk from driving that vehicle, so there’s an incentive not to drive a dangerous vehicle. That’s how personal liberty ought to work.
The federal government is, they let unsafe Mexican trucks haul ass down our highways each and every day, some of the operators with licenses, some of them without.
“At this point, what difference does it make?” ;)
And don’t forget unsafe Mexican buses.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman,_Texas_bus_accident
I do to. But they are the product of blackmail and greed. Blackmail on the part of the Fed who says, "Mandate these emissions inspections for your drivers or you won't get any Federal highway money.
To which the greedy politicians in the states say, "Oooh...millions and millions in highway money!? Surely we need that. We could easily skim some for us and give lip service to the condition of the roads around here."
Massachusetts being the perfect example. The roads here suck. Yet we pay $30 per year and MAYBE we get a safety inspection. The Commonwealth's computer system tells the service station whether a safety inspection needs to be done or not.
mechanic got himself into this by admitting he did not perform inspection tasks. If he had said in my professional judgment it looked ok, it would be much more arguable in court.
The Vermont government should be charged as a co-conspirator in his death, therefore.
Argued like a true big-government liberal.
My serious answer is: If it is part of the cost of smaller government, then I am willing to live with the possibility that some unsafe vehicles may be on the road. I will also add that statistically speaking, there is little to no historical difference in accident and fatality rates caused by faulty equipment between states which require "safety" inspections and those which do not.
So, I could ask you: "So you're OK with the government regulating [fill in some aspect of your life here] even when there is no demonstrable, critical benefit to the general welfare?"
Apparently not for some of us, though. Perhaps it is time for "Responsibility2nd" to consider adopting a new screen name...
Because mechanics can't keep up and then charged with Manslaughter if they mess up.
Good grief! I just noticed your tag-line.
have you even READ it recently?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.