[quote="jocko758"]Unfortunately I beleive inspections are necessary fo the 10% of idiots would couldn't care less if their vehichle is leaking oil all over the place or what their exhaust system is belching out not to mention faulty brakes, broken shocks etc etc.[/quote]
Where did you get the 10% figure.
I would back this law if the state did something about the road chemicals being used. They are causing serious damage to all vehicles. Safety issues. These chemicals, mixed with salt and road debris, become hygroscopic in nature. They continue to corrode your vehicle all summer long. These chemicals attack brake lines, fuel lines, and fuel tanks. They have an amazing wicking ability and they aggressively attack a vehicles electrical system. Legislatures need to address these concerns before doing away with state inspections.
I would also like to disclose that I hold all state inspestion licenses, but I cannot inspect my own vehicle because I work for a fleet station.
Do you know how much extra work those chemicals create for the automotive industry and car dealers? Of course the bureaucrats aren't going to stop using the salt brine crap. Some lobbyists would be infuriated and demand a refund!
Dale, legislators need to look at this issue from a safety point. If they knowingly ignore it and put the the people of Maine in harms way, what does it say about them. I hope none of our Republican legislators support this law without looking into the chemical situation. I have been a heavy equipment/truck technician for over 30 years, and I have never seen the damage that I have been seeing in the last 5 years. What scares me, is a lot of the times, the corrosion starts from the inside and works its way out. By the time it is noticeable, the damage is extensive. It turns aluminum into powder. It accelerates electrolysis between differing metals, and it causes damage I already mentioned.
Instead of changing the inspection requirements, I say the legislation should give people who have registered vehicles a 1000 dollar tax deduction per vehicle.
Robert: Your experience is with vehicles that are spreading chemicals and treating the roads. You are making a big leap to assume that the same thing is happening to regular vehicles.
If things are as you suggest, there should be lots of data to support your claim.
It should be pretty clear that the salt brine crap on the roads is detrimental to the metal of a vehicle. They never used to rust this bad this fast. Like I said, it's to the benefit of car sellers and mechanics who have to fix all the rust damage or sell replacement cars. The chemicals do not save many lives, it just destroys our cars and makes people more reckless, thinking they can go 70 when its snowing.
It would save the state money to not spread that crap, and it would save car owners money by not having to fix extensive rust damage on their vehicles in short order. Ban the Brine!
[quote="Robert"]Dale, legislators need to look at this issue from a safety point.[/quote] I disagree. We do too much of that.
You can make the case for a lot of unnecessary (IMHO) laws or the repeal of them by playing the safety card - madatory bike helmets for kids, primary offense seat belt law, and in this session, strict new boating legislation among just a few. You've all heard it - "If it saves one life, Mr. Speaker..."
Besides all that, there is no need to inspect a one or even two year old car.
When I was a kid, you saw cars with visible rust all the time. You hardly ever see that today.
I drive over 30,000 miles per year and have never had a problem like you suggest.
How new is your car, and how often can you afford to trade it in? The brine may not show obvious signs of decay of a car in a year or two, but give it five and you will see it.
[quote="Dan Billings"]When I was a kid, you saw cars with visible rust all the time. You hardly ever see that today.
True - We are much "safer" today.
[quote="DalekMagi"]How new is your car, and how often can you afford to trade it in? The brine may not show obvious signs of decay of a car in a year or two, but give it five and you will see it.[/quote]
I traded in a Dodge Neon last December that I bought used in July of 2000. I was good about having maintenance done regurlarly, but never had any problems like Robert suggested.
Dan, surely you upgraded to a vehicle more commensurate to a person of your intelligence !
I am now driving a Toyota Corrolla.
I had a 1995 Dodge Neon that I liked a lot and is stil being driven by a family member. The 2000 Neon that I had until last year I did not like as much.
[quote="Dan Billings"]Robert: Your experience is with vehicles that are spreading chemicals and treating the roads.
If things are as you suggest, there should be lots of data to support your claim.[/quote]
Dan, my experience is also with cars and pickup trucks. I have been compiling data that falls on deaf ears. No municipal or state leaders wants anything to do with fighting this battle.
J. McKane, if that is not the most uninformed statements that I have ever heard.. You have no clue as to what these chemicals are doing and you just blow it off. I am seeing first hand, and nobody will listen. I will fight this law change for safety reasons.
I back Robert on this one. I've talked to numerous mechanics who have told me that they've done more brake line replacements in the last few years than they have in the last 20. It's not a coincidence.
When my wife's Blazer, admittedly an older model, went in for inspection last year, the mechanic literally broke off a piece of brake line with his hands.
The newer vehicles use a different compound for the brake lines, I've been told, but if you have an older one, be prepared for a rather costly replacement.
[quote="DalekMagi"]The idea that uninspected cars are going to cause some kind of surge in automotive deaths is just terror talk promoted by the state to keep us subservient to their corrupt bureaucratic system. It's the same mantra they use to justify gun laws. "Oh, if we don't keep permitting requirements, there'll be a bloodbath!" What a load of crap. Welcome to the inspection station, Comrade. Mr. Stalin will make sure your vehicle is in perfect shape, and certify you as safe for only a minor contribution to the glory of the State!
[b]My vehicle inspection station doesn't go by the book, thank god. No test drives, and most of the time they don't use the lift. It's "honk the horn, turn on the lights, test the brakes," and sticker on. No, I won't tell you where I inspect, and they probably wouldn't be as lenient with your car if they don't know you.[/quote][/b]
I realize that the rules don't consider it, but if a mechanic regularly sees a car or truck for oil changes, general repairs etc. periocically during the year he probably knows if it has any issues or not befoe he performs the inspection. A strange vehicle would need a much more thorough inspection.
That great in theory Dennis, but how many people change their own oil or use places like Jiffy Lube?
[quote="Robert"]J. McKane, if that is not the most uninformed statements that I have ever heard.. You have no clue as to what these chemicals are doing and you just blow it off. I am seeing first hand, and nobody will listen. I will fight this law change for safety reasons.[/quote]
Robert - I had to replace two break line (drivers side, front and back) on my van last year. Inspection didn't find the problem, pedal going half-way to the floor clued me in. The truck still stopped with only 3/4 of its brakes, just pulled a bit.
I still think there is too much "safety" legislation and cars that are only a couple of years old don't need an inspection.
[quote="J. McKane"] I still think there is too much "safety" legislation and cars that are only a couple of years old don't need an inspection.[/quote]
I agree with the first part of your statement, but I have also seen cars a few years old with some serious issues.
Give vehicle owners a 1000 dollar tax deduction for each registered vehicle.
[quote="Robert"]Dale, legislators need to look at this issue from a safety point. If they knowingly ignore it and put the the people of Maine in harms way, what does it say about them. I hope none of our Republican legislators support this law without looking into the chemical situation.
Instead of changing the inspection requirements, I say the legislation should give people who have registered vehicles a 1000 dollar tax deduction per vehicle.[/quote]
Maine is in the minority of states that still cling to annual safety inspection for a false sense of vehicle safety. I have lived in states without inspection programs and I thought the locals were ignorant for being so foolish with safety, then I realized that I was just a brainwashed east coast refugee. Most failures result in the car becoming inoperable, not speeding off a cliff in a ball of flames.
States without safety inspections simply rely on law enforcement to take care of the obvious offenders, and let's face it, just because something is not safe under the Maine inspection program does not mean that it will ever result in an accident. Additionally, too many people are under the impression that an inspection technician is actually a talented mechanic. In Maine there is no requirement for ASE certifications for inspection techs, just a brainless exam that anyone can pass after a few minutes of study. There are plenty of very talented people doing inspections and repairs, but just like any other profession, there are too many hacks out there and Maine does not provide any oversight in this area.
Very few accidents are actually caused be mechanical failures, there are plenty of studies that support this fact, it's not my opinion. This is an outdated program that should go away. Do you realize how many "people from away" are driving our roads every year without inspections? Are they crashing in record numbers compared to our safe cars? Of course not!
I took my'03 pickup in for state inspection today. Things were kind of slow--it was in the service bay about 45 minutes. Passed with no repairs excepting the new winter wiper blades (which I requested going in). The bill was $39.00. The shop did not get rich on this job. I do have almost all my work done there, buy tires there etc.
How bout this.
No inspection on new vehicles for the first 4 years
they get a 4 year sticker at time of delivery from the New Car Dealer.
from 4 years old on it's a 2 year sticker.
Same cost to the consumer for a 2 year sticker as ther is for a 1 year sticker.
Self inspection for motorcycles, no one gets their bikes inspected anyhow.
Try all you want, you cannot make the [b]corrosion issue [/b]with brakes and other parts go away with
the liquid salt we have in Maine. IT'S a BAD THING. GET IT?
I don't get it. "Liquid salt"???? Sodium chloride itself becomes liquid at some intense temperature. If what is meant is a salt solution then that happens when NaCl is disolved in water. What is all this talk of "liquid salt." put salt on the road and it disolves if the temperature is right. There is nothing magical about it. Is it some mystery salt, some mystery product of a metal and and acid? What is this all about>
[quote="attic owl"]I don't get it. "Liquid salt"???? [/quote]
Attic Owl, people see the state and municipalities spreading liquid on the roads and they assume it is liquid salt. What it actually is, is calcium chloride or magnesium chloride mixed with sugar or syrup, making a very sticky mixture. The theory is, it sticks to the roads and provides continued protection long after the storm.
This mixture soaks into the roads and keeps the roads wet and sticky for days after the storm. Ever notice on a humid July or August night, the roads seem wet and sticky?
Anyway, this mixture also gets thrown up by your tires and the vehicle in front of you. It has an unbelievable wicking quality. It gets into places where a car wash cannot clean. It loves electrical connector ( I have had to cut wires back 18 inches to find good wire.) and places that have differing metals. It turns aluminum into powder. You cannot simply wash it off the bottom of your car. It has to be neutralized to be truly removed. The last time I bought the neutralizer, it was 1500 dollars for a 55 gallon drum.
When this chemical mixes with road sand, dirt, and debris, it forms a concrete like substance in hard to clean places under your vehicle. This substance is hygroscopic in nature, meaning it has the ability to draw in humidity. It is still working on humid days in July and August when snow and corrosion is the furthest thing from your mind.
Democratic Rep. Bryan Kaenrath, claims the reason for this bill, is people are spending too much money on repairs. All he is doing is delaying the repair costs. The second year, when your sticker is due, it will most likely cost you more money because the problems were not caught on an annual basis.
If Rep. Kaenrath was truly concerned about the costs, he would sponsor a bill that would give every vehicle owner a 1000 dollar deduction on their state tax forms for every registered vehicle they own. That would not only offset the corrosion issues, it would offset all the front end and suspension problems caused by our fine roads. Think about it.
This stuff has only been in use for a few years, wait a few more and see what it has done to our bridges. :shock:
There has been more than little auto technician bashing going on here so let me pull out that "personal responsibility" dogma that all of we conservatives are so fond of trumpeting.
If the auto service provider of YOUR choice is not meeting your needs due to competency, honesty, or whatever, find yourself a new boy. Simple. Over the years I have met many, many technicians and the overwhelming majority are doing the very best job they can and there are no greater number of schisters amongst us than any other service provider, blue collar or otherwise. If you have been unfortunate enough to fall into the lair of an illiterate knuckle dragger, pull your wagon outta there and do what works best, whine long and loud to all your friends and relatives about this individual. Most Maine markets are small and local, and the weasels in those markets won't survive for long with bad word of mouth.
As far as this corrosion issue goes, I would suggest folks go and ask the people who walk under these vehicles all day, every day. If you find one, just one that remarks- "I can't imagine what everybody is babbling about, this rust and corrosion explosion", then you have just found one of the illiterate knuckledraggers mentioned above. As I write this on my lunch break I have a five year old vehicle in my yard that has 69K on the clock that is going to need about 600 bucks worth of brake lines and master cylinder to ABS module lines. Nothing out of the ordinary here, absolutely normal.
There is a sliver of good news on the tubing products front. There is a product new to the market that is a copper nickel alloy that is impervious to corrosion. (Well, as impervious as anything can be in this chemical cocktail that is applied to the roads in Maine.) This tubing is about three times as much as conventional tubing but is worth every last cent. Forget stainless, remember homeys, it's STAIN LESS, not STAIN PROOF. And besides, stainless is much harder to work with. If there are gluttons for punishment that like to do their own tubing wrangling, go to your local jobber and ask for this new tubing, if they don't have it, ask them to find it, if they can't find it, get on net and find it. If your going to go through the tortuous process of removing your lines from vehicle and bending new ones into the pretzels that are required to make new ones fit, do it with tubing that will live in Maine. And lotsa luck.
OK, so what's the point of this new more corrosive substance on the roads vs good old sand and salt? Is there data that says it's cheaper per storm or something?
It seems as though the added maintenance and repair cost to the average vehicle owner far outweighs any benefit.
The way I see it, the best solution would be to quit using the new stuff, then the whole terror of impending brake failure goes away. That should reduce vehicle maintenance costs, and at the same time give an added buffer of safe life to vehicle components to eliminate the arguements against abolishing the inspection system.
If the new materials are really as bad as everyone claims, it should be easy to come up with data to support what is being alleged.
I found this article on the [url=http://www.mdt.mt.gov/mdt/travinfo_faq.shtml]Montana DOT[/url] Website about the chemicals. Scroll down to get the cost factor. I don't necessarily buy into it, but it is another perspective.
Dan raises a good question, where's the data?
Starboard makes a good point about stainless brakelines too. Anyone involved in the industry knows that stainless is your last choice, it is expensive and has terrible material characteristics other than corrosion performance. It looks nice on race cars, but isn't the best choice for brakelines unless other precautions are taken, especially on retrofits.
Also, if we are so concerned about keeping a safety inspection to make sure our vehicles are roadworthy for a full year, why are you against de-icing the road so we don't crash and die? I'd rather avoid an accident at the risk of my car rusting away a year or two earlier than it should.
Also, now that we reduced the use of sand (rocks, etc) I haven't lost a windshield, and if I do experience the chronic rusting plague, I can use my windshield savings to make the required repairs!