CDZ Should passenger vehicle inspections be required?

[320 Years of History]

My feeling is people also should have a liability factor in keeping "non bubbled" tires on their cars or whatever. Its difficult to hit 70 year old Marge after an accident with a good 5 year criminally negligent homicide charge if her tires were obviously bad.

Not sure what you are getting at here.

if a hypothetical suburbanite named Ned Flanders kills me in a car wreck because their brake line failed and investigators found out the lines were craked would you support throwing Ned Flanders in jail for homicide or something?

The brake lines in my GMC Sierra 3500 dually failed and I lost brakes.
they rusted out.
Seems that GM knew about this and instead of fixing the faulty lines, they put out a statement saying that it was the responsibility of the owner to keep his brake lines cleaned and inspected once a year.
Like, WTF is going to climb under their pickup truck once a year to wash and wax brake lines.
No GM brake line recall, Govt says wash your car

It's called due diligence, if you don't do it, you are asking for trouble.

Dude I worked with wrecked his 2000 Siverado...brake hardline failed due to corrosion, he went into a tree and totalled the truck. The truck had been inspected (by a dealer) less than six weeks previous.

Also, some brake lines corrode & fail at locations that cannot be seen. (Offhand, some Tauruses would corrode above the fuel tank.)

Red:
Be that as it may, there remains a span of time after which one can reasonably expect that some degradation in brake performance due to brake line failure is more likely than it is less or un likely. For example, "According to the NHTSA, roughly seven years of exposure to winter road salts is enough for a model year 2007 vehicle to be susceptible to brake line corrosion."

I doubt that anyone thinks or expects inspections to catch and eliminate every form of equipment failure; however, performing them regularly, acting on what one finds when the inspection shows potential issues, and using good judgment re: things that may not be readily visible to most owners during a cursory "look see" will catch the vast majority of them.

Off topic, but for the sake of comparison:
One need only consider airplane pre-flight testing that pilots (are supposed to) do prior to every flight. I don't know how much you fly on commercial planes, but if you fly a lot, you've surely found yourself sitting on the plane waiting for a piece of equipment to show up and be replaced before leaving the gate. I know I've experienced that at least three times a year. General aviation pilots/crews make the same checks before every flight as well, or at least they are supposed to. Surely you don't think that those inspections have no bearing on the very, very low rates of planes falling from the sky?

To put that into perspective, between 1990 and 2006, there were 158 airline fatal crashes due to equipment failure, which accounted for 23% of all fatal airplane accidents. Of the 158, eight had something to do with landing gear and tires. There are over 100K airplane flights per day per year, and there are ~20K active commercial airplanes in operation. In the U.S. there are about 9.5 million flights per year. Approximately 7000 planes perform those flights.

When it comes to inspecting and reacting responsibly to the results of checking the tire pressure can reduce the risk of a crash happening. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s website safercar.gov reports that worn tires cause nearly 11,000 crashes and 200 deaths annually. There are approximately 256M passenger vehicles in the U.S.

How do airplanes and passenger vehicles compare?

• (equipment failure airplane crashes between 1990 and '06 ÷ 17 years) = an average of 9.2 crashes per year due to equipment failure (EF) per year
  (landing gear/tire related crashes between 1990 and '06 ÷ 17 years) = an average of 0.47 crashes due to landing gear failure per year (LGF)
  (EF ÷ 9,500,000) = 0.000096842105263158% = annual rate of global EF crashes assuming U.S. flights account for all of them
• (11,000÷256,000,000) = 0.004296875000000000% = annual rate of U.S. tire related car crashes in the U.S. based on the data above

I hope that looking at the analysis above I have used the least favorable set of stats available for comparing them. I could have used quantity of planes, but that's absurd because planes are expected to be in "good as new" mechanical operating condition before every flight; ground vehicles are not.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Is it your position, then, that anyone with a Taurus should remove the fuel tank annually to check brake lines?

 

[320 Years of History]

Is it your position, then, that anyone with a Taurus should remove the fuel tank annually to check brake lines?

A thing to keep in mind is that normal brake line corrosion, like tire wear, is a progressive thing. It's not as though today the line is not corroded and tomorrow it is to the point of causing brake failure. Now I don't know if the brake lines leak or show other operationally noticeable signs of failure before they just fail at the 100% level. If they do, I think there's no excuse for not having them inspected and replaced annually (regardless of whether one does either or both as a DIY project or one has a mechanic do it) if the inspection results militate for doing so.

If indeed the failure of brake lines due to corrosion above the fuel tank won't show any sign of being so, then, no, I don't think annual inspection of that car part is called for. That's not to say some periodic inspection of the brake lines above a Taurus' fuel tank isn't called for.

If there's some other basis for being able to reasonably infer that insofar as the brake lines above the fuel tank have been there for X years, it's probably time to at least check to see if they have begun to (are) corroded. Now if you're going to tell me the brake lines above the fuel tank have a track record of corroding within a year of a new Taurus' being sold and driven, well, yes, then an annual check (or in the worst case, by default replacing them annually) may very well be warranted.

One might think of it conceptually similar to inspecting for any number of specific and foreseeable impairments. For example, we know that some men get prostate cancer. Doctors know that prostate cancer is very rare among men under 40 or so, but after that, a periodic examination is warranted.

FWIW, I know Ford makes a car called a Taurus, but I can't tell you I know what one even looks like these days, and neither do I care what it looks like. (I had one as a company car back in the 1990s.) Out of curiosity I Googled the issue you mentioned re: the brake line corrosion and came across this photo illustrating it. (click on photo for source)



Now I don't know about you, but looking at that photo, I see a lot of dried road salt on the frame of the car. I have to believe that given that the car has all that corrosion on bits besides the brake line, it has similar corrosion to greater or lesser extents in more readily visible parts of the car as well. To the extent it might, I would expect a responsible owner to at least ask a mechanic if it's reasonable to presume there might be other parts that are similarly or perhaps more corroded than what can be seen and if so, what parts they might be.

While I don't think the cost of actual replacement is prohibitive, it seems that in 2009, replacing all the brake lines was ~$370. (I assume it's more now, but not disproportionately more.) I absolutely think that is well within what one should expect and prepare for as being part of the cost of maintaining a car, particularly a car more than about five years old and that might reasonably be presumed to have been driven in snowy areas. (I think that's a reasonable assumption for any used car one buys given that most used cars come to their sellers/dealers via auto auctions.)

I won't pretend to be someone who actually checks anything on my cars. At the most, I'll refill the windscreen washer fluid when none squirts through the nozzles or add a quart of oil if the car tells me I need to do so. I've done both things once in the past lustrum. I do, however, have a mechanic service them at least annually and as part of that I ask them to inform me of things they find that may portend "stormy seas" ahead. Rust is one of the things I specifically ask them to tell me about, but I don't require them to disassemble the car to expressly look for it in places they'd not otherwise encounter.

Hopefully the preceding gives you a sense of what I consider a "reasonable degree" of circumspection, inspection, acceptance responsibility, and inference as compared and contrasted what seems to me extraordinary levels of the same things. Hopefully too you'll observe that inspecting tires and inspecting brake lines above a Taurus' fuel tank aren't comparable types of inspections. The OP isn't proposing ones of the complexity and uncertainty of the brake line inspection. Neither is anyone else.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The price for the dealer replacement lines for my truck was roughly 400 dollars, I paid a bit more and had a shop custom make them with stainless so I wouldnt have this issue again. I also routed them so they could be inspected all the way with nothing in the way.

 

[320 Years of History]

The price for the dealer replacement lines for my truck was roughly 400 dollars, I paid a bit more and had a shop custom make them with stainless so I wouldnt have this issue again. I also routed them so they could be inspected all the way with nothing in the way.

How did you come to know your brake lines needed replacing?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The price for the dealer replacement lines for my truck was roughly 400 dollars, I paid a bit more and had a shop custom make them with stainless so I wouldnt have this issue again. I also routed them so they could be inspected all the way with nothing in the way.

How did you come to know your brake lines needed replacing?

Well, the first indication was when I stepped on the brake coming up to a stop light and there was break pressure, the the pedal went to the floor.
The line blew out and I lost everything. GM claims that its not an issue because the front and back are separate systems, but the line that blew out was the left rear only and I lost all braking as soon as it went. So they lie about it not being a safety issue. Im not the smartest bulb on the string of lights but Im pretty sure no brakes constitutes a safety issue. I could be wrong.

 

[320 Years of History]

The price for the dealer replacement lines for my truck was roughly 400 dollars, I paid a bit more and had a shop custom make them with stainless so I wouldnt have this issue again. I also routed them so they could be inspected all the way with nothing in the way.

How did you come to know your brake lines needed replacing?

Well, the first indication was when I stepped on the brake coming up to a stop light and there was break pressure, the the pedal went to the floor.
The line blew out and I lost everything. GM claims that its not an issue because the front and back are separate systems, but the line that blew out was the left rear only and I lost all braking as soon as it went. So they lie about it not being a safety issue. Im not the smartest bulb on the string of lights but Im pretty sure no brakes constitutes a safety issue. I could be wrong.

Red
TY for the "411." I was just curious. I've never had brake pressure/functionality issues.

Bold:
LOL! Yes. I can't see there being much of a good counterargument to that claim...LOL

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The price for the dealer replacement lines for my truck was roughly 400 dollars, I paid a bit more and had a shop custom make them with stainless so I wouldnt have this issue again. I also routed them so they could be inspected all the way with nothing in the way.

How did you come to know your brake lines needed replacing?

Well, the first indication was when I stepped on the brake coming up to a stop light and there was break pressure, the the pedal went to the floor.
The line blew out and I lost everything. GM claims that its not an issue because the front and back are separate systems, but the line that blew out was the left rear only and I lost all braking as soon as it went. So they lie about it not being a safety issue. Im not the smartest bulb on the string of lights but Im pretty sure no brakes constitutes a safety issue. I could be wrong.

Red
TY for the "411." I was just curious. I've never had brake pressure/functionality issues.

Bold:
LOL! Yes. I can't see there being much of a good counterargument to that claim...LOL

yeah, thats why I spent the money to have the lines re-routed and done in stainless. Up until the second the line let loose, there was absolutely no indication that there was a problem or that I was about to soil my shorts.
I dont want that to happen again, and I pull a 13,000lb travel trailer on a regular basis with that truck, imagine loosing the brakes with the trailer on it, even though I think the trailer brakes might stop the truck.

 

[oldsoul]

24 and 17!!!! wholly crap, by '94 Buick barely gets that with the 3800 V6!!! Wow. Course my '13 Grand caravan has gotten as much as 30 hwy, so I use that for road trips. It has a bit more room too. LOL

Its ok, I only get around 10 towing. LOL
did the first cross country with it when fuel was around 4 a gallon. I cried everytime I pulled in to fill that 40 gallon tank. LOL

I feel your pain, I drive a 10-wheeler for work, gets about 6 mpg, loaded or not. Just glad I don't pay the fuel bills. LOL

Ive always wanted to pull at least one cross country and back in a tractor trailer.
not having the license seems to be a problem for some reason.

LOL, you rent the truck, I'll drive.

I want to drive. thats the whole point. But you can go and drive in the cities. I dont want to do cities.

I'm with you, would just as soon skip the cities.

 

[oldsoul]

My feeling is people also should have a liability factor in keeping "non bubbled" tires on their cars or whatever. Its difficult to hit 70 year old Marge after an accident with a good 5 year criminally negligent homicide charge if her tires were obviously bad.

Not sure what you are getting at here.

if a hypothetical suburbanite named Ned Flanders kills me in a car wreck because their brake line failed and investigators found out the lines were craked would you support throwing Ned Flanders in jail for homicide or something?

The brake lines in my GMC Sierra 3500 dually failed and I lost brakes.
they rusted out.
Seems that GM knew about this and instead of fixing the faulty lines, they put out a statement saying that it was the responsibility of the owner to keep his brake lines cleaned and inspected once a year.
Like, WTF is going to climb under their pickup truck once a year to wash and wax brake lines.
No GM brake line recall, Govt says wash your car

It's called due diligence, if you don't do it, you are asking for trouble.

Dude I worked with wrecked his 2000 Siverado...brake hardline failed due to corrosion, he went into a tree and totalled the truck. The truck had been inspected (by a dealer) less than six weeks previous.

Also, some brake lines corrode & fail at locations that cannot be seen. (Offhand, some Tauruses would corrode above the fuel tank.)

Stuff happens, sorry your co-worke totaled his truck. Not everything can be prevented.

 

[oldsoul]

The price for the dealer replacement lines for my truck was roughly 400 dollars, I paid a bit more and had a shop custom make them with stainless so I wouldnt have this issue again. I also routed them so they could be inspected all the way with nothing in the way.

How did you come to know your brake lines needed replacing?

Well, the first indication was when I stepped on the brake coming up to a stop light and there was break pressure, the the pedal went to the floor.
The line blew out and I lost everything. GM claims that its not an issue because the front and back are separate systems, but the line that blew out was the left rear only and I lost all braking as soon as it went. So they lie about it not being a safety issue. Im not the smartest bulb on the string of lights but Im pretty sure no brakes constitutes a safety issue. I could be wrong.

Red
TY for the "411." I was just curious. I've never had brake pressure/functionality issues.

Bold:
LOL! Yes. I can't see there being much of a good counterargument to that claim...LOL

yeah, thats why I spent the money to have the lines re-routed and done in stainless. Up until the second the line let loose, there was absolutely no indication that there was a problem or that I was about to soil my shorts.
I dont want that to happen again, and I pull a 13,000lb travel trailer on a regular basis with that truck, imagine loosing the brakes with the trailer on it, even though I think the trailer brakes might stop the truck.

They should be enough. Not in an emergency though.

 

[TooTall]

When my two decade old cars get close to 300,000 miles and they are deemed too hazardous to pass safety inspections here, I sell them to ppl in a neighboring state.

When I was in the Air Force in California I had a set of 'may pops' on my car. Who could afford new tires on a buck Sgt's pay. When a tire blew out, put on another 'may pop.'

 

[320 Years of History]

When my two decade old cars get close to 300,000 miles and they are deemed too hazardous to pass safety inspections here, I sell them to ppl in a neighboring state.

When I was in the Air Force in California I had a set of 'may pops' on my car. Who could afford new tires on a buck Sgt's pay. When a tire blew out, put on another 'may pop.'

Just thinking out loud here....I don't know what a buck sergeant earns, but I suspect it's somewhere around $25K/year to $30K/year. Assuming one is on active duty, how that could not be enough to pay for a set of inexpensive but functional tires pushes credulity.

• Military Allowances: Army Pay and Allowances
  
• Health Plan Costs - TRICARE Standard and Extra Costs

Of course, if a sergeant feels the need to drive an M3 or some other "fancy" car, well, that becomes a matter of priorities rather than one of pay.

 

[320 Years of History]

When my two decade old cars get close to 300,000 miles and they are deemed too hazardous to pass safety inspections here, I sell them to ppl in a neighboring state.

Bizarre....D.C. does not do that.

Are you saying your state/jurisdiction just arbitrarily stipulates that cars having more than 300K miles are too hazardous to drive on the road? Or do you merely mean they aren't required to pass periodic inspections of one or another sort?

For example, D.C. offers temporally based emissions inspection waivers for cars made before 1968 and to residents who spend at least ~$850 to bring their car into emissions compliance. The District has provisions whereby a vehicle can be deemed too hazardous to test, but I don't think one must dispose of the vehicle. (???)

I am somewhat aware of the vagaries applicable to older cars because I have one. (If you consider 1998 model year cars old, I have two old cars.) My 1986 car has well over 300K miles on it, and it's going strong -- no rust, no drivetrain issues, no chassis issues, the interior is fine.

 

[TooTall]

When my two decade old cars get close to 300,000 miles and they are deemed too hazardous to pass safety inspections here, I sell them to ppl in a neighboring state.

When I was in the Air Force in California I had a set of 'may pops' on my car. Who could afford new tires on a buck Sgt's pay. When a tire blew out, put on another 'may pop.'

Just thinking out loud here....I don't know what a buck sergeant earns, but I suspect it's somewhere around $25K/year to $30K/year. Assuming one is on active duty, how that could not be enough to pay for a set of inexpensive but functional tires pushes credulity.

• Military Allowances: Army Pay and Allowances
  
• Health Plan Costs - TRICARE Standard and Extra Costs

Of course, if a sergeant feels the need to drive an M3 or some other "fancy" car, well, that becomes a matter of priorities rather than one of pay.

Sorry, I didn't mention when I was in the AF I got paid $55 twice a month whether I needed it or not.

 

[320 Years of History]

When my two decade old cars get close to 300,000 miles and they are deemed too hazardous to pass safety inspections here, I sell them to ppl in a neighboring state.

When I was in the Air Force in California I had a set of 'may pops' on my car. Who could afford new tires on a buck Sgt's pay. When a tire blew out, put on another 'may pop.'

Just thinking out loud here....I don't know what a buck sergeant earns, but I suspect it's somewhere around $25K/year to $30K/year. Assuming one is on active duty, how that could not be enough to pay for a set of inexpensive but functional tires pushes credulity.

• Military Allowances: Army Pay and Allowances
  
• Health Plan Costs - TRICARE Standard and Extra Costs

Of course, if a sergeant feels the need to drive an M3 or some other "fancy" car, well, that becomes a matter of priorities rather than one of pay.

Sorry, I didn't mention when I was in the AF, but I got $55 twice a month whether I needed it or not.

BTW, I forgot to ask you this. What is a "maypop?" I have never heard that term before. I presume, as go tires, it's a tire that is so worn that there's a decent chance, upon encountering even the most modest of road hazards, it "may pop."

 

[TooTall]

When my two decade old cars get close to 300,000 miles and they are deemed too hazardous to pass safety inspections here, I sell them to ppl in a neighboring state.

When I was in the Air Force in California I had a set of 'may pops' on my car. Who could afford new tires on a buck Sgt's pay. When a tire blew out, put on another 'may pop.'

Just thinking out loud here....I don't know what a buck sergeant earns, but I suspect it's somewhere around $25K/year to $30K/year. Assuming one is on active duty, how that could not be enough to pay for a set of inexpensive but functional tires pushes credulity.

• Military Allowances: Army Pay and Allowances
  
• Health Plan Costs - TRICARE Standard and Extra Costs

Of course, if a sergeant feels the need to drive an M3 or some other "fancy" car, well, that becomes a matter of priorities rather than one of pay.

Sorry, I didn't mention when I was in the AF, but I got $55 twice a month whether I needed it or not.

BTW, I forgot to ask you this. What is a "maypop?" I have never heard that term before. I presume, as go tires, it's a tire that is so worn that there's a decent chance, upon encountering even the most modest of road hazards, it "may pop."

That is about right. Usually very little tread, but when I used them there were a lot fewer cars on the road and we went a lot slower. And, I never had blowout cause me to get in an accident. I hope you understand that I now keep top of the line tires on both of my vehicles and hope everyone else does.

I am so cynical that I can see where passing a law requiring a certain standard for tires on cars would lead to the government passing a law to buy new tires for those based on their income, just like they now buy health insurance based on income. That would be the law of unintended consequences.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

When my two decade old cars get close to 300,000 miles and they are deemed too hazardous to pass safety inspections here, I sell them to ppl in a neighboring state.

When I was in the Air Force in California I had a set of 'may pops' on my car. Who could afford new tires on a buck Sgt's pay. When a tire blew out, put on another 'may pop.'

Just thinking out loud here....I don't know what a buck sergeant earns, but I suspect it's somewhere around $25K/year to $30K/year. Assuming one is on active duty, how that could not be enough to pay for a set of inexpensive but functional tires pushes credulity.

• Military Allowances: Army Pay and Allowances
  
• Health Plan Costs - TRICARE Standard and Extra Costs

Of course, if a sergeant feels the need to drive an M3 or some other "fancy" car, well, that becomes a matter of priorities rather than one of pay.

Sorry, I didn't mention when I was in the AF, but I got $55 twice a month whether I needed it or not.

BTW, I forgot to ask you this. What is a "maypop?" I have never heard that term before. I presume, as go tires, it's a tire that is so worn that there's a decent chance, upon encountering even the most modest of road hazards, it "may pop."

That is about right. Usually very little tread, but when I used them there were a lot fewer cars on the road and we went a lot slower. And, I never had blowout cause me to get in an accident. I hope you understand that I now keep top of the line tires on both of my vehicles and hope everyone else does.

I am so cynical that I can see where passing a law requiring a certain standard for tires on cars would lead to the government passing a law to buy new tires for those based on their income, just like they now buy health insurance based on income. That would be the law of unintended consequences.

actually there are laws in each state that cover the standards of tires on the car. The federal government cant actually do it because car ownership is a privilege not a right, therefore the control is left to states.

 

[oldsoul]

When I was in the Air Force in California I had a set of 'may pops' on my car. Who could afford new tires on a buck Sgt's pay. When a tire blew out, put on another 'may pop.'

Just thinking out loud here....I don't know what a buck sergeant earns, but I suspect it's somewhere around $25K/year to $30K/year. Assuming one is on active duty, how that could not be enough to pay for a set of inexpensive but functional tires pushes credulity.

• Military Allowances: Army Pay and Allowances
  
• Health Plan Costs - TRICARE Standard and Extra Costs

Of course, if a sergeant feels the need to drive an M3 or some other "fancy" car, well, that becomes a matter of priorities rather than one of pay.

Sorry, I didn't mention when I was in the AF, but I got $55 twice a month whether I needed it or not.

BTW, I forgot to ask you this. What is a "maypop?" I have never heard that term before. I presume, as go tires, it's a tire that is so worn that there's a decent chance, upon encountering even the most modest of road hazards, it "may pop."

That is about right. Usually very little tread, but when I used them there were a lot fewer cars on the road and we went a lot slower. And, I never had blowout cause me to get in an accident. I hope you understand that I now keep top of the line tires on both of my vehicles and hope everyone else does.

I am so cynical that I can see where passing a law requiring a certain standard for tires on cars would lead to the government passing a law to buy new tires for those based on their income, just like they now buy health insurance based on income. That would be the law of unintended consequences.

actually there are laws in each state that cover the standards of tires on the car. The federal government cant actually do it because car ownership is a privilege not a right, therefore the control is left to states.

Correction, most states, some defer to the feds, and others say nothing at all. The tire industry, biased I know, recommends replacement at ot or before 4/32. Most states, that have a law, say 2/32. There are lots of studies that show the same results of 4/32 being the threshold for severe drop-off of wet traction. Snow is another matter....

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Just thinking out loud here....I don't know what a buck sergeant earns, but I suspect it's somewhere around $25K/year to $30K/year. Assuming one is on active duty, how that could not be enough to pay for a set of inexpensive but functional tires pushes credulity.

• Military Allowances: Army Pay and Allowances
  
• Health Plan Costs - TRICARE Standard and Extra Costs

Of course, if a sergeant feels the need to drive an M3 or some other "fancy" car, well, that becomes a matter of priorities rather than one of pay.

Sorry, I didn't mention when I was in the AF, but I got $55 twice a month whether I needed it or not.

BTW, I forgot to ask you this. What is a "maypop?" I have never heard that term before. I presume, as go tires, it's a tire that is so worn that there's a decent chance, upon encountering even the most modest of road hazards, it "may pop."

That is about right. Usually very little tread, but when I used them there were a lot fewer cars on the road and we went a lot slower. And, I never had blowout cause me to get in an accident. I hope you understand that I now keep top of the line tires on both of my vehicles and hope everyone else does.

I am so cynical that I can see where passing a law requiring a certain standard for tires on cars would lead to the government passing a law to buy new tires for those based on their income, just like they now buy health insurance based on income. That would be the law of unintended consequences.

actually there are laws in each state that cover the standards of tires on the car. The federal government cant actually do it because car ownership is a privilege not a right, therefore the control is left to states.

Correction, most states, some defer to the feds, and others say nothing at all. The tire industry, biased I know, recommends replacement at ot or before 4/32. Most states, that have a law, say 2/32. There are lots of studies that show the same results of 4/32 being the threshold for severe drop-off of wet traction. Snow is another matter....

I don't let mine get that low, as soon as the fronts start cupping and messing up my ride or cause the steering wheel to shake when stopping, I will rotate again to see if I can feel them on the back. If not, I let them go for a bit more, If I can feel them I replace all 6.