CDZ Should passenger vehicle inspections be required?

[oldsoul]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

 

[Toronado3800]

I voted yes, but feel the answer is more complex. I am content with yearly state mandated safety inspections performed by a licensed mechanic.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Some states do this, others don't. I have relatives in Pennsylvania and I know they have to have a vehicle safety inspection every year when they renew their registration. Is there any evidence that Pennsylvania has less car accidents than other states that don't require those yearly inspections?

 

[oldsoul]

Some states do this, others don't. I have relatives in Pennsylvania and I know they have to have a vehicle safety inspection every year when they renew their registration. Is there any evidence that Pennsylvania has less car accidents than other states that don't require those yearly inspections?

Don't know, but a lot can change in a year to the safety of a vehicle over the course of a year. Therefore, I don't know that there would be a difference with that long of a period between inspections. However, this thread is not about duration, it is about whether or not the requirement of inspections should be in place. It has been shown to be effective (in the case of tires) for daily inspections of large trucks. Maybe the same would hold for smaller vehicles too.

 

[Toronado3800]

Some states do this, others don't. I have relatives in Pennsylvania and I know they have to have a vehicle safety inspection every year when they renew their registration. Is there any evidence that Pennsylvania has less car accidents than other states that don't require those yearly inspections?

Don't know, but a lot can change in a year to the safety of a vehicle over the course of a year. Therefore, I don't know that there would be a difference with that long of a period between inspections. However, this thread is not about duration, it is about whether or not the requirement of inspections should be in place. It has been shown to be effective (in the case of tires) for daily inspections of large trucks. Maybe the same would hold for smaller vehicles too.

ah, in that case no. The U.S. gives out drivers licenses to people who don't know the first thing about their cars.

Get that to change and I would vote yes, do it. I don't think susurban america has it in them to take away people's licenses

 

[Toronado3800]

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?

 

[320 Years of History]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

Except for the red text, I agree with you. Yes, all drivers should be required to inspect their tires on some recurring frequency more often than once a lustrum.

I didn't look at the content at the links you provided because there's nothing they are going to say that is going to convince me that there is any shred of savings, safety or sagacity in not inspecting one's vehicle tires.

Based on the experience I had last summer -- I drove someone else's car because they got too wasted at the company summer picnic to drive themselves home, and along the way, what little thread there was partially separated from a tire and banged around in wheel well, forcing me to pull over and call a tow truck -- I'd go even farther than you have proposed, but I here won't. Suffice to day, that though I didn't mind that the guy drank too much, and it was no skin off my nose to drive him home and have my son follow in my car, I most certainly didn't care for that tire going to pieces while I was driving that clown's car, hell, while I and my child were anywhere near it, truth be told. In my mind, that little "stunt" was an unplanned, unfortunate and unequivocal CLM.

 

[martybegan]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

 

[320 Years of History]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

 

[Searcher44]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

Here in British Columbia we've had increasingly thorough Vehicle Inspections for a few decades now. Started off with emissions testing and that was a successful program that reduced pollution, especially from those older cars that belched blue smoke.
I worked in a business that employed a lot of heavy trucks, dump trucks, equipment haulers etc. There were a lot of horror stories of gruesome accidents caused by poorly maintained vehicles, especially tires and brakes. From personal observation and experience I know that used to be a big problem, the last thing you want is a thirtyfive ton dump truck tailgating you at 60mph. Commercial truck inspection is a no-brainer.

You need a vehicle inspection report to register a vehicle under several conditions, when you buy a used car or bring a vehicle in from another province for example. I haven't saw statistics on the effectiveness of these inspections in reducing accidents but I have heard and read anecdotal reports that they do have a positive impact. Below is a graph showing the reduction of fatal accidents over a recent 15 year period in all of Canada, I think Provincial inspection standards probably had some effect there.

I forget exactly what it cost me the last time I had a vehicle inspected, I think the fee was around $100. There can be a big catch tho, a shop doing the inspection, even though certified by the province can use the program as a serious cash cow.
There have been several "scandals" involving different shops giving estimates to bring the same car up to standards for like 50$ to $1000. You have to be wise, get 2 or 3 inspections until you're satisfied you're not getting screwed, there are ways to do that without it costing you a bundle.

Overall I'd say inspections are a good idea, too many people avoid essential repairs and run a car until it falls apart, that endangers everybody on the road.

 

[FA_Q2]

Some states do this, others don't. I have relatives in Pennsylvania and I know they have to have a vehicle safety inspection every year when they renew their registration. Is there any evidence that Pennsylvania has less car accidents than other states that don't require those yearly inspections?

Pennsylvania
and washington where I live:
Washington

We do not have mandated safety inspections - just emissions testing. We have much better rates than Pennsylvania. The statistic that will be most useful in comparing the two is the fatalities per 100 million miles driven. Penn has 1.23 and Wa has 0.76.

CA is also lower then Penn and does not have safety inspections (again just emissions):
California
0.94

MO also has mandatory safety inspections every year:
Missouri

1.09 - also worse than both the states I know do not have safety testing.

It seems that such inspections are utterly worthless.

 

[FA_Q2]

The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

Those are not questions that can be removed from this concept - they are integral in the thread itself.

There is no way of talking about inspecting your vehicle for safety that does not cover the amount of government that you are willing to accept in it or the frequency in which you perform the inspection. No one is going to say it is a bad idea to inspect your car for safety - that is universally a good idea. The problem with this will always be how much government interference are you willing to take to make those inspections happen.

 

[Skull Pilot]

My state is weirdly schizophrenic when it comes to stuff like this

I only need an emissions test every 2 years there is no mandated safety inspection. The state also allows the inspection stations to keep a separate set of books for inspections. They are cash only and are not run through the registers. I always thought that to be strange.

Holding a cell phone while driving is illegal, seat belts are a primary not secondary offense as in many states yet we have no motorcycle helmet laws

Like I said schizophrenic

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

 

[martybegan]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

 

[320 Years of History]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

What drove my questions was this from the OP:

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

It's a matter of scope...I just don't see what the log has to do with what the OP asked. I realize the exigencies entailed with implementing a policy. I'm not denying them as downstream things one must address, and how to track compliance is certainly among those things. But to answer "is requiring inspections a good idea or not" is a question for which no log is required.

In fairness, I not long ago opened a thread in which I asked people if they thought a given goal is worth achieving or not worth it. It was inordinately challenging to keep folks focused on the idea that the thread scope was whether the idea itself is any good, worth aiming to achieve, not the pros, cons and challenges of implementing the idea.

I don't know what you know about scope creep, but it's an insidious destroyer of success:

• http://www.villanovau.com/resources/project-management/project-management-scope-creep/#.Vt2BkJwrLcs
  
• The Dangers of Scope Creep
• Stop Scope Creep Running Away With Your Project

I realize this isn't a project; however, even in a simple conversation, it's all but impossible to accomplish "whatever" -- just getting the answer to a simple question, for example -- is all but impossible if folks don't stay focused on what is under discussion and ignore what is not.

For example, if I ask my family, "Do you want to to to Bali for our fall family vacation?", what we have to do to get to Bali, what we'll find or do there, who is or isn't going to be there, etc. doesn't matter if nobody wants to go in the first place. A whole lot of discussion and time wasted can be avoided if they just answer the damn question I asked. I didn't ask them why they think we should go to Bali or not; whatever reason they have for wanting to go or not wanting to go is fine by me.

• If they want to assume we lack the money for the trip, fine.
• If they've looked into the safety of being in Bali and think it's an unsafe place, fine.
• If they have a friend there whom they want to see, fine.
• If the idea of visiting a nude beach appeals to them and they think Bali has some, fine.
• If they think "never heard of it, don't know where it is, have no idea what to expect, sure, let's go check it out," fine.

At that point in the game, I don't need to know why they want to go or don't want to go. That's why I asked a "yes or no" question. If most of them want to go, we can move on to how to get there and what to do there, and when we'll go, etc. If they say "no," I'm going to ask where they want to go, or I'll propose something new, or I may ditch the idea of our taking a fall family vacation.

The OP's question in this thread is no different. The reason for asking a simple "step 1" question is so that one can learn whether there's any value at all in proceeding to "step 2."

 

[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?

No, if inspections including brake lines were enacted, I would be infavor of holding Mr. Flanders accountable for driving an unsafe vehicle though.

 

[320 Years of History]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

 

[oldsoul]

As some of us already know, all commercial vehicles have to do pre-trip, post-trip, and daily vehicle inspections. Considering the following information I would agrue that periodic inspections should be required of drivers of passenger vehicles. I am not advocating for any particular period for which the inspections would be good for (ie. daily, weekly, ect.), nor am I saying the inspections should be done by a professional. I am saying that I beleive even cursory inspections (ie. tires) would be quite benificial in reducing crash rates. So, without further ado, here is the information I have found that would seem to support my idea:

crash cause	large trucks	passenger vehicles	percent of large trucks with previous violations
tire/wheel failure	6%	43%	14.5%
brake failure	29%	25%	32.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now, I am only compairing two causes, unfortunately I have been unable to find cooresponding info for both categories on more. I would welcome further info if you have it available. Stats where provided by the following links:
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811059.pdf
The Large Truck Crash Causation Study - Analysis Brief

As you can see, if we required all drivers, regardless of vehicle, to inspect tires there would likely be a dramtic drop in crashes. Brake failure is far more difficult to inspect for, and shows no corelation between inspection and failure rates.

So, the question is, should we require all drivers to inspect their tires? The matter of how often, enforcement, and what level of govt. would be involved is for another thread. I simply wish to know whether people think this would be a good idea or a bad one.

So everyone would have to keep a log in their car, and go around their car and check the tires each time they drive?

The fatalities from people getting clipped by moving cars in urban areas while they hunch over their tires would exceed the number of lives saved from the inspections by several orders of magnitude.

??? Hugh? A log? For what? Whatever, if you want a log, go on use one. Whatever works for you so you (1) perform the inspection in a timely manner and (2) do something about it if the tires are below par. I don't think the OP was suggesting we make complicated what need not be, only that we require and enforce doing that which, by any shade of good sense, should be done, so that it in fact gets done.

The OP doesn't mandate a professional do the inspection. So, pick a coin, any coin and stick it between the treads and if it looks like there's about a quarter inch of tread, plan on looking again in a few months, or just go on and order a new tire. Look at the sidewalls, and if they don't have punctures and aren't eroded to thinness from too many curb encounters, or whatever, go on about your day.

If we were to go to having a professional do the inspections, fine. They can put a sticker or something on the door jamb or inside of the glove box or something.

If you are going to make a law that mandates people do these inspections, they will have to track that they did them, because if they get into an accident, the first thing the other side's lawyer is going to ask for is proof that you did your maintenance. Also, if you really do think this law is a good idea, it is going to have to be enforced, and the only way to prove that people are doing it is to 1) spy on them or 2) ask for records.

If not, then all that is being proposed is another one of those feel good laws, that people will ignore because there is no teeth to it, thus lowering the overall respect for law in general, much like certain drug laws and the 21 year old drinking law, and the under 18/21 tobacco laws.

Off Topic:
Is it not plausible that a requirement be defined stipulating that people conduct tire inspections on their own and take the appropriate action based on what they find during their self-conducted inspection? Could we not then just penalize people more heavily when "things" happen?

• Get stuck in the snow with insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Get stopped for "whatever" and the cop takes a coin and finds insufficient tread --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Parking enforcement personnel glance at tires and actively check tread on tires that appear to be "close to insufficient" --> $1500 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.
• Have an accident wherein one failed to stop in time and also have tires lacking sufficient tread --> $3000 fine levied against the car's owner; license or registration suspended until suitable tires are installed on the car.

Why $1500 and $3000?

• Because it makes the cost of doing what one should have done in the first place -- inspect one's tire and replace over-worn ones in a timely manner -- far less expensive than failing to do so, at least for most car owners
• Because a lot of folks seem to value money more than they do their responsibility to act with regard for the safety and non-inconveniencing of others.

That would be an excellent way of enforcing a requirement, should it be enacted. I like it. No checking when you are in danger, no record keeping needed, it's easily quanifiable, easily enforced, and easily understood.