CDZ Should passenger vehicle inspections be required?

[martybegan]

I have to assume you are a person that owns a driveway or a garage. IF you require that a car has sufficient tire pressure or tread, and intend to mete out punishment, then prudence would demand that people check this each time they use their vehicle. If I find a parking spot the night before, and as in my neighborhood parking is at a premium and you take the spot you get, what am I supposed to do? Most of the times I park on the main road, and I have already lost 4 driver's side mirrors in 4 years due to idiots driving too close to the parked cars. Am I now supposed to risk driving without checking my tire pressure, considering that as per one of the comments above, I can be fined $1500-$3000 if I somehow get into an accident?

I did a quick Google search and foud there are 39 gas stations in Manhattan alone. I also discovered there are 6,074 miles of roadway in NYC. I would find it difficult to believe that a person would find it difficult to find one of these gas stations to do a thourough check of tread and pressure.
If a person where to find themselves parked in a place that does not permit the safe inspection of their tires before driving, I would think a person could do a quick visual check and procceed to the nearest gas station to comlete a better inspection.
Regardless, are you arguing then that, sense it is difficult for a minority of drivers to comply, that no such regulation should exist? And what of the idea that insurance companies would institute such a requirement? Would you then argue that they are engaging in unfair business practices? I really do not understand how a sane person can argue against an insurance company refusing a claim when the driver/ower of a vehicle did not do "do diligence" to ensure the vehicle was safe. I can understand an arguement that government, at all levels, should stay out of it. I may not agree, but I can understand the arguement.
It seems as though you are caught up on the "daily" part, would you see it as too difficult for a weekly, or monthly check as well? It could be done at the gas station, when you fill-up on fuel. Would that satisfy your safety arguement?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

An what of the idea that it would be instituted by the insurance industry, completely separate from government?

I'm sure you could then find insurance companies that would offer plans without all the extra CYA stuff.

While this may be true, I would expect one would pay a hefty premium for such plans.

And you are back to people paying more $$ for dubious increases in safety.

 

[martybegan]

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

An what of the idea that it would be instituted by the insurance industry, completely separate from government?

I'm sure you could then find insurance companies that would offer plans without all the extra CYA stuff.

If you don't want to answer a question, the adult thing to do is to say so, or at least remain silent. You, however, simply dodge the question. Are you a politician or something? Answer the question, or don't I really don't care, just don't pull such juvenile stunts as dodging the question.

I did answer the question, you just don't like the answer.

No, you did not give your opinion on the idea of the insurance industry imposing such a requirement. What you did was to postulate that one could find a policy that did not include such a requirement. If you do not understand the difference, I would be happy to explain it further, just ask.

That's how the market works. Plus a whole industry deciding to impose something like this would be seen as collusion.

 

[320 Years of History]

So, my "Bali" question and the OP's "tire inspection" question are much the same: both identify an outcome and ask if the respondent wants to see it achieved or not. In each question, the inquirer has no stated desire to know why one's answer is "yes" or "no." Had the inquirer any such interest, they'd have also asked, "If so, why? If not, why not?" But that wasn't part of the question asked, so it follows that the whys and wherefores are irrelevant to the inquirer; s/he is willing to proceed (or not) based solely on the actual "yes" or "no" response(s) s/he receives.

No they are not and that is what I stated in the post you quoted.

The question should an individual perform regular safety inspections really is not very subjective. It is obvious. There certainly are people that would say no just as there are people that would tell you that the earth is flat BUT that does not make for any real discussion. You CANNOT ask such a question without going into the details of the scope and level of enforcement that such would entail as that is intrinsic to the conversation.

I think that the tact the OP took later in the thread shows that the intent really was to go into enforcement and scope even when it was stated that such was not the intent anyway.

Red:
Call me nuts, but why ask a "yes/no" question if one wants to have a discussion? Open ended questions necessarily require one to discuss. Binarily answerable questions do not. One can discuss in response to a binary question, but all that's necessary is the "yes" or "no," the "true" or "false," etc.

Blue:
Why can't one ask a "yes/no" question and require the respondents to identify and analyze on their own the implementation details and then respond with their conclusion as a "yes" or "no" reply?

Pink:
The OP can address his intent far better than I. I will leave that to him.

I can only say that I recently created a thread that asks folks to express whether they think a specific outcome is a worthy end to seek. I opened that thread intending to apply a specific approach to having a discussion on the matter, following it, if called for, with additional, related threads. The process approach I was using is:

1. Identify an objective.
2. Open a polling thread to determine whether folks think the objective worth achieving.
   • If most folks who answer the poll view the goal as "worthy, open a "follow on" thread(s) to discuss how, when, for whom, challenges that must be overcome, factors that cannot be overcome but that must be minimized, etc. of achieving the outcome.
   • If most folks who answer the poll view the goal as "unworthy," do nothing.

I didn't (and still don't) care how folks determined whether the goal is worthy of seeking; I just wanted to find out if they do or not. Whatever considerations they undertook in arriving at their "yes" or "no" answer to my poll question are what they are. They can hold them in their "mental parking lot" until such time as they are asked to share and discuss them.

I don't follow that ordered/organized approach to conversations for every topic I broach -- here or in "real life," but for that thread, it's the one I planned to use, and it's the only one I was willing to use. That's why I created the thread with a poll that asks a binarily answerable question.

 

[oldsoul]

The people stupid enough to not find a safe place to check their tires are likely going to ge killed in some other stupid manner anyway. So, I guess using that logic, we should deny people the ability to lock their car doors too. We should also outlaw windows on the first floor, since they would hinder a persons' egress in an emergency as well. Point is, your arguement carries no weight because there is no requirement as to WHERE the tires are checked, only THAT they are checked. Why do you insist on arguing that people would be killed checking their tires, when there is no reason for a person to put themselves at risk to check? The point is not to protect the stupid from themselves, the point is to protect the rest of us for the negligence of the stupid.

I have to assume you are a person that owns a driveway or a garage. IF you require that a car has sufficient tire pressure or tread, and intend to mete out punishment, then prudence would demand that people check this each time they use their vehicle. If I find a parking spot the night before, and as in my neighborhood parking is at a premium and you take the spot you get, what am I supposed to do? Most of the times I park on the main road, and I have already lost 4 driver's side mirrors in 4 years due to idiots driving too close to the parked cars. Am I now supposed to risk driving without checking my tire pressure, considering that as per one of the comments above, I can be fined $1500-$3000 if I somehow get into an accident?

I did a quick Google search and foud there are 39 gas stations in Manhattan alone. I also discovered there are 6,074 miles of roadway in NYC. I would find it difficult to believe that a person would find it difficult to find one of these gas stations to do a thourough check of tread and pressure.
If a person where to find themselves parked in a place that does not permit the safe inspection of their tires before driving, I would think a person could do a quick visual check and procceed to the nearest gas station to comlete a better inspection.
Regardless, are you arguing then that, sense it is difficult for a minority of drivers to comply, that no such regulation should exist? And what of the idea that insurance companies would institute such a requirement? Would you then argue that they are engaging in unfair business practices? I really do not understand how a sane person can argue against an insurance company refusing a claim when the driver/ower of a vehicle did not do "do diligence" to ensure the vehicle was safe. I can understand an arguement that government, at all levels, should stay out of it. I may not agree, but I can understand the arguement.
It seems as though you are caught up on the "daily" part, would you see it as too difficult for a weekly, or monthly check as well? It could be done at the gas station, when you fill-up on fuel. Would that satisfy your safety arguement?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

As I see it, the requirement is already there, in most states (check your local requirements. Also, if I understand correctly, most insurance carriers have exclusions for criminal activity. So, it is in fact there, in most cases, if only by deault. However, I came across the following links that I found quite interesting on the topic of worn tires, and wanted to share them:
Commentary: legal minimum tread depth for passenger car tires in the U.S.A.--a survey. - PubMed - NCBI
Safety Risks of Worn Tires - Consumer Reports
RCW 46.37.425: Tires—Unsafe—State patrol's authority—Penalty.
When should you replace worn tires? We have information you need.
So, it looks like the consensus is not the legal requirement of 2/32, it's accually 4/32 or more. The last link touches on the effects of underinflated tires as well. Good information.

You didn't answer my question.

I assume you refer to the last question you posed, "So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?" I did not answer the question simply because it is based on a ridiculous premise. What did you read in my previous posts that would indicate that I would suggest such a ridiculous idea?
It seems as though you are clinging to some irrational fear of being run-over, or fined in your attempts to comply with a theoretical requirement. That is not the intent of my thread. The intent is to ascertain whether respondants to the thread believe that my proposed requirement should or should not be implimented. If you wish to have further discussion on this, I am willing to engage, if not, I do not.

 

[oldsoul]

An what of the idea that it would be instituted by the insurance industry, completely separate from government?

I'm sure you could then find insurance companies that would offer plans without all the extra CYA stuff.

If you don't want to answer a question, the adult thing to do is to say so, or at least remain silent. You, however, simply dodge the question. Are you a politician or something? Answer the question, or don't I really don't care, just don't pull such juvenile stunts as dodging the question.

I did answer the question, you just don't like the answer.

No, you did not give your opinion on the idea of the insurance industry imposing such a requirement. What you did was to postulate that one could find a policy that did not include such a requirement. If you do not understand the difference, I would be happy to explain it further, just ask.

That's how the market works. Plus a whole industry deciding to impose something like this would be seen as collusion.

Using your logic, most, if not all, the exclusions listed in the following link would be seen as collusion, but they are not. Therefore your assertion does not bear out.
Exclusions: What your policy won't cover

 

[oldsoul]

I did a quick Google search and foud there are 39 gas stations in Manhattan alone. I also discovered there are 6,074 miles of roadway in NYC. I would find it difficult to believe that a person would find it difficult to find one of these gas stations to do a thourough check of tread and pressure.

If a person where to find themselves parked in a place that does not permit the safe inspection of their tires before driving, I would think a person could do a quick visual check and procceed to the nearest gas station to comlete a better inspection.
Regardless, are you arguing then that, sense it is difficult for a minority of drivers to comply, that no such regulation should exist? And what of the idea that insurance companies would institute such a requirement? Would you then argue that they are engaging in unfair business practices? I really do not understand how a sane person can argue against an insurance company refusing a claim when the driver/ower of a vehicle did not do "do diligence" to ensure the vehicle was safe. I can understand an arguement that government, at all levels, should stay out of it. I may not agree, but I can understand the arguement.
It seems as though you are caught up on the "daily" part, would you see it as too difficult for a weekly, or monthly check as well? It could be done at the gas station, when you fill-up on fuel. Would that satisfy your safety arguement?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

An what of the idea that it would be instituted by the insurance industry, completely separate from government?

I'm sure you could then find insurance companies that would offer plans without all the extra CYA stuff.

While this may be true, I would expect one would pay a hefty premium for such plans.

And you are back to people paying more $$ for dubious increases in safety.

No, if one where to accually read the quoted post, one would see that my statement was in responce to your statement that one could find policies that did not contain the "CYA stuff".
I am of the opinion that one of two things are happening here. Please let me know which of the following is true, or explain to me how I am wrong:

1. You have a reading comprehension problem.
2. You are willfully misconstruing my statements to form your arguement for the sake of arguing.

So, which is it?

 

[martybegan]

I have to assume you are a person that owns a driveway or a garage. IF you require that a car has sufficient tire pressure or tread, and intend to mete out punishment, then prudence would demand that people check this each time they use their vehicle. If I find a parking spot the night before, and as in my neighborhood parking is at a premium and you take the spot you get, what am I supposed to do? Most of the times I park on the main road, and I have already lost 4 driver's side mirrors in 4 years due to idiots driving too close to the parked cars. Am I now supposed to risk driving without checking my tire pressure, considering that as per one of the comments above, I can be fined $1500-$3000 if I somehow get into an accident?

I did a quick Google search and foud there are 39 gas stations in Manhattan alone. I also discovered there are 6,074 miles of roadway in NYC. I would find it difficult to believe that a person would find it difficult to find one of these gas stations to do a thourough check of tread and pressure.
If a person where to find themselves parked in a place that does not permit the safe inspection of their tires before driving, I would think a person could do a quick visual check and procceed to the nearest gas station to comlete a better inspection.
Regardless, are you arguing then that, sense it is difficult for a minority of drivers to comply, that no such regulation should exist? And what of the idea that insurance companies would institute such a requirement? Would you then argue that they are engaging in unfair business practices? I really do not understand how a sane person can argue against an insurance company refusing a claim when the driver/ower of a vehicle did not do "do diligence" to ensure the vehicle was safe. I can understand an arguement that government, at all levels, should stay out of it. I may not agree, but I can understand the arguement.
It seems as though you are caught up on the "daily" part, would you see it as too difficult for a weekly, or monthly check as well? It could be done at the gas station, when you fill-up on fuel. Would that satisfy your safety arguement?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

As I see it, the requirement is already there, in most states (check your local requirements. Also, if I understand correctly, most insurance carriers have exclusions for criminal activity. So, it is in fact there, in most cases, if only by deault. However, I came across the following links that I found quite interesting on the topic of worn tires, and wanted to share them:
Commentary: legal minimum tread depth for passenger car tires in the U.S.A.--a survey. - PubMed - NCBI
Safety Risks of Worn Tires - Consumer Reports
RCW 46.37.425: Tires—Unsafe—State patrol's authority—Penalty.
When should you replace worn tires? We have information you need.
So, it looks like the consensus is not the legal requirement of 2/32, it's accually 4/32 or more. The last link touches on the effects of underinflated tires as well. Good information.

You didn't answer my question.

I assume you refer to the last question you posed, "So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?" I did not answer the question simply because it is based on a ridiculous premise. What did you read in my previous posts that would indicate that I would suggest such a ridiculous idea?
It seems as though you are clinging to some irrational fear of being run-over, or fined in your attempts to comply with a theoretical requirement. That is not the intent of my thread. The intent is to ascertain whether respondants to the thread believe that my proposed requirement should or should not be implimented. If you wish to have further discussion on this, I am willing to engage, if not, I do not.

The answer is No, for the reasons i mentioned.

 

[oldsoul]

I did a quick Google search and foud there are 39 gas stations in Manhattan alone. I also discovered there are 6,074 miles of roadway in NYC. I would find it difficult to believe that a person would find it difficult to find one of these gas stations to do a thourough check of tread and pressure.
If a person where to find themselves parked in a place that does not permit the safe inspection of their tires before driving, I would think a person could do a quick visual check and procceed to the nearest gas station to comlete a better inspection.
Regardless, are you arguing then that, sense it is difficult for a minority of drivers to comply, that no such regulation should exist? And what of the idea that insurance companies would institute such a requirement? Would you then argue that they are engaging in unfair business practices? I really do not understand how a sane person can argue against an insurance company refusing a claim when the driver/ower of a vehicle did not do "do diligence" to ensure the vehicle was safe. I can understand an arguement that government, at all levels, should stay out of it. I may not agree, but I can understand the arguement.
It seems as though you are caught up on the "daily" part, would you see it as too difficult for a weekly, or monthly check as well? It could be done at the gas station, when you fill-up on fuel. Would that satisfy your safety arguement?

So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?

I am arguing that the regulation is oppressive, over the top, and nothing but a revenue generator.

As I see it, the requirement is already there, in most states (check your local requirements. Also, if I understand correctly, most insurance carriers have exclusions for criminal activity. So, it is in fact there, in most cases, if only by deault. However, I came across the following links that I found quite interesting on the topic of worn tires, and wanted to share them:
Commentary: legal minimum tread depth for passenger car tires in the U.S.A.--a survey. - PubMed - NCBI
Safety Risks of Worn Tires - Consumer Reports
RCW 46.37.425: Tires—Unsafe—State patrol's authority—Penalty.
When should you replace worn tires? We have information you need.
So, it looks like the consensus is not the legal requirement of 2/32, it's accually 4/32 or more. The last link touches on the effects of underinflated tires as well. Good information.

You didn't answer my question.

I assume you refer to the last question you posed, "So they are supposed to park overnight at a gas station?" I did not answer the question simply because it is based on a ridiculous premise. What did you read in my previous posts that would indicate that I would suggest such a ridiculous idea?
It seems as though you are clinging to some irrational fear of being run-over, or fined in your attempts to comply with a theoretical requirement. That is not the intent of my thread. The intent is to ascertain whether respondants to the thread believe that my proposed requirement should or should not be implimented. If you wish to have further discussion on this, I am willing to engage, if not, I do not.

The answer is No, for the reasons i mentioned.

Thank you. Now if you wish to further discuss, I am willing. However, I will no longer entertain the idea that tire inspections should not be required simply because a small minority of drivers would find it to be difficult to comply. Do you have another arguement in support of your stance?

 

[longknife]

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:

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table, width: 716px, height: 102px"][TBODY][TR][TD]crash cause[/TD][TD]large trucks[/TD][TD]passenger vehicles[/TD][TD]percent of large trucks with previous violations[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]tire/wheel failure[/TD][TD]6%[/TD][TD]43%[/TD][TD]14.5%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]brake failure[/TD][TD]29%[/TD][TD]25%[/TD][TD]32.7%[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
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.

As someone who drove commercial vehicles, I firmly believe that ALL vehicles should be required to pass periodic inspections.

For cars. SUVs, trucks, and other similar vehicles, make them occur when it's time for smog tests.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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

 

[longknife]

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

All YOU need to do is take your car into any shop and have it put up on a lift. You can give the mechanic a twenty or so to simply inspect the underside of your vehicle.

Heck, with current vehicles, all you have to do is remove the tires to closely examine the brakes.

The only difficult thing about modern vehicles are all the things controlled by computer chips - and mechanics have simple ways to inspect those.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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

All YOU need to do is take your car into any shop and have it put up on a lift. You can give the mechanic a twenty or so to simply inspect the underside of your vehicle.

Heck, with current vehicles, all you have to do is remove the tires to closely examine the brakes.

The only difficult thing about modern vehicles are all the things controlled by computer chips - and mechanics have simple ways to inspect those.

if that was the common answer GM would not have switched the brake line material in 2008 to solve the problem. and it was only a few years of the vehicles manufacture date so it shows they knowingly used inferior materials to save money

 

[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.

 

[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

All YOU need to do is take your car into any shop and have it put up on a lift. You can give the mechanic a twenty or so to simply inspect the underside of your vehicle.

Heck, with current vehicles, all you have to do is remove the tires to closely examine the brakes.

The only difficult thing about modern vehicles are all the things controlled by computer chips - and mechanics have simple ways to inspect those.

if that was the common answer GM would not have switched the brake line material in 2008 to solve the problem. and it was only a few years of the vehicles manufacture date so it shows they knowingly used inferior materials to save money

So, don't buy a chevy. Pretty simple. In the meantime, do your maintanance, or pay someone to do it for you. I do my own maint., and one of the things I check evey time I am under my car is the brake and fuel lines. It's just good practice to check stuff when you can see it.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

please show me any other car that requires this as owner maintenance.
It will keep me from purchasing one. Thank you.

 

[jon_berzerk]

i dont know about other states but out here

but one can get ticketed for having faulty equipment

and even be removed from the roadways

probably fairly similar in other states as well

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

All YOU need to do is take your car into any shop and have it put up on a lift. You can give the mechanic a twenty or so to simply inspect the underside of your vehicle.

Heck, with current vehicles, all you have to do is remove the tires to closely examine the brakes.

The only difficult thing about modern vehicles are all the things controlled by computer chips - and mechanics have simple ways to inspect those.

if that was the common answer GM would not have switched the brake line material in 2008 to solve the problem. and it was only a few years of the vehicles manufacture date so it shows they knowingly used inferior materials to save money

So, don't buy a chevy. Pretty simple. In the meantime, do your maintanance, or pay someone to do it for you. I do my own maint., and one of the things I check evey time I am under my car is the brake and fuel lines. It's just good practice to check stuff when you can see it.

and tire wear

 

[Maryland Patriot]

i dont know about other states but out here

but one can get ticketed for having faulty equipment

and even be removed from the roadways

probably fairly similar in other states as well

most states are the same, but really, other than tires, lights and glass, what can the see by just looking at the car? cant see brakes or suspension or anything else. Maybe exhaust by the noise, but that could still be an after market muffler so,

 

[jon_berzerk]

i dont know about other states but out here

but one can get ticketed for having faulty equipment

and even be removed from the roadways

probably fairly similar in other states as well

most states are the same, but really, other than tires, lights and glass, what can the see by just looking at the car? cant see brakes or suspension or anything else. Maybe exhaust by the noise, but that could still be an after market muffler so,

a responsible owner also checks the fluids exhaust blinkers and running/turn lights bumpers

most of the time out here it mostly fix it tickets

and if one breaks down along the roadside

if not in a lane gets 48 hours to have it moved before the state does

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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

All YOU need to do is take your car into any shop and have it put up on a lift. You can give the mechanic a twenty or so to simply inspect the underside of your vehicle.

Heck, with current vehicles, all you have to do is remove the tires to closely examine the brakes.

The only difficult thing about modern vehicles are all the things controlled by computer chips - and mechanics have simple ways to inspect those.

if that was the common answer GM would not have switched the brake line material in 2008 to solve the problem. and it was only a few years of the vehicles manufacture date so it shows they knowingly used inferior materials to save money

So, don't buy a chevy. Pretty simple. In the meantime, do your maintanance, or pay someone to do it for you. I do my own maint., and one of the things I check evey time I am under my car is the brake and fuel lines. It's just good practice to check stuff when you can see it.

and tire wear

usually Im lazy and just take it for service. You would think the stealership would know to look.
Speaking of lazy, my ABS light came on last week, so being lazy I took it to a Mr Tire. (first time I tried a mr tire.)
they came back with a quote for a new front hub (with bearing and sensor) the price of the hub was quoted at 650.00 with 240.00 to install. 890.00 total. Before I said yes or no I called the dealership and asked the price for the new hub. 400.00 and they would install for 205.00.
I'm lazy, not stupid.
Will spend the 20 minutes or so and replace my own damn hub. been wanting to play with my new torque wrench anyway.