Commentary: End Vermont’s draconian vehicle inspection system

If Gov. Phil Scott were sincere in his wish to improve Vermont’s affordability index, he would be wise to direct the Legislature to act with urgency to unwind the state’s draconian vehicle inspection system.


www.vtdigger.org

Michigan and Florida did studies and figured out that there was no measurable increase in safety with a vehicle inspection system. Only 17 out of 50 states have inspections.

Ben Hewitt: End Vermont’s draconian vehicle inspection system By Commentary Jan 22 2018 21 Comments Share Tweet Share Email Editor’s note: This commentary is by Ben Hewitt, a freelance writer, educator and community-scale farmer living in Stannard. Recently I had the misfortune of striking a large rock in my car; the impact bent the front passenger side rim to the point of needing replacement. No problem, I thought: I’ll find a cheap, used rim at a junkyard, have the tire remounted, and be on my way. Alas, my mechanic informed me that because my car is equipped with a tire pressure monitoring system, I’d need to replace the rim with one that featured similar technology, at double the price of a non-TPMS rim. Otherwise, the vehicle’s dash would display a warning light that would trigger a code in the computer that would in turn render the car uninspectable. It’s important to note that my (or any) vehicle is not required to have a tire pressure monitoring system for inspection purposes; indeed, many vehicles on Vermont roads do not have such a system, just as many do not have anti-lock brakes, traction or stability control, and a whole host of other modern technological “advances.” But if a vehicle does have such a non-essential system, it must be in perfect working order for the vehicle to pass inspection. The same goes for accessory features such as fog lights: They are not required for inspection, but if they have been installed, they must be fully operational for the vehicle to pass. Another example: The top-of-cab lights on my truck. Again, they are not required, but if they are installed, they are required to be operational. Ridiculous as all of this sounds, none of it mattered much before the launch of Vermont’s enhanced vehicle inspection system in early 2017. That’s because prior to that date, a mechanic could use his or her common sense judgment and perhaps allow a car to be inspected even if (oh, the horrors!) a non-essential item such as a fog light, tire pressure monitor, or top-of-cab light wasn’t working. Cosmetic rust, so common in Vermont due to the copious use of environmentally destructive road salt, could also be overlooked. Now, with the fully linked database that stores the history from the computers of every inspected car, and the requirement for inspection stations to upload photos of the vehicles they inspect, such judgment calls are no longer possible. “I’m caught between a rock and hard place,” my mechanic told me. “I’m often having to tell my customers that they need hundreds or even thousands of dollars in non-essential work just to pass inspection. And a lot of them just don’t have the money. It sucks.” Indeed, a mechanic overhearing this conversation acknowledged that he is currently driving an uninspected vehicle simply for reasons of affordability. Let me be crystal clear: Vermont’s enhanced inspection system, which was implemented via DMV rule-making with no opportunity for public discourse, is a regressive tax levied against rural, low-income Vermonters who often commute long distances for work, and who simply cannot afford to drive newer vehicles. It is also a prime example of the poverty trap, since many of these Vermonters are forced to drive uninspected vehicles, in the process racking up fines they also cannot afford to pay, thus driving up their insurance rates to the point where perhaps they can no longer afford to carry mandatory insurance, thus risking additional fines. And on it goes: The boot to the neck of working class Vermonters gets heavier with every passing year. If Gov. Phil Scott were sincere in his wish to improve Vermont’s affordability index, he would be wise to direct the Legislature to act with urgency to unwind the state’s draconian vehicle inspection system. Many states do not require vehicle inspections at all; others require them only every two years. Whether Vermont should end inspection requirements or simply return to ones that are relatively sane and allow for some degree of common sense judgment on the part of the mechanic performing the inspection should be a matter of vigorous debate; what should not be a matter of debate is whether the current system is or is not preying on our most vulnerable residents. Because it is. Emphatically. I urge our lawmakers to acknowledge the classism and discrimination inherent to Vermont’s enhanced vehicle inspection system, and to act accordingly.