@wbits... if being in favor of a government of the people, by the people and for
the people makes me a "big government fan".... well then you nailed it.
That is me. Accused and convicted. I plead guilty. I am not one
of those who thinks government is anything more or less than what we - as a
people - make it. If we as a people decided the best way to deal with poverty
is as a society, not individuals, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Same with persecution and discrimination. I have no issues with society
putting in regulations to prevent those with financial means of taking advantage
of those without. So if that makes me pro big government, buy me a
tee-shirt and I will wear it all day. Show me a better option, I'll
consider it. Wee have over 180 million voters in this nation.... that sounds
big to me...
Jay is right for once.
@NoNamesAcceptedRE: "So the folks who complain the loudest about
the Utah nanny State are the same voices on here complaining about eliminating a
needless government requirement?"...---No. Don't know
where you came up with that one. I'm not complaining.
I'm a small government fan. I like it.Mostly Republican
Legislature passed it. So they're not complaining. Republican Governor signed it. So he's not complaining. Who's complaining?Only people I've seen complaining in
this thread are the people who are traditionally "Big Government" fans
(10CC, UtahBlueDevil , Utah Girl, etc)
Replacing safety inspections with more UHP troopers is a great idea - just we
can't trust the legislature to do that because they won't fund it, or
give it enough funding to make the difference. Seems to me they have taken the
inspection from business and put it into the police, then funded neither with a
puny increase in registration fees of $1. Talk about "putting the cart
before the horse" and then "nailing your own foot to the floor".
Our legislator is suppose to take control away from government and put it in the
people, not the other way around.
So the folks who complain the loudest about the Utah nanny State are the same
voices on here complaining about eliminating a needless government
requirement?The guys who scream about using "science" to
make decisions are upset that solid data was used to eliminate a government
mandate that cannot be shown to provide any benefits to personal or public
safety?National Transportation Safety Board recommendations to
lower legal BAC limits to 0.05% are attacked as government intrusion, even
annual inspections with no national or data backing are deemed necessary?It is time for some folks to stop pretending they are making decisions
based on "science" or data or facts. They make decisions like everyone
else: personal biases, fears, and moral values. Some views are just a minority
in Utah.My cars go to a mechanic about 3 times a year for oil
changes and tire rotations even if noting else is wrong. Brakes and steering
components will be checked. I routinely verify my lights are all working
correctly as well as wipers, washer fluid, defrost, horn, etc.Personal responsibility.
Good moveThe only thing this eliminates is guaranteed income for
repair shops around here
"Auto design today with air bags and crumple zones and strengthened roof
pillars, mandatory seat belt use, and safer highway designs all combine to make
crashes more survivable."And none of these were done
voluntarily. These were the result of government mandates. Dodge didn't
make a pickup that can get well over 20 miles per gallon because the market made
them. They did so to meet CAFE standards. "The market" believed the
car companies when they said it wasn't possible. Evidently it is - and
much more reliably than older versions. The market also believed the tobacco
companies that cigarettes were harmless.To pretend any company
voluntarily does the right thing by consumers over profit margins is foolish at
best. Just like the kids we love so much, sometimes they need rules and
guidance to get them to do the right thing.
Prediction: 5 years from now will begin an Era making all of this moot.
Self-driving trucks will lead the way because they'll save huge $$$. Cars
next. Deaths from driver error and unsafe brakes etc. Including pedestrian
deaths and drunk drivers eliminated. Save $$$ and lives.
Less regulation is a good thing. Everywhere I take my cars for maintenance, the
mechanics do a free inspection anyway, so why require an additional inspection
(for a fee) just to do registration? Government seems more effective
when it provides education and incentives for private citizens and private
industry to do the right thing. Instead of restrictions on registration, perhaps
the state could give financial incentives to keeping vehicles safe through
rebates or reduced sales taxes on necessary items. Make it easier to do the
right thing, and most people probably will.
No. It won't make any more difference than lowering the BAC to .05 did.
Eliminating these needless inspections was a good thing. They were like
requiring everyone to carry an iron umbrella to prevent themselves from getting
hit by lightening. . . Ironic that they used the "free market"
argument, while at the same time doubling down on one of our most tyrannical
laws, seat belts. These kinds of laws are routinely used (abused) for the sole
purpose of gathering revenue.
Wait, am I to understand that people in Utah, who routinely bemoan the fact that
the state legislature often asserts itself in our daily lives, are upset that
the state legislature is ceasing to assert itself in our daily lives?You
can't have it both ways.And @ MileHighGuy, do a youtube search
for Bountiful snow storm and enjoy, because...INSPECTIONS!!
Glad to see it gone, now let's get rid of that unnessessary and burdensome
tax and registration fee to go along with it!
Given how Utah has abdicated public safety by allowing 70 mph speed limits in
congested city roadways which means many Utah "drivers" routines go at
80 mph why should this be a surprise?My wife and I were traveling
down on the freeways near Henderson and Las Vegas Nevada recently and it was a
pleasure to drive there with drivers keeping speed limits and driving
courteously. None of the weaving in and out and crazy speeding like we see
along the Wasatch front. When our public officials don't
steadfastly enforce speed limits that are too high for congested city areas, it
is little surprise that they have dropped safety inspections. While I can
understand both sides of this issue, as a native of an area where so many
citizens are cavalier with driving safely, I doubt they will be diligent in
maintaining safe operating conditions of their vehicles. Then
again, perhaps their religious conscience will motivate them over?
Yes is the answer. We are all going to die. Excepting those who will get
We have a partisan group of people in government who are against everything
government. When everything becomes unregulated (food, drugs, transportation,
public lands, doctors, banks) only the people in the 1% will profit. It's
no coincidence our legislators consider the 1% people their masters.
Glad to see the safety check gone. An unnecessary expense.
I'm really rather fond of both me and my family. Whether it's mandated
or not, I, for one, will be making sure that the vehicles we drive are in
tip-top shape. By doing so, they will better protect us and those around us.
Though the comments so far would indicate otherwise, I can't imagine that I
am the only person who feels this way.
Perhaps the geniuses in the Legislature could learn to compromise. Keep the
safety inspection but review the checklist and requirements, and make it more
logical. Inspect things that really impact safety like tires and brakes. Take
things like light bulbs off the list and let the police issue tickets to people
who don't maintain their brake lights and headlights.Why is it
so difficult for these highly educated and elected officials to approach an
issue logically??PS While we're making changes, let's
eliminate emissions checks on newer cars that obviously don't violate
When I was a kid, gas stations had an attendant. The guy would check your oil
wash your windshield and check your tires. He probably would let ya know if a
light was out . They were called service stations. I think that there will be a
need for a comeback. Ya have to check your car, not get in an go all the time.
25 years ago, it was a rare case if a car held together long enough to reach
100,000 miles, but now it is outrageous if they do not last until 150,000 or
more. (My last one was still running great at 258,000 miles and is still on the
Utah highways.)Tires used to be good for 20-25,000 miles but now are
safe up to about 50-70,000 miles. Brakes last a lot longer. Failures of
steering are almost unheard of. Even wheel bearings seem to last forever.Auto design today with air bags and crumple zones and strengthened roof
pillars, mandatory seat belt use, and safer highway designs all combine to make
crashes more survivable.Annual inspections are a vestigal remnant of
an ancient era in automotive evolution, and makes no more sense than requiring
every driver to carry a buggy whip becuse we always used to have them.Maybe an inspection of a used car upon sale to a new owner might make some
sense, but most dealers and most smart buyers will do that anyway.Thank you legislators!
Most car companies have not made their cars safer because they wanted to. That
is a completely false narrative. In fact, most car manufactures build multiple
versions of the same cars but with different safety equipment on them. The same
Chevy sold in the US sells in Latin America without the safety equipment, and
yes, the death rates in those same cars sold outside of the US have higher death
rates in accidents.It does make a difference at night when your
driving down the road and a car approaches you with only on functioning
headlight. It does impact safety when the car ahead of you doesn't have
functioning break lights. Perhaps the licenses plate light doesn't lead
to less deaths - but it does make enforcement easier. It amazes me
that some conservative politicians believe that the best way to make America
competitive is by emulating 3rd world nations.
Good observations, Mr. Evensen.
When will the money saving come to aviation safety regulations and surgery?
LeBron James didn't have to pass any government tests... why do we force
surgeons to go through all those onerous exams? Just so they can charge us more
money?The overwhelming number of people who drink alcohol do so
responsibly, but we need to set the new national low threshold for blood alcohol
levels....but nobody should have the authority to tell the owner of
a old minivan that they have to have at least *some* treads on the tires before
they set off to take their gaggle of kids to school, through school zones.Gotcha.
Think of all the money the airlines could save by eliminating all those annoying
safety checks currently mandated by regulations. After all, isn't money
more precious than life?
We won't all die, but some of us will. As a former technician, who
performed Utah inspections, and still in the automotive industry in Florida (no
inspections), I see many accidents where people have lost control due to poor
tire traction and crash or cause a crash - mostly hydroplaning after rainstorms
in Florida. When I lived in Colorado (no inspections), the first snow storm of
the year was always the worst with accidents and some cars unable to go up a
slight inclined road and spinning their wheels. Tires is where the dangers
really lurk, and yes, they cause many accidents and kill many lives already.
With the price of tires being what they are, it is the first thing people
don't replace. Just wait for the first snow storm this winter - you will
remember my comments as you see cars sliding thru intersections, unable to stop
at red lights, and cars that can't even make it up 2100 S to Sugarhouse
So good to see government actually removing unnecessary regulations for a
change. For those of you who rely on the annual safety inspection
for piece of mind, feel free to take your car in every year and pay to have it
inspected. The shops will gladly still do it.