On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 6:19:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 15:49:27 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 15:09:43 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/8/2017 1:44 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 12:41:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 09:46:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 09:39:20 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Florida doesn't inspect cars at all unless you live in one of the
polluted blue cities. Then they scan for emission codes.
Pretty obvious when you drive there. Some of the worst clunkers I've
seen on the road ANYWHERE - and I've driven in a lot of "third world"
areas.

So what? They were still passing you.


e have limited inspection in CT. The accident rate is no worse than
states that do inspections.

Responsible people get their car repaired. Irresponsible people find
ways around the inspection.

That was pretty much what Florida figured out 40 years ago. It did not
have any noticeable effect on our accident rate either. Most accidents
involve alcohol or general inattention anyway (phones, food/drink or
screwing with electronic things on the dash), not equipment failure.
As was pointed out here, most inspection these days is just dumping
the codes on the computer anyway.
You are talking "emission testing" Safety checks are a totally
different kettle of fish

It's obvious he's talking about the safety check tests
he even said that when they got rid of the testing there
was no noticeable effect on the accident rate. Exactly
the same thing happened here in NJ and there is no
statistically significant differences in accident rates
between states that still have safety tests and those
that don't. It's very rare that there is an accident and the cause is faulty equipment.