One of the best ways to ensure that our vehicles are safe is through periodic motor vehicle inspection. Yet, only 31 states and the District of Columbia have adopted any form of PMVI. A check of these 32 reveals that they vary a great deal in minimum requirements. Six of these states, Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Montana, Nevada and Tennessee have no inspection laws. Twelve of the states, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin have the random-spot type of check.
I think it is interesting to note that Montana is one of the six states with no inspection whatsoever. Washington is one of the states that uses a random-spot type of check. Senators Mondale, a Democrat from Montana, and Magnuson, a Democrat from Washington, are spearheading a drive in Washington to determine who is paying for the safety and smog-control equipment that the government now requires. We at Automotive Fleet wonder what type of vehicle inspection laws Montana and Washington might have if the two senators pushed this type of legislation as hard as they are pushing their equipment-cost probe?
Why don't all states have PMVI? That's a question that the federal government is asking - and with some force behind the question.
In 1967, automotive safety became an issue in every state capital. Most of the legislatures considered PMVI proposals that would comply with the National Highway Safety Act of 1966. But compliance with federal standards was not automatic. Six of the slates refused to pass any kind of vehicle inspection law, thereby risking a 10 per cent cut in federal highway funds.
The reasons for not complying with the law have been many: "It's too expensive; it's too hard to control; it's too controversial; it's too hard on certain segments of our population ..."
There are many that content that there is no direct relationship between traffic casualties and properly maintained vehicles. Law enforcement officials are trained to lend assistance in accidents. Therefore, the establishing of the cause of the accident is a process few law enforcement officials are trained to carry out.
The dead cannot testify as to what caused an accident; the injured are often too dazed to know what led to the accident; many blame the road, the weather or the driver rather than to accept responsibility.
It seems more than apparent to us at Automotive Fleet that safe cars and safe driving go hand-in-hand. How can you separate the two? A driver that operates a vehicle that is unsafe is more likely to be involved in an accident than a driver whose vehicle has been inspected, has been certified safe by a qualified mechanic.
It makes sense to us to say that a car whose tires have good treads is a safer vehicle than an automobile with treads that are worn. It makes sense to say that a car with a good parking brake is safer than a car without one. It makes sense to say that a car with properly aimed headlights is a safer car than the one with lights that are out of adjustment. And the argument could go on and on. ...
The editorial staff at Automotive Fleet is in the process of preparing an article on PMVI and what it means to the car fleet industry. In the mean-time, we at AF would like to add our voice to the growing din of automotive industry leaders, national associations and civic groups clamoring for some type of regulated PMVI throughout the country. We can not help but believe that if the men in Washington would devote a little more of the taxpayers' time to the establishing of standardized policies of PMVI instead of attempting to fix prices on equipment, America's highways would be a safer place to drive ... and the American motorist would have a better chance to stay alive.
media brand
0 Comments
See all comments