- Location
- Bountiful, land of rocks
I take it to my regular place that I have do stuff I'm not willing to do. Haven't had ANY good experiences with the emissions only shops.
No more state safety inspection in utah
- Thread starter SWALLDOG
- Start date
I take it to my regular place that I have do stuff I'm not willing to do. Haven't had ANY good experiences with the emissions only shops.
glockman
I hate Jeep trucks
- Location
- Pleasant Grove
Same here. I took my 4 runner to an EM/IM only place and they failed it for the Passenger rear brake not having enough braking force on the skid pad. I took it home, replaced the shoes which were still about 1/2 life, had the drums turned and replaced the wheel cylinders. Took it back and it still failed. I showed them the reciept for all the parts and asked what they recommend I do when all new parts still failed. They shrugged. Took it to Jiffy lube and they inspected, commented that I had brand new rear shoes and passed it.
You are mistaken my friend. My F350 is bone stock with stock 275/70R18 tires and more than 1/2 of the tire is visible from the rear of the vehicle, therefore it will not pass inspection unless I put aftermarket mud flaps on. Ford did offer mud flaps but it was an option and they are over $100.
I am glad you have had good experiences but many of us have not and it does not mean we are unsafe or cheating the system. The system is, or was broken. If they removed or modified the code to only check wheel bearings, brakes, steering components, tires and turn signals, it would be better but it still offers no REAL improvement in safety. Didn't mean to start a facebook style fight. Carry on.
- Location
- Sandy, Ut
Keep in mind this doesn't change the actual vehicle safety laws and statutes, it simply precludes you from having to have those laws inspected once a year. You can and will still get pulled over and cited for unsafe vehicles.
Now, there are laws about firearms (papered suppressors and selective fire, etc) - Would you want to have to have those inspected once a year at a cost just to prove your complying with an existing law?
What about laws regarding your house or yard, many cities and counties have laws and ordinances to protect the look of a neighborhood but would you want to have to pay for an inspection to verify your keeping your weeds down and all the vehicles on your property are licensed?
Do we need laws that force us to pay to prove we are following existing laws?
Now, there are laws about firearms (papered suppressors and selective fire, etc) - Would you want to have to have those inspected once a year at a cost just to prove your complying with an existing law?
What about laws regarding your house or yard, many cities and counties have laws and ordinances to protect the look of a neighborhood but would you want to have to pay for an inspection to verify your keeping your weeds down and all the vehicles on your property are licensed?
Do we need laws that force us to pay to prove we are following existing laws?
Last edited:
smartass_kid
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Cottonwood Heights, UT
this thread is high on tinfoil hats
ID Bronco
Registered User
- Location
- Idaho Falls, ID
Amen
Spork
Tin Foil Hat Equipped
- Location
- Saratoga Springs, UT
Houndoc
Registered User
- Location
- Grantsville
I disagree with the comparison to gun control.
My gun only becomes dangerous to others if I choose to commit a criminal act.
I think it is safe to say most of the general public doesn't think much about wear and tear on their vehicles & few will take them in for an annual "check up".
I will be very happy if I am wrong, but I suspect we will see more problems caused by unsafe vehicles (most of which UHP can't see while they are driving down the highway.)
My gun only becomes dangerous to others if I choose to commit a criminal act.
I think it is safe to say most of the general public doesn't think much about wear and tear on their vehicles & few will take them in for an annual "check up".
I will be very happy if I am wrong, but I suspect we will see more problems caused by unsafe vehicles (most of which UHP can't see while they are driving down the highway.)
- Location
- Vehicular limbo
Why do you think that though? None of the data I've seen indicates a difference in accidents caused by unsafe vehicles between states with inspections and states without. No state that has gotten rid of inspections has seen a spike in accidents so far. Why would Utah be any different?
I am pleased to see it go away. Less government intrusion and all. However. Many that get their 4x4s aren't on any forums and don't follow the laws for lifts anyway, those folks will still be out there in no greater numbers than currently. Having moved here from SoCal 11 years ago, I saw LOTS of stuff on the highways that was questionable at best, but passed emissions and deemed ok... Used to live in Hawaii with safety inspections as well. At least they were required to adjust headlights as part of the safety!!!!
My personal pet peeve is illegal lighting, HID bulbs in stock housings. Unsafe, illegal and completely unfocused light. And blue is the toughest color for the eye to see anyway. I once tried an HID bulb that was bluer than marked, in a proper projector housing even. And could barely see down the road. Replaced with stock housings and Silverstar Ultra bulbs in my Neon.
In that same vein, auxilliary lighting, specifically, LED bars. I hate hate hate them on the road. They have no place. Yes, I have some pods on my Neon, but I don't use them anymore, and just haven't removed them for something better. I am surprised we aren't required to have covers on aux lighting. And yes, I am the oddball with 100w pencil beams on a pushbar, on my Neon. But I am completely aware of the vehicles on the road ahead of me. They are great for dark desert highways, but I imagine they could melt the buttons off a troopers jacket at 50 yards... And have no business being used if there is any sign of other traffic. Then again, I have turned them on during the day when I see someone pull out to pass coming at me without enough room...
My personal pet peeve is illegal lighting, HID bulbs in stock housings. Unsafe, illegal and completely unfocused light. And blue is the toughest color for the eye to see anyway. I once tried an HID bulb that was bluer than marked, in a proper projector housing even. And could barely see down the road. Replaced with stock housings and Silverstar Ultra bulbs in my Neon.
In that same vein, auxilliary lighting, specifically, LED bars. I hate hate hate them on the road. They have no place. Yes, I have some pods on my Neon, but I don't use them anymore, and just haven't removed them for something better. I am surprised we aren't required to have covers on aux lighting. And yes, I am the oddball with 100w pencil beams on a pushbar, on my Neon. But I am completely aware of the vehicles on the road ahead of me. They are great for dark desert highways, but I imagine they could melt the buttons off a troopers jacket at 50 yards... And have no business being used if there is any sign of other traffic. Then again, I have turned them on during the day when I see someone pull out to pass coming at me without enough room...
D
Deleted member 12904
Guest
- Location
- Grand Junction, CO
Years ago I got pulled over by a Provo cop in my '85 Toyota truck.... it had about 5" of lift and 37's. He got out the tape measure (while I was sitting in the truck) and measured the distance from the frame to the ground.... I knew I was legal, as I measured it when I built the truck. He proceeded to explain to me that if I were NOT in the seat, my truck would be illegal. So I said, "You mean to tell me that if my truck were driving down the road without me inside, it wouldn't be legal? I think we'd have much bigger problems at that point..."
He didn't say much after that and left me alone, free to go....
Magerdgr
Have gun, will travel
- Location
- My secret underground lair
Years ago I got pulled over by a Provo cop in my '85 Toyota truck.... it had about 5" of lift and 37's. He got out the tape measure (while I was sitting in the truck) and measured the distance from the frame to the ground.... I knew I was legal, as I measured it when I built the truck. He proceeded to explain to me that if I were NOT in the seat, my truck would be illegal. So I said, "You mean to tell me that if my truck were driving down the road without me inside, it wouldn't be legal? I think we'd have much bigger problems at that point..."
He didn't say much after that and left me alone, free to go....
Hahahaha!! Fantastic, I love it!
sawtooth4x4
Totally Awesome
- Location
- Land of East Laytonshire
As far as I can tell. Herbert signed the bill to get rid of vehicle inspections
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sawtooth4x4
Totally Awesome
- Location
- Land of East Laytonshire
Nevermind I was wrong. Not signed yet.
HB319 had not been signed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HB319 had not been signed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sawtooth4x4
Totally Awesome
- Location
- Land of East Laytonshire
RogueJeepr
Here!
- Location
- Utah
So that's the shmo who thought of this.
Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk
Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk
Jesser04
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Kaysville Utah
As much as I hope this passes I don't see it passing. Almost everyone I know has a vehicle that won't pass safety mainly for tint. I have three vehicles that need to be renewed at the moment that I've parked two for tint and the other for flares flaps and front bumper. I would have done it the day I got the renewal if it wasn't for the hassle of taking it off and putting it right back on. Not having tint isn't an option for me. If they want to make the roads safer they need to start enforcing the cell phone laws that are already on the books.
Here is the problem with that
(3) Subsection (2) does not prohibit a person from using a handheld wireless communication device while operating a moving motor vehicle:
(a) when using a handheld communication device for voice communication;
(b) to view a global positioning or navigation device or a global positioning or navigation application;
(c) during a medical emergency;
(d) when reporting a safety hazard or requesting assistance relating to a safety hazard;
(e) when reporting criminal activity or requesting assistance relating to a criminal activity;
Specifically the bolded ones, all someone has to do is say one of those two things to an officer and it is an affirmative defense. The officer cannot look at their phone for text time stamps. So its pretty hard to prove they weren't using GPS. If you want it enforced more, the loop holes need to go away first
tv_larsen
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Logan, Utah
That's a 2016 bill.
The 2017 bill is HB265.
And it has passed the legislature.
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43431825&nid=960
http://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0265.html
Houndoc
Registered User
- Location
- Grantsville
Having worked in the tire business previously, I still have the habit of eyeing tire conditions as I walk through a parking lots. Scary habit!
And not meaning to be judgmental based on finances, but it seems to me that those with the older vehicles that are more likely to be unsafe are the ones least likely to afford repairs they are not "forced" to do before registering their vehicles.
It will be interesting to see what happens- I will be thrilled to be wrong.