N.H. yearly car inspections
 

On Thursday, March 11, 2025, the N.H. House of Representatives voted YES to eliminate the N.H. yearly car safety inspection, HB-649 by a vote of 212-143. Now, it goes to the 24-member N.H. Senate and then if passed to Gov Ayotte.

Big trucks with a gvw of 24,001-lbs or more will continue to require a yearly safety inspection.

Eliminating the yearly motor vehicle safety inspection will make driving in New Hampshire less safe and more dangerous. Unsafe tires and unsafe brakes will make the N.H. roads less safe for everyone.

New Hampshire definitely should want and require a yearly car inspection to help keep the roads more safe, and less dangerous.

Without the yearly car inspection, you will no longer be driving that golden N.H. safe road. You will be driving a more dangerous road.

If today is Friday, March 7th, 2025 how can you predict how they will vote on March 11th?

Do you know something we don't?

....oopsie, it should read Thursday, March 6 ....... my error using an incorrect date ...... but all other info is accurate

Tires and brakes have become very expensive which makes it more challenging to replace unsafe tires and brakes while at the same time people need to drive their car to go somewhere.

The N.H. yearly car inspection, first initiated in N.H. in 1931, is very much needed to keep the N.H. roads safe.

If anyone could know - it would be "TheTimeTraveler"...:laugh:

The house vote was on the 6th, 212-103 to eliminate inspections:
https://www.wmur.com/article/nh-hous...-0325/64080031

FLL got the date wrong however I agree with his comments.

Alan

Many states have been eliminating safety inspections. Fifteen states have a periodic (annual or biennial) safety inspection program, while Maryland requires a safety inspection and Alabama requires a VIN inspection on sale or transfer of vehicles which were previously registered in another state. An additional 16 states require periodic emissions inspections. Florida has no vehicle inspections.

I would think the best way to determine if safety inspections truly help to promote safety would be to look at a comparison between state accident rates attributed to things like bald tires in states with and without inspection laws.

I never thought the NH inspections would be eliminated due to the NH Auto Dealers Association influence over politicians. The repair shops like inspections that generate work, or sometimes even the need for a new car.

The next law to face a challenge might be the NH front license plate law. Currently only 29 states require a front plate but you cannot pass a state inspection in NH without one.

For sure - however there is a major conflict of interest to have a garage, which makes money selling parts and repair services, be the entity that decides if a vehicle is safe or not... The system now is a state-mandated business development program for service stations. Not sure what the answer is, but it would be better to have an independent inspector tell you what needs to be done rather than the shop who stands to gain by flunking you. Maybe pay a garage for an inspection and to prepare a state-approved report that the owner could take to any garage (including the inspecting one if they chose) for the repairs? On several occasions in my life, I have been failed with a huge estimate for repairs (usually tie rods, ball joints, tires, brakes) and taken it to a different garage and passed...

When a vehicle does not past inspection and it's expensive to comply, I know of folks that would drive their vehicles to FL or a state with no inspections and use or sell the vehicle.

If NH eliminate annual inspection, there should be a huge fine in case you get into an accident because of faulty equipment.

My garage pretty much go over the vehicle for defects every time I go in for repairs or maintenance.

While I agree in theory—that owners should be liable for damage caused by neglected maintenance—even yearly inspections can't account for what might happen 10k miles down the road...between inspections.

That being said, I never felt the cost was prohibitive, I could always take my vehicle for a second opinion, and the states I've driven in that don't have inspections clearly had vehicles that were potentially unsafe. For these reasons, I support having inspections.

HOWEVER, I do think there should be a system to challenge rejections and report repair shops that prey on people.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

I am of mixed feelings on this. Personally, I take my car in annually for basic service and a good lookover/inspection. I don't want to be driving a vehicle with bad tires or marginal brakes. Or more subtle problems like rust damage that could risk safety. So even if the legal requirement goes away my behavior won't change.

But will I then be at the mercy of people who choose not to or cannot afford to maintain their cars. Are they going to ram into me because their brakes gave out? Are they going to swerve into my lane because their bald tire blew out? It seems we all have a responsibility to each other to have safe vehicles on the road. As with all such things, some will do the right thing and others will not. An inspection law makes sure that everyone does and allows for a visible indicator to see who is not, allowing for corrections.

How does this work out for states with no inspection? Are there higher "junk" car accident rates or are they not even bothering to keep track. "Car swerved into the other lane causing the accident." But no mention of the cause of the swerve being that the bald tire blew out?

Two Years?
 

Maybe an inspection requirement every two years would be a good compromise?

Dan

interestingly, every two years is the requirement for cars running antique plates... while these cars are not for daily use, they are old by definition - and perhaps more worn, so a case could be made for more frequent inspections rather than less, ironically. They do not have modern safety systems, generally, like ABS, airbags, etc., either.

Trial
 

Would love to watch a trial having the state prove an accident was caused by faulty equipment. Would need to have an expert witness and even then it would still be difficult to prove.

Cars less than [emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji640]] years old inspection required on transfer of title. Older than [emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji640]] years every two years. Many states that don’t have an inspection sticker do have rules on tires and rust. You can be pulled over for bad tires and too much rust damage


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I remember back in the day when New Hampshire required you to have your car inspected and get a new sticker every six months.

I remember that too! My parents used to get a new car every three years. It had to be inspected six months after it was bought and then six months again. Before anything was ever wrong with it, they always sold it. I always thought this was so ridiculous.

Back when you had brake shoes front and back and could get a recapped tire for under twenty bucks. :cool:

In a sense, this happens already when two insurance companies/attorneys negotiate settlements. The "state" has its own difficulties. Watch "My Cousin Vinnie" again. Lots of fun.

Periodic inspections are a good idea IMHO, but the interval is in question. Perhaps every time a car is offered for sale which would be new sale, maybe 5-6 years after that, and then, I suspect, more often as used cars get sold or traded more frequently.

If they eliminate the Safety inspection, then they need to require that registered vehicles have minimum insurance to pay for damage caused to other vehicles, property, or life!
Right now, you can register a vehicle with no proof of insurance and many never get it. If you don't have money to maintain your vehicle then you probably don't have money for insurance.

Insurance
 

When I was in the business there were more uninsured cars in Mass per capita where insurance is required, than in NH where it is personal responsibility.

I remember those stats from years ago! It was a hard to believe that a state that required insurance had more uninsured motorist per capita than NH where insurance wasn’t a requirement…

Dan

Google says that is still the case: 8.8% for MA. 7.8% for NH... go figure

MA insurance is very expensive, although Rockingham County is catching up. If I hear the TV news correctly, Boston has lots more illegals, so I'd guess that translates to more uninsured cars, more cars without valid registration, more unlicensed drivers, etc etc.

Florida, the sunshine state!
 

Ford Ranger pick-up, unknown year ..... http://www.imgur.com/gallery/no-vehi...lorida-g6lPcqD ...... "No vehicle inspection in Florida" and "The bodywork is supporting the frame" or something? ..... ha-ha-ha .... :laugh:!

This old Ranger would get stopped by a N.H. police officer in about five minutes or less ....... "You got to be kidding me! ...... What's up with this car!"

You can't get a registration without an insurance stamp and most insurance companies require a substantial down payment. I guess you could lapse in payment and by the time it was reported to the registry you could have an accident.
Once the DMV knows you no longer have insurance, when your insurance company notifies them, then your registration becomes invalid.
Now I'm sure there are people driving with no insurance and an invalid registration until they get caught!

...... is not true here in N.H.
 

Surprise, surprise ..... while this is the situation in Massachusetts and many other states, it is NOT the situation in N.H. Here in N.H. one will pay the clerk at local town hall for car registration, walk out the door of town hall with registration and new license plates and whether or not you have car inspected and insured is totally up to you as you walk back to your car.

Cars, car repairs, tires, brakes, gasoline ..... is all VERY expensive. Without the annual N.H. state safety inspection, initiated in N.H. in 1931, there will be an increase in cars driving on the N.H. roads with bad tires and bad brakes and burnt out lights and other safety items like windshield wiper blades and big rust and cracked windshield.

I betcha this bill, HB-649, gets NAYED in the N.H. State Senate which has 24-members.

Nay is an olde expression of negation used in legislative votes and means NO.

Looking Up at the Wrong Tree...
 

Have states done away with inspections because they've found it's always the nut behind the wheel?

"Sort of" family-friendly compilation of Canada/USA crashes:

https://youtu.be/E-LMPfnL01Q?si=UH4KA4xq6cjAs6xs

:look:

True, but let's not demand perfection, we can settle for good enough. In 40+ years for me, wife, kids, maybe one car ended up with a questionable inspection once--that's <1%. Find a guy you like/trust, and be grateful that the other cars on the road have brakes, lights, etc

Yes, we never have to do anything either. it is just a nuisance for us.

I went for my annual car inspection today. The same shop I have used for years. Same company that sold me the tires AND I paid for "flat repair/rotation etc".

I notified them that I had a slow leak in 1 tire and that I bought the plan to fix it.

Inspection FAILED because they thought it was to risky to pull a nail from the tread (not side wall) of the tire! Company policy for AWD vehicles is 4 matching tires for inspection (1 year old tires I bought from them)!

Their resolve: $1,200 for 4 new tires!
My resolve: Plug the tire myself and NEVER do business with them again!

Would we get away with the OBD smog requirement?
Or would we need to do that every year?

But how many repairs are made proactively knowing they need to be done to pass inspection?

Not too long ago, a friend of mine chose to take his 1980's Toyota off the road because it needed front end work that was prohibitive in cost and necessary to pass inspection. In most other states, he may have continued to drive it.

Interestingly, another friend had a ball joint failure not long after that led to an accident on the highway. Fortunately, nobody was hurt, and I'm not quite sure it was negligence (though there usually are signs), but I see a connection between the two situations.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

A few years ago I went to a Laconia shop Union Avenue shop for a State Inspection. They told me my battery was only putting out 5 Amps. and my front brake pads were down to 20% and I would need a brake job soon.

I pointed out that with only 5 Amps the car wouldn't start and the car had a brake job, with new pads all around, about 2,000 miles before that inspection.

I called the corporate office, spoke to the District Manager, and said I realize the inspections are looked at as an opportunity to generate work, but what they were doing was fraud. He claimed to know nothing about what they were doing and said it was a new employee who inspected my car. He asked me to bring the car back so they could use it as a training experience for the employee. I declined.

I don't know all the ways it could go wrong but maybe a waiver for vehicles less than 3 year old with less than 25,000 miles on them would work. Since police look for inspection stickers the state could have a category for stickers that were $10 and the inspection station could confirm the mileage and year of the car and put a sticker on without an inspection. Just a thought.

Some dealerships give them away as part of the purchase of a new vehicle.
Other have a pay one price for a lifetime (as long as you own the vehicle) option.

Plugging Tires with a Ten Dollar Kit...
 

After Hurricane damage to neighborhoods it's not unusual to find (hear) roofing nails in one's tires.

As an aging novice at this, I managed to plug the two nail holes I picked up inna week! It wasn't an easy job with the car on the ground, but got it done. Very little air escaped, so I managed to continue running errands.

:look:

Plugging race-car tires won't even get you a glance!

:cool:

New cars in NJ
 

In NJ, new cars are required to have their first inspection after 5 years. After this initial inspection, they then are inspected every 2 years. The inspection items have been reduced. The main items are emissions and brakes. They no longer inspect headlight focus or directional signals among other items.

We were in Memphis in May 2023 and saw this beauty. They don't have inspections there. Is this what you want to see driving around our beautiful state?

When Inspection "Karens" Closed 48 County Stations...
 

Florida did have auto inspections--complete with concrete structures, brake testing rollers, and a cadre of inspectors in every county throughout the state.

Once, after a long wait in line for testing, a red sticker was applied to my windshield indicating my restored antique car had one month to bring its failure into conformity with Florida law.

The listed failure? The horn was too loud! :eek2:

I swapped to a VW beetle horn, passed a second inspection and got my red sticker replaced with a sticker indicating I had a year until the next inspection. (indicated by the color).

Is it any wonder Florida's inspections were eliminated?

When is the Senate going to vote on this?

Docket doesn't yet have it scheduled.
Senate Commerce Committee will take it up after the transfer between chambers.

There are some amendments to the bill, and it looks that the inspection will stay in place, but change to every two years for private passenger vehicles and motorcycles. Not sure how this affects any Federal Clean Air requirements for the OBD testing.

;);););)

Looks like they read the forum! :laugh::laugh:

If you need a sticker on your birthday every year, you tend to remember. I expect a lot of tickets for non-inspection when people forget the routine. I remember in the 70's we had a flood of transplants get tickets for expired this or that. The excuse was "Nobody sent me a reminder letter". We should get a letter. Added expense, but the DMV now sends out letters and fees were increased accordingly.
I still like getting an inspection by the seller whenever a car changes hands. Easy to remember.
If we go to two years, registration should be every two years also, no change in fee since DMV overhead is reduced. If you get stopped, no ticket for say, 10 days and then waived when the computer shows that you registered or inspected. This is a silly thing to waste a lot of time on. Paying a highly trained police officer/trooper to stand at a toll booth and stop people for expired stickers is not a good use of funds or manpower. (Same content sent to my Senator).

Registration may be a problem because of the attached property tax.

I definitely feel that paying two years worth of that is going to put a pinch on some people.

Also, if it is every two years for inspection are they going to develop a means to get half one year and half the other?

Thank you.

My suggestion was to leave the fee alone. If it is $50 now for one year, make it $50 for two years, i.e. $25/year and reduce expenses at DMV to compensate. I bet the GC is clever enough to figure out the taxes for the town's portion.

So imagine a $30K new vehicle, that would $18 x 30 for a registration cost of $540. Year Two would be $15 x 30 for a registration cost of $450.

A two year registration cost to hold harmless the local municipality would equate to $990.

While cutting the DMV portion is relatively easy. The Legislature just has to choose to do so; the municipal portion is an offset to real estate property taxes under other income in the budgets.
I think that creates anxiety of change within the Legislature.

There are several programs for paying taxes in the digital world. No reason you can't set up the second year tax on autopay. Or monthly for two years. Look at the "smart guys" on TV. Most people won't write a check for $240, but they will commit to only $19 a month. When the charity wants to raise 5% more, they ask for "only a dollar". Who can say no to "only a dollar". Taxes are the same when you raise a tax by "only 1/4%."

That would need to be done at each municipality.
With interest and an extra charge to cover costs.
That is how our property tax currently works.

My understanding of the inspection situation was they are trying to lower costs for our residents.