Spillane: The Case For Mandatory Inspections Breaks Down

By James Spillane, NH Journal

Another story from the road, talking with constituents.

Last week I ran into a constituent I’ve known for years and probably see once every couple of months. He was furious over our repeal of mandatory vehicle inspections.

I’ve always known him as a truck driver, but during the conversation I learned that he and his sons also have an ownership interest in three garages.

He told me they’ve already permanently closed one because, in his words, “it was a dedicated vehicle inspection garage” and couldn’t make enough money to stay open without mandatory inspections.

That stopped me.

During the debate over repeal, we repeatedly heard from the auto and garage lobby that inspections weren’t a profit center. The argument was that garages weren’t making money from mandatory inspections; they were providing a necessary public safety service.

So I asked the obvious question: “If there was no money in mandatory inspections, how did a garage dedicated to vehicle inspections make enough money to exist in the first place?”

I never really got an answer. Instead, he shifted the conversation.

He told me that since mandatory inspections ended, his other two garages have been inundated with cars needing far more expensive repairs. Instead of pads and rotors, customers are supposedly coming in having worn their brakes so badly that they now need all four calipers replaced.

Other customers, he said, have neglected oil changes and fluid levels so badly that he tells them they should consider junking their cars, even though I know oil changes were never part of a state inspection.

He described dangerously worn serpentine belts that supposedly weren’t caught because there was no annual inspection, now requiring major engine components to be removed to replace the belt or related components.

And all of this has supposedly happened suddenly, in roughly seven months.

I listened. I know he’s angry. I understand why someone whose family had a financial interest in the mandatory inspection system would be unhappy when the state eliminated that mandate.

But I’m not buying the story he was selling me.

Cars didn’t suddenly stop needing maintenance. Oil-change intervals didn’t change. Brake pads didn’t suddenly wear faster. Belts didn’t suddenly age differently.

Seven months didn’t turn perfectly good cars into junk. In fact, not everyone would even have been due for another inspection yet. Under the old system, inspections were tied to the owner’s birth month. Mine wouldn’t be due until November. If the mandate still existed, I wouldn’t have missed an inspection yet, either.

All that ended was the requirement that every passenger-vehicle owner pay a state-approved garage every year to prove they maintain their vehicle.

Getting your vehicle looked over regularly, particularly if you can’t do it yourself, is a good idea. So is preventive maintenance and having a mechanic you trust.

None of that requires the government to mandate that you buy that service every year.

There is a difference between saying, “You should maintain your car,” and saying, “The government should force you to purchase an inspection from my industry every year.”

Those are not the same argument.

State Rep. James Spillane (R-Deerfield) is a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. He wrote this for NHJournal.com.

This story was originally published by the NH Journal, an online news publication dedicated to providing fair, unbiased reporting on, and analysis of, political news of interest to New Hampshire. For more stories from the NH Journal, visit NHJournal.com.