 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Safety Inspection: A National StrategyPosted 6/8/1998By Robert L. Redding, Jr.
For many years, the Automotive Service Association (ASA) has been a leading advocate for Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection (PMVI) programs, many of which have struggled for years. The Clean Air Act of 1990 did little to enhance PMVI nationally because of problems associated with emissions inspection programs. From talk show hosts to automotive clubs, emissions programs were nationally ridiculed for various reasons, including perceived inefficiency and incompetence of some performing the tests. The "centralized vs. decentralized testing" debate only added to concerns about implementing or sustaining any type of testing program. Hopefully, federal policymakers have learned from the mistakes of the 1990 Clean Air Act debate and can now move to a more inclusive policymaking approach for the new ozone and particulate matter planning process. One of the victims of this period of time has been state safety inspection programs. Since 1990, these programs have been criticized in state legislatures and compared to the emissions programs or proposed emissions programs in some cases. The number of these programs has diminished. We now have 24 states with some type of safety inspection program, plus the District of Columbia's program. Public commissions and state legislative hearings across the country evaluating PMVI programs have discouraged many safety inspection advocates. Concerned about the future of PMVI, ASA representatives recently met with top officials from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). A senior staff person from AAMVA, Rob Stershic, manager of membership services, spoke in March at ASA's Annual Convention on the subject of safety inspections. With threats to the Missouri and North Carolina programs this year, AAMVA and ASA decided that a complete review of PMVI is necessary. One of the major obstacles to obtaining federal support of these programs is the lack of national data backing the programs' effectiveness. Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is tasked with jurisdiction over PMVI, very little money or staff time has been allocated for the promotion and protection of state PMVI programs. The most recent national evaluation was a Government Accounting Office study done in July 1990. One of the conclusions of this study was that NHTSA should resume its support of state PMVI programs. Two problems with this report are it is now too outdated to use for state and federal advocacy, and it failed to make a solid correlation between safety inspections and the prevention of accidents. ASA and AAMVA think strongly that a national study is necessary to definitively prove that substantive safety inspection and maintenance programs do prevent accidents. As an industry, we have done an inadequate job of making this case. One of the better, yet localized studies available was conducted by the Missouri State Highway Patrol. One of the most interesting pieces of data from the Missouri study was a December 1997 survey about the value of the program - approximately 62 percent of the 1,158 respondents favored continuation of the Missouri program. In a recent meeting with top NHTSA officials, ASA and AAMVA discussed the need for more national data. NHTSA is very receptive to developing a study that will hopefully reinforce the relationship between PMVI programs and diminished automobile accidents. ASA members in PMVI states have been very supportive of inspection programs. Pennsylvania, with a large contingency of ASA members, has one of the best programs in the country and showcased its program at a NHTSA hearing in Washington, D.C. The automotive industry has to develop a unified approach to expanding, enhancing and protecting PMVI programs. At a recent ASA Mechanical Division Operations Committee meeting, committee members voted to make this a top priority - although acquiring funds for a national study, conducting the study and then applying the data to the advancement of PMVI will take time. One of the key areas of interest for the U.S. Congress has been post-repair inspection. The U.S. Department of Transportation, as part of a mandate from the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, asked Congress to approve a national post-repair inspection program. Congress turned this request down because it would have been an unfunded mandate. There was a great deal of interest in trying to establish a program in the future. AAMVA is developing a detailed handbook on inspection programs that includes a post-repair inspection program. ASA hopes that Congress and the states will re-visit this issue in the future since it is a critical part of any national safety inspection campaign. ASA will continue to work with other organizations to encourage government policymakers to implement PMVI programs across the country. Developing solid data is the first step in this process. Note: ASA published a report on vehicle safety inspection programs in January 1998 that details which states currently have inspection programs and the types of programs in place. Since these programs are undergoing constant change, the report will be updated regularly. For more information on this report or on ASA's report on vehicle emission inspection and maintenance programs, contact ASA's Washington, D.C., office at (202) 543-1440.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright (c) 1996-2008. Automotive Service Association. All rights reserved.
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
