Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
What things can be assessed by anyone, and what things require an auto tech. Give me a list. One example, many cars don't come with mudflaps does the officer have a database to check what cars should have them what cars don't?
|
I mean, I kinda gave you a bit of list. You want me to go through every possible safety issue I think a cop could inspect? No thanks. As for the mud flaps, just because a vehicle doesn't come with them, doesn't mean they aren't required. If I recall correctly, there are specications, like distance to ground. This can be measured. I remember being in a Chevy dealership, and they had a simple sign explaining that you may need to buy mudflaps for your truck, and the regulation around it. Again, not complicated. It has nothing to do with a car database, it's a simple measurement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
Then why the #### are you commenting? What an asinine thing to say.
|
I was acknowledging that yes, perhaps there is a possibility there are issues with a few items, (I don't know, and neither do you)it doesn't mean the entire initiative is worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
This is not a program to actually improve safety, as I said to do that we need yearly vehicle inspections. Not a perfect system but it takes a lot of dangerous vehicles off the road. Also, Alberta has NO emissions testing a poorly running engine is horribly polluting. And we have many of those on the road.
Right, it is that simple. You either have perfect vehicle or a broken down piece of ####.
|
I'd be happy with yearly inspections and emissions testing. But we don't have those, so for now, lets do this.
I'm not sure what you are taking issue with? That people should be able to drive around with broken lights? Worn out tires?
Other than shouting that this is a cash grab, what is your objection to it? Or is that it?