🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Mar26.024822.2509@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:

>Come on, how many accidents are caused by a mechanical failure that a
>yearly inspection would find?  The insurance companies are entering
>the realm of the ridiculous here.  

FWIW, Florida stopped doing annual vehicle inspections about ten years 
ago, after a study failed to find any correlation between the inspections
and accidents. If there is such a correlation, it is weak.

I have spent over $500 to pass a Virginia inspection, with none of the 
maintenance having any relation to safety at all. (I know they say you 
don't have to spend over $200. It's not true.) The modifications were 
emissions related, and resulted in a doubling of the carbon monoxide
produced by my car. I'm not convinced that ANY of the simple ideas will
improve highway safety.

Until these issues start being discussed in terms of quantitative risk
(Risk = 1 x 10E-6 Quality Adjusted Life Years lost per mile traveled) we 
won't get anywhere. The press refuses to use such numbers. Example:
"Alar on apples has been shown to cause cancer of the big toe." Fine, 
is that risk equal to the risk of drinking a glass of wine? A drop 
of wine? One million gallons of wine? One nanoliter of wine?