Greensboring.com - Outside The Media. Beyond The News. Greensboro, NC.

Any experts out there... I couldn't find their criteria for judgement online.... I can't swing $250.00 for a winshield after buying 2 tires.... so I'm hoping this is safe... What do you think?

Yes. Mine did and it was directly in front of my view. I went to the Citgo on Wendover near Future 880.

Sanjuro is correct. I at one time had two vehicles with broken windshields and had no problem getting them inspected. I once asked the mechanic about the rules covering this and was told if the break didn't obstruct the driver's view, it would pass. He then asked if the crack obstructed my view. I of course said no.

Thanks, I'm going to run over on Monday and see what happens. $250 for a windshield is insane... it's glass not gold.

I expect it is strictly illegal. If it is in an area that is swept by the wipers it is considered to be obstructing your view. However this is something that is more honoured in the breach than in the observance, so it comes down to how or if it is enforced

We have the same law here and periodically the police have a blitz, but even then they only issue warnings. Fortunately, as I have a cracked windshield 90% of the time

That would never pass an inspection here in the UK

However, it is America and anything seems to be OK where cars are concerned.

I remember my Texas car inspection consisted of the inspector tapping the hood. I swear thats all he done.

Ahh the good old MOT test. I remember it well. Up here there are no tests at all. You can drive a POS with bald tires, no brakes and one headlight out until it dies or a cop decides to pull you over.

I have seen several cars with canvas showing on their tires. Fortunately the winter tends to take the worst of them out.

"An important safety feature of this car is it's complete inability to start when the temperature is below zero, thus keeping you off those dangerous, icy roads"

Uh-oh.... Judging from the 2nd picture, it looks like your car has been out of inspection for quite a while now!

I've never inspected it... They haven't enforced inspections in NC up till this year but now that they're combining registration and inspections... I have to comply.... it's not that I wouldn't of... it's just I didn't exactly want to buy a windshield.... I think the word here is "procrastination..."

I am originally from Ohio and they didn't do "inspections" there just tested for emissions. Assuming that your car had a tail pipe, a gas cap and the wheels didn't go flying off during the speed test, they would pretty much pass anything through there.

When I moved to PA earlier this year, I made the error of thinking that all I would have to do is get the plates swapped over. Apparently, PA is a little stricter.

No rust can be on the car itself, there must be at least 1/2 inch of tread remaining on all of the tires and both your main brakes and emergency brakes must be in good condition (rusted and pitted I now know, is NOT good condition). THEN you go for the emissions test.

I was recently informed (after about $1000.00 worth of work on my car) that it was finally ready to go for the emissions check. Being that I emptied out my checking account for the repairs, I'm not sure what I'll do if it doesn't pass emissions. Oh, well. At least I don't have to put a plate on the front anymore.

baerlondark wrote:there must be at least 1/2 inch of tread remaining on all of the tires

Surely not? That's more than brand new tires have. A new tire has 11-12mm, it should be replaced at around 2mm.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/gcpi2/2006/00000007/00000002/art00002

A survey of state requirements for legal minimum tread depth for passenger vehicle tires in the United States is presented. Most states require a minimum of 2/32 of an inch (approximately 1.6 mm) of tread, but two require less, some have no requirements, and some defer to the federal criterion for commercial vehicle safety inspections. The requirement of 2/32 of an inch is consistent with the height of the tread-wear bars built in to passenger car tires sold in the United States, but the rationale for that requirement, or other existing requirements, is not clear.

Liv wrote:I've never inspected it... They haven't enforced inspections in NC up till this year but now that they're combining registration and inspections... I have to comply.... it's not that I wouldn't of... it's just I didn't exactly want to buy a windshield.... I think the word here is "procrastination..."

Once, back in the Bad Old Days, I had to let my inspection lapse because my muffler rusted through and I couldn't afford to buy a new one. So I let the inspection lapse, and I constantly expected the State to send me a note saying that they had noticed my omission. That never came, so after a few months, I forgot about it.

Two years later, I got stopped at a random checkpoint that was set up near my home. Trooper walked up, asked for my registration and license. Then he says, "Are you aware that your inspection is.... whoa!"

He wrote me a ticket then and there. I took it meekly and went out the next day to get a new muffler (it was a 79 Honda Accord... you really couldn't tell there was no muffler, the engine was that weak). I paid my fine. I figured I deserved the punishment. What a week that was.

A Person wrote:

baerlondark wrote:there must be at least 1/2 inch of tread remaining on all of the tires

Surely not? That's more than brand new tires have. A new tire has 11-12mm, it should be replaced at around 2mm.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/gcpi2/2006/00000007/00000002/art00002

A survey of state requirements for legal minimum tread depth for passenger vehicle tires in the United States is presented. Most states require a minimum of 2/32 of an inch (approximately 1.6 mm) of tread, but two require less, some have no requirements, and some defer to the federal criterion for commercial vehicle safety inspections. The requirement of 2/32 of an inch is consistent with the height of the tread-wear bars built in to passenger car tires sold in the United States, but the rationale for that requirement, or other existing requirements, is not clear.

Two explanations occur to me here:

1. I am mistaken about the amount of tread required (highly likely).

2. Someone is trying to get me to buy a new set of tires that I don't really need (equally as likely).

I will defer to you here because although I can understand some other languages, mechanic is not one of them. Come to think of it, neither is metric...

There used to be some sort of trick.... like stick a penny in the treads, and if it's below abe's hairline then replace.

19A NCAC 03D .0536 WINDSHIELD WIPER
1. Windshield wipers shall not be approved if:
(a) The vehicle is not equipped with a windshield wiper or wipers,
provided the vehicle has a windshield.
(b) The wiper or wipers do not operate freely.
(c) The wiper controls are not so constructed and located that the driver
may operate them.
(d) The wiper or wipers are not adequate to clean rain, snow and other
matter from the windshield.
(e) Parts of blades or arms are missing or show evidence of damage.
(f) Windshields that are cracked and impedes wiper blade operation.
[Wipers on rear windows are not part of the safety
inspection.]
History Note: Authority G.S. 20-2; 20-39; 20-183.3(5);
Eff. October 1, 1994.

Here you go. Straight from the book. You can find the entire law by searching GS numbers listed. Even if it's cracked across the entire length, as long as it doesn't impede wiper operation.

baerlondark wrote:Two explanations occur to me here:

1. I am mistaken about the amount of tread required (highly likely).

19A NCAC 03D .0538 TIRES G.S. 20-122.1
1. A vehicle shall be disapproved if:
(a) Any tire has cuts or snags that expose the cords.
(b) Any tire has a visible bump, bulge, or knot apparently related to
tread or sidewall separation or partial failure of the tire structure
including bead area.
2. A tread depth gauge shall measure tire depth, which shall be of a type
calibrated in thirty-seconds of an inch. Readings shall be taken in two
adjacent tread grooves of the tire around the circumference of the tire.
Readings for a tire with a tread design that does not have two major
adjacent grooves shall be taken at the center of the tire around the
circumference of the tire. Each tire must be completely lifted from the
ground for an inspection to be performed.
[Uniform bulges could be the results of manufacturers
tire construction.]
[Dry rotted tires will not be approved.]

Thanks Jack... I've been sick this week or would have stopped in... I'm hoping next week I can.

Talk about a surprise move... looks like there will be some serious changes to the inspection laws in North Carolina shortly.

While I don't think it's personally disappointing, I still have to wonder about it.

You know though... there's some stories my dad use to tell me back when he worked in the auto industry about how before there where safety inspections there was people in Tennessee who would try to drive their cars around with 3 wheels, scraping the rotor on the road....

Might have been urban legend passed down within the industry....

But I say I support a basic safety inspection....

My Dad once told me of a story of a Sunday drive with his in-laws, back in the 50's. His father-in-law noticed a tire flying past his car, and said "Look! Some idiot lost his wheel!" -- just as the rear of his car started scraping the pavement.

The idea that somehow cars are less safe and cause more accidents in states that don't have inspections is a myth plain and simple. Real independent studies don't back up this claim.

Sanjuro wrote:The idea that somehow cars are less safe and cause more accidents in states that don't have inspections is a myth plain and simple. Real independent studies don't back up this claim.

What about the air quality studies vs states that do no testing for emissions?

Jack Aubrey wrote:

Sanjuro wrote:The idea that somehow cars are less safe and cause more accidents in states that don't have inspections is a myth plain and simple. Real independent studies don't back up this claim.

What about the air quality studies vs states that do no testing for emissions?

That I don't know about. However, It seems ridiculous that older cars that produce plumes of smoke dont get tested when my car (less than 3 years old) does. Hell, I drove my old jeep without a cat converter for years and no one was the wiser for that very reason.

Sanjuro wrote:It seems ridiculous that older cars that produce plumes of smoke dont get tested when my car (less than 3 years old) does

It's a numbers game. Out of any set of vehicles on the road the majority of the polluters are the mid aged vehicles with malfunctioning or altered emission devices and in the big picture the older vehicles get fewer and fewer as time passes.

The state just spent a butt load of money for safety inspection machines for the new e-stickers. It would seem a waste to just dump it now. But I guess wasting money never stopped the government before.

I scanned the story, but I seem to recall that the emissions tests and safety inspections are seen as separate questions for the purposes of the state's regulations. Be interesting to see how it shakes out. My next inspection is due in June, IIRC.

Jack Aubrey wrote:It's a numbers game. Out of any set of vehicles on the road the majority of the polluters are the mid aged vehicles with malfunctioning or altered emission devices and in the big picture the older vehicles get fewer and fewer as time passes.

Isn't this a bit like saying that since stores lose more money from shoplifting than they do from armed robbery we shouldn't do anything about armed robbers?

Jack Aubrey wrote:The state just spent a butt load of money for safety inspection machines for the new e-stickers. It would seem a waste to just dump it now. But I guess wasting money never stopped the government before.

Those are sunk costs. Making a bad decision does not mean you should continue spending money to justify it.