By Eric Peters
Some good news: New Hampshire has eliminated mandatory “safety” inspections. These inspections often have little to do with actual safety—and a lot to do with rent-seeking.
“Rent-seeking” refers to private businesses leveraging government power to compel people to do business with them—transactions that most people would decline if given the choice.
A prime example is Tesla, which benefits from federal regulations that pressure automakers to produce so-called “zero-emissions” vehicles. Automakers can avoid these requirements by purchasing “carbon credits”—which Tesla has in abundance since it only builds electric vehicles. These credits are then sold to other manufacturers. This arrangement is coercive and creates nothing of actual value. It is classic rent-seeking.
State-mandated safety inspections work in a similar way.
In states that require them, vehicle owners are forced to bring their cars to government-authorized shops for inspection, usually once a year. These shops benefit from a captive audience and a reliable stream of revenue—not just from the cost of the inspection itself, but also from repairs deemed necessary to pass it.
It’s understood by everyone involved: no sticker, no driving, even if the car is mechanically sound. For instance, if your airbag warning light is on, your car will typically fail inspection. Why? A dashboard light doesn’t make the car unsafe—it just means the car is out of compliance. And that’s a distinction that too few people recognize.
Sure, some inspection failures are legitimate—worn-out brakes or bald tires, for instance. But here’s the problem: a car with borderline brakes or tires can still pass—as long as they meet the minimum standard on that particular day. The law may require the inspector to pass the vehicle and issue a sticker, even if they know it won’t remain safe much longer. That sticker is good for the next twelve months.
The vehicle owner walks away with a false sense of security: My car passed inspection, so it must be safe.
A responsible inspector might give a heads-up: “You’ll need brakes in a month or two.” But there’s no guarantee the owner will act on it. Meanwhile, law enforcement won’t notice anything is wrong months later—because bald tires can be hard to spot on a moving vehicle, and worn brake pads are invisible unless the car is up on a lift. But the sticker will still be there, suggesting the car is safe.
In other words: It’s theater.
Well—it’s also money.
While not all inspectors are dishonest, some use the power to issue that sticker to pressure owners into paying for unnecessary repairs. Most car owners lack deep mechanical knowledge and are in no position to challenge a recommendation. They’re more focused on walking away with a passed inspection than questioning what they’re told.
This is a well-known vulnerability that some (not all) shops exploit. Without the pressure of mandatory inspections, owners might feel freer to get a second opinion—or delay a repair until it’s truly necessary.
But perhaps the worst effect of mandatory inspections is that they teach vehicle owners to be passive about safety. If the car passed inspection, they assume it’s good for another year. They stop checking tire tread. They don’t bother inspecting their brakes. Why would they? The sticker says it’s safe.
It might be safer for everyone if vehicle owners were more personally invested in understanding the true condition of their cars—rather than simply relying on a sticker that may not mean very much at all.
Editorial Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Motorists Association. We believe in fostering open dialogue and welcome diverse perspectives on issues affecting motorists. If you would like to submit a response or opposing viewpoint, we encourage you to contribute. Please email us at greg@motorists.org for submission guidelines.
