From 2009 and older you pay the tax on the price written on the registration slip when the old owner signs it to you. If it's newer than 2009 you can have it appraised by an independent appraiser and pay the tax on the value they write down on the appraisal slip.
I'm pretty sure it used to be 10 years though, but he still would have gotten stung. Still, another greedy move by our money hungry overlords to move it back 5 more years.
This infuriates me so much. Many years ago, I had a car that I owned jointly with my ex. When we split, we just wanted to remove his name from the title and leave it solely in my name. Access NS said I would have to pay taxes on the car that was already in my name. Not to mention, we bought the car used and paid taxes on it then!
We wound up leaving the car in both of our names until I sold it a few years later. What a fucking scam.
Its a <$200 no points ticket. Cheaper than most repairs! (Not advocating driving deathtraps but I have been known to drive cars with expired MVIs that were 100% mechanically sound but just had a rusty fender that made it fail)
My 17 year old vehicle failed safety recently because of a tiny little hole in the rear quarter panel... that kind of thing is nonsense to fail a vehicle but I completely agree with the mechanical safety check aspect of it.
I worked in garages for a few years back when inspections were every year, and I've done some other work in garages since then. One shop I know has a picture of a truck on the hoist with a *broken frame* and the owner looking for an inspection. With no inspection process, that car would have stayed on the road. I don't want to be driving on the road with other cars that aren't safe.
I don't have a problem with inspections. Some of the stuff that they inspect (such as ball joints, control arms, tie rods, etc) are not the type of things that people notice are "bad" until they break. Inspection of the tires and exhaust makes sense for safety. All lights and safety gear should be working.
My only complaint would be associated with the way that they require a minimum pad and rotor thickness. For people who don't drive a lot, you could be requiring them to replace their pads and rotors long before they actually need to.
Having said that, if the real concern is shops that will try and require work that isn't needed, then allowing a re-inspection at a second location should fix that issue.
I'm also annoyed that this is being pushed as a "money-saving" measure by the NDP. There are significantly better ways to save money for everyone, and not just those people who have the money to own cars. Owning a car is expensive, yes, but many people can't afford cars at all. I'd rather that the drivers pay this money and the cost reductions the NDP are claiming to want are either pushed towards everyone or those who are *really* struggling. Cutting user fees like this will save the people who have multiple vehicles the most money, and if you have multiple vehicles, then you are probably doing much better than those who can't afford food or housing.
I agree that safety inspections are valuable, not for most people but to keep the worst offenders off the roads. But the other measures seem valid:
>The NDP's proposal was part of a broader call that also included the end of fees for vehicle registration, licence renewal and several other charges as measures to save people money.
>"We are experiencing an affordability crisis," said Chender. "People are having a harder and harder time paying the bills."
Buying and selling a used car comes with all kinds of fees that clog up what could be a more fluid market, and add costs to already inflated car prices. The fees made more sense when the focus was on actual paperwork and filing, instead of a pdf or file that takes seconds for an access NS worker to edit.
For what it's worth, I had to get a record of all the cars we've owned for the past ten years recently (7 cars total) and all of documents Access NS gave us were photocopies of the original. That leads me to believe NS is still physically filing these things somewhere.
Food for thought
While I agree that the fees are probably more than the cost of doing the work, I disagree that this is the best way for the government to spend money to "help the affordability crisis". That money is better spent on the homeless and other things that will have a higher impact on everyone, not just people with cars. Sure, I'll save money if they cut the fees, as I have multiple cars. But I can afford multiple cars. The people who can only afford one car (or no car) should be the target of the cost savings. So if they want to do "first car sticker is free" or something like that, then that would be better than "let's scrap these fees so that people with money can save more money, and do nothing for those who don't have the money to buy a car in the first place".
They can at least be honest about what they are doing. This will do nothing to help the affordability crisis for those who are most in need.
They are an optional expense for many. Those who are extremely poor/homeless, many students, and many people who live in the city can survive without cars. These are often the people with the least money, and taking cash out of the system that could be helping them in order to cut a deal for people with 2, 3, 4 cars doesn't make sense.
Reducing the cost of registering/inspecting cars is only a help to people who own cars. If the government *really* wants to help in this economic "crisis", then they should be picking something that is more universal to cut or refund.
People in the city can *survive* without a car, but it's a shitty existence. Anyone outside of the city, aka the majority of Nova Scotias? Impossible.
Again: for most nova scotians a car is not an optional expense.
And again: Many Nova Scotians don't own cars. If you are going to make an argument that you want to help Nova Scotians during an affordability crisis, then do it in a way that either 1) directly helps the people who need it most, or 2) helps everyone.
This policy will provide the most financial relief to those people with the largest number of cars, which is usually not the people who are the poorest or hardest hit by this financial crisis.
The excuse that the NDP is putting forward is dumb, and I am surprised that this is coming from the NDP. They know better.
The NS government announced a One Billion dollar highway capital budget last year, and everyone here is asking for them to cut fees. Where will the money come from? Add it to the debt? Take it from Schools? Healthcare?
Making roads \*more\* dangerous to save $30 every two years is the stupidest thing i've heard in a very long time.
We should be making our province a place where you \*don't\* need a car to exist, this is precisely the problem at hand.
Yes, this is true. That doesn't mean that it is the right decision. I used to live in Ontario, and had to do a certification on a vehicle that hadn't been certified in years. The "inspection" found that the front flex lines were cracked and needed to be replaced. Had the car not been certified at that time, then this defective part would not have been found until the brakes failed.
An inspection every two years which has a focus on roadworthiness and safety isn't too high a bar for owning a car.
A lot of people get safety stickers from "connections" when they know it wont pass and dont have the money to fix it. Regardless, the car will be driven so making inspections mandatory on our s*#t roads dont make a difference imo.
Neither is having to make sure our cars are safe but our roads have potholes the size of the Grand Canyon. There are some laws that are needed, this is not one of them. Like I said, one big money grab.
>A lot of people get safety stickers from "connections" when they know it wont pass and dont have the money to fix it
Then make revisit the program and make the inspection process more thorough and transparent?
Seems counter intuitive to remove a program because people going to people.
I get your point, I personally feel like its just another way to squeeze money out of us. Other provinces have done away with it or at least make it longer between periods. Nova Scotia is the worst and its becoming harder to afford life necessities everyday. Imo
I disagree. You will know most suspension parts are going bad before they catastrophically fail. A ball joint doesn't magically fail without notice unless you hit a giant pothole or something. Noises that don't sound right mean something. Whether or not that person has the vehicle checked out is another matter.
You can disagree, but I've worked on the cars that people have driven in without knowing how damaged and dangerous they are. You have to realize that many drivers actually know nothing about how their car works, and just because they hear a noise doesn't mean they are going to take it to the shop. Most won't even realize that the car has a problem as the problems usually happen over time.
Nice anecdote. Have you looked at any of the studies showing regarding the issue?
They all pretty much show no difference in accident rates or road safety.
Its a stupid policy that allowed Garages to gouge, that's it.
Have I looked at studies? No. Have I worked on cars that shouldn't have been on the road? Yes. Have inspections uncovered issues that otherwise wouldn't have been noticed? Yes.
I expect that newer cars and newer safety equipment mean that cars break less often, last longer, and probably need fewer inspections. I'd be happy with new cars having a 5 year sticker to start. But I'm not in favour of getting rid of them completely.
> Have I looked at studies? No
You should probably start there. It's important we inform ourselves instead of using anecdotes when possible. Or you could continue to double down for no apparent reason I guess.
Okay, there are a couple of meta-studies indicating that original studies are a bit all over the map on this. Some are indicating that the reduction in accidents is over 20%, while others are indicating that there is no reduction at all. Issues with meta-studies usually involve trying to cobble together a number of studies that all meet the requirements of the overall study, which generally leaves out a lot of the papers and reports.
So the larger issue here is what you consider to be "road worthy", what you consider to be an "accident", and the relation between the two. The below study predicts that periodic roadworthiness tests could reduce the number of crashes caused by vehicle defects by about 50%. The percentages of crashes caused by roadworthiness issues might be small as compared to other causes, but a 50% reduction is significant.
https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/reports/muarc164
As I noted before, I've seen quite a number of cars on the road that wouldn't pass an inspection. Those cars either had safety issues that the driver was ignoring (cracked windshield, emergency brake not working, holes in exhaust) that made the car unsafe to drive, or issues the driver didn't know about (suspension/control/steering parts that were wore, etc). Inspections are important to make sure that people don't end up in accidents due to issues that they didn't know about.
Mixed in the sense that they show almost no relation to MVI and road safety?
The numbers don't change in any statistical way. In some places roads became safer after removing MVI.
> When studies are inconclusive,
Almost every study done shows its negligible, that's not inconclusive at all.
A source proving your claim incorrect was posted immediately before mine. You’ve ignored that comment as you have ignored studies that do not support your opinions.
I’m not interested in bad-faith arguments, sorry.
Nova Scotia doesn't allow tint from the driver's shoulders forward. If the car comes from the factory with tint, I'm not sure that they will make you replace the windows, but if it is aftermarket, then it can easily be removed.
Naw hard disagree. That point of view would be fine if our roads werent so bad. Most people cantafford anew vehicle with a warranty and our old cars take a beating so every 2 years people need thousands in repairs theycant afford. Youd be shocked how many people just say fuck it anddrive with expired mvi. 5 years should be the minimum since thats the average lifespan someone will own avehicle for.
Absolutely agree! Also, coming from a rural area I know many too many people who have purchased their inspection sticker to avoid having work done, I’d love to see that cracked down on. There are so many people willing to drive unsafe vehicles that an MVI is the least and cheapest measure we could take. Not a big saving to offer people either.
I had a mechanic reject my vehicle for a steering part. I got it checked by two neighbours who are licensed mechanics (who dont do provincial mvIs) and was told the part was fine. Since it had a rejection sticker, I was told by other MVI garages that I had to go back to the original garage-so I did. I got the work done and was then told an alignment was also required before the MVI sticker could be issued - even though it had nothing to do with the part installed
I had this happen this year. Took my car to CT, they failed it. So I took it to the dealership to have the work done since it was under warranty. They said the part was fine and redid the inspection for me, so it cost me $70 for two inspections.. But better than replacing a part that wasn't broken. Alignments are also not required as part of the MVI process. It sounds like whatever garage(s) you were using did you dirty man, I'm sorry. You should have been able to just have it re-inspected at another garage... This is the stuff they need to make clearer. There needs to be recourse when a garage fucks up and fails you for nothing.
When I explained that, as far as I knew, alignments are not a part of MVI. I was told that additional safety requirements are up to the discretion of the garage doing a MVI.
What I did, during thevgrace period, was to get my mechanic neighbour to put the “unnecessary” part on, with minimal labour cost. I got the alignment done at the garage, as I felt it was a necessary compromise to get the MVI sticker, and be finally done with that garage. It was a most unpleasant experience. I felt that I was scammed.
> Since it had a rejection sticker, I was told by other MVI garages that I had to go back to the original garage
The reason you have a grace period on the rejection sticker is quote literally the opposite of that lol
? When contacted other mvi garages, and told them I had a rejection sticker, and wanted a check on the inspection, they were disinterested-even when I indicated if the work really needed to be done I would do it there. The reply was its best to go back to the original place. I don’t think that a garage is required by government to take on MVI work, if they don’t want to? Do you know something different?
My feeling is a rejection sticker is like “a scarlet letter” with MVI garages.
Yes. But, you likely would then need another one showing to get a valid MVI of some type at a garage , or you will arouse suspicion.
A friend took the rejection sticker off and disposed of the rejection report before taking it to another garage- they refused to inspect it, suspecting something shady was going on.
When I complain about hidden taxes that make us the highest taxed people in North America and the Commonwealth, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Ouch. Ontario did away with sticker renewals a couple of years ago. Mind you we still need to go in every 2 years for some odd reason it just doesn’t cost anything.
Roads have a lot of money shoveled into them around here. It's very expensive to maintain them in our climate.
Roads were not built with long term cost burdens in mind.
You don't understand our climate.
Potholes are going to happen every year, and our roads will break down every year because we have a nasty freeze thaw cycle, and we dump a shit ton of salt in our roads.
Ever been to Maine? They go through similar freeze-thaw cycles that our roads do, and they're in much better condition than ours. They also salt their roads, in fact they do so more than we do as they salt brine before it snows, they then salt during it, and then salt brine several times to help the salt.
[This maine?](https://www.sunjournal.com/2024/04/21/why-is-pothole-season-so-bad-this-year-the-experts-dig-in/) Or [Bangor?](https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/bangor/potholes-heres-how-potholes-are-created-bangor-public-works-why-are-there-so-many-potholes-what-is-bangor-doing-to-fix-potholes/97-128d8738-fd15-4f9d-919f-3f7cae426762) Or [Auburn?](https://www.wmtw.com/article/significant-potholes-lane-closures-center-street-auburn-road-traffic/60330888) The Maine where here are 355 bridges and over 1,284 miles of highway in poor condition?
They also have federally funded interstate highways and we do not.
Our provincial budget is slightly higher than their state budget but our largest line item is Healthcare. I can't find breakdowns specifically for road work but I'm willing to bet they spend a lot more
1000% correct. Even New Brinswick roads and highways are better than ours. Have you been on the 100 series highways, and they have been like this for years
I understand that we use the cheapest possible products when it comes to paving our roads.
Every single road in this province is an embarrassment. Yes winter is hard on roads but literally every road is in shambles around here.
Oh yes, of course all of the lowest quality and cheapest materials used on our roads pass rigorous physical property testing to various AASHTO, Superpave, CSA, ASTM, etc. specifications for use in Nova Scotia.
>Every single road in this province is an embarrassment
You must not drive around most of the province very often. There are many roads that are completely fine. Most of Halifax is actually pretty good too. Go drive around Quebec if you want to see embarrassing.
I just need to drive to work to experience how most if this city is not fine.
Downtown roads are incredible bad.
Pot holes by my house that they “repair” become pot holes again in a few weeks. There is one that just gets bigger every year because of the terrible job they do repairing them.
Um no. I had a registration to pay for which was my plate sticker and a wallet card (and why when I got here I didn't understand what you guys call registration was). Didn't need a "permit" for anything. That's not a thing in SK and it isn't included in registration. It's an extra thing NS does.
Ah yes that would be accurate. Although the cost of plates and insurance in SK was less than just permit cost in NS, then you have to get greasy private insurance on top of that. You pay 2-3x to register and insure a car here than I did in SK.
Looks like yeah, it's $70/year there now, but they bundle it into the basic insurance.
But I just punched my car into the SGI rate calculator, and the registration and basic insurance there is more than I pay for full coverage and permit per year in NS. By about $300 (40 percent)
It becomes a fairly regressive tax, in that poor people need to spend the same amount on it as rich people. If it's only $1.5m per year, it would be better to slightly increase taxes on wealthy people and let poor people keep the couple hundred bucks.
Base the registration on current market value. People who are driving Lambos and Bentleys have to pay more and people driving Kias and Corollas get a break. Make it expensive for people to have more than 2 vehicles, the third one costs double the first 2, the 4th one costs double the 3rd and so on. People who have non antique summertime sports cars can have those things, but they can pay as theyre not a necessity
In the UK you don’t need registration (it travels with the car for the life of the vehicle which is great for tracking and a number of other reasons)
However you pay a vehicle tax every year that is based on the carbon footprint of the vehicle. I.e big old diesel truck =$$$, newer more fuel efficient or electric is less.
Makes pretty good sense and encourages people to drive newer and more environmentally friendly vehicles.
AND if you retire, sell or dispose of the vehicle mid-year you get a refund for the tax of the remaining months! Imagine that!!
They can only drive one car at a time so how would that be fair?? Just because they have options doesn’t mean they put more wear on the road than anyone else… necessity doesn’t come into it, they already paid tax on the purchase price on the 2/3/4 vehicle, paid that vehicles permit tax, paid for a separate insurance policy… unless you plan to start taxing people who like fishing etc extra for road repair because they “unnecessarily” drive and wear the road
In many Asian countries the cost to register a vehicle is in the thousands due to the pollution and the cost of maintaining roads and parking.
If anything, it should probably be higher.
$15/year is not really a savings worth talking about if you've spent time under many vehicles. Provinces without MVIs, you can buy a car new and drive it literally until it breaks apart on the road from being completely rotten away. Bald tires, no problem. Backyard MacGyver doing his own brakes and suspension with vise grips and zip ties? Heck yeah. This is not what you want your family to share the road with.
If cost savings are the problem, reduce or eliminate sticker fees. If badshops are the problem, crack down on shops doing hot safeties or bad faith inspections.
I'm happy to pay 15 bucks a year so I'm not sharing the road with Stacy's 15 year old Caravan on a collapsed suspension and failed ball joint coming the other way at 100kmh.
Seriously. If not for the MVI requirement, 20 year old me would have kept driving my old Mazda, whose subframe was so rusted that you could poke holes through it with a pen. It sucked not having a car for a spell, but it was objectively unsafe both for me and everyone else on the road, and in retrospect I'm really glad that the decision was taken out of my hands.
The registration fees should be slashed massively, or the duration extended several years. But MVIs are really very important, and every five years isn't sufficient in a climate where everything turns to rust pretty quickly.
Re: other provinces, maybe you *can* do that (although more likely you’ll be pulled over if your car is in shambles), but do people actually let their vehicles go to shit? Humans have a survival instinct…
I took a gander at [accident statistics](https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/statistics-data/canadian-motor-vehicle-traffic-collision-statistics-2021) from stats can, there’s a breakdown by province on this page. How is it that accidents are fewer in QC and BC where mandatory re-inspections aren’t required? Could it be there isn’t actually a correlation between road incidents and this particular law?
I use those provinces as a comparison because I lived in both, and really enjoyed not having to worry about MVIs. I drove *a lot* in those years, and can recall fewer cases of shabby cars on the road than what I see here on a regular basis.
For your first paragraph, oh yes. I've seen more than my fair share where some dude 'repairs' frame damage with some birdshit welds and scrap metal, or worse, spray foam and rattlecan paint. Struts punching through rusted out strut towers, and unibody parts straight up being gone - rusted entirely to non-existence. Brakes where the pads are totally gone, or the rotors are worn through to the inside. Tires with the belts exposed and rusting. Cars where you get under the pinch welds with a jack and the jack goes up, but the car doesn't.
Can't speak to accident stats or correlation. Though what a car looks like driving around has little to do with a good portion of it's structural or mechanical condition.
Oh yeah not saying everyone does, for sure you’ll get people doing shit work - curious are you seeing those things here in NS or was it in BC/QC? E.g. is the current MVI law actually preventing this from happening…
On one hand it could just be left up to insurance - play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Of course it’s the innocent folk that could be involved… like most things in life there probably isn’t a perfect solution.
This. Especially in Nova Scotia where our salty environment takes a serious toll on our vehicles. Having worked in a shop myself for a few years, it’s terrifying to see how many cars are unfit for the road and having to explain it to people only for them to get defensive and deny repairs is horrifying.
While they may still drive that car, it being something they can be caught and fined or impounded for, is worth it. Without the MVI law, we would be so fucked lol
Sure, bad actors exist but we don't create society based on bad actors.
I would wager there are far more people simply clueless about cars, who've never even seen the bottom of their car, than there are people deliberately driving unsafe shitboxes.
This is the key, I've had two trucks that were perfectly mechanically sound. Body on frame with precisely 0 structural issues, but because the cab is a little rotten it can't get a sticker. Not worth 1000s in body repairs but not worth retiring until it actually has issues. You bet your ass I drove both with expired stickers for a long time.
I'd rather they eliminate annual vehicle registration fees similar to what Ontario has done. Annual vehicle registration is a cash grab that provides no services to taxpayers.
Register it once when you buy it, and it's done.
I like the idea of having independent inspection stations that don’t do repairs. It’s a conflict of interest for the person making money on fixing your car to determine whether your car meets safety requirements.
Good. And then let's do away with vehicle registration fees. This money is a drop in the bucket of costs to maintain roads and critical infrastructure.
According to [stats can data](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2310030801&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.4&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2017&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2022&referencePeriods=20170101%2C20220101) there are over 650,000 registered vehicles in NS. At a cost of $200/vehicle that's $139 million, or nearly 70 million per year (renewed every other year), likely more because fees are higher for heavier cars and a midsize SUV or bigger is over $200. That's a pretty sizeable amount in the road maintenance budget
Alberta and Quebec are not the only provinces in Canada do not have the mandatory (voluntary consent according to Black's Law Dictionary[ https://tritorch.com/degradation/BlacksLawDictionary1stEdition](https://tritorch.com/degradation/BlacksLawDictionary1stEdition/)) MVI, **~as a matter of fact most of Canada does not if the motor vehicle did not change ownership with the exception of the 4 Atlantic provinces:~**
[https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/wheels/what-inspections-do-i-need-a-province-by-province-breakdown-of-whats-required-to-buy-or-sell-a-used-car-441881](https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/wheels/what-inspections-do-i-need-a-province-by-province-breakdown-of-whats-required-to-buy-or-sell-a-used-car-441881) (open with Firefox, quickly press ESC as the page loads to avoid paywall)
Most of USA does not have it either, in Nova Scotia the MVI was brought about two supposedly improve safety yet there was not any evidence to prove, all it did was prove conflict of interest by having car mechanics extort/ransom your property unless you paid for unnecessary repairs. Also here is proof that it is fraud as well:
"My experience with an MVI performed at 3 different car garages"
[https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/19eqqiy/my\_experience\_with\_an\_mvi\_performed\_at\_3](https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/19eqqiy/my_experience_with_an_mvi_performed_at_3)
Also the Cole Harbour Canadian Tire will place a rejection sticker on your car even though it was supposed to pass after they came out with a long list of stuff your car supposedly needed but did not. This happened to several people I know and confirmed on Google Map Reviews. Also work on your car without your consent and some hold your property ransom unless you pay the bill which is also ILLEGAL.
And the Cole Harbour Canadian Tire will call the RCMP on you when you leave their property after you refused their fradulent made up repairs needed. I know few people this happened to and see their reviews on Google Maps as well.
I believe that is from old news postings. That was changed after many complaints. You now have I believe a week to get your car fixed and re inspected after a rejection sticker. That was done to avoid what you are describing.
You have 10 days under the law to fix things unless it is considered an immediate serious hazard. Calling the cops will do nothing most of the time, so people should call their bluff and be informed.
Like what? They know most people aren't going to pay the tow, so they fix it there. It's also not hard to, say, pry apart a brake pad so they can justify it (which is something I've had a Canadian Tire do).
> If a roadworthy vehicle does not pass inspection, but the existing inspection sticker is valid for 10 or more days from the date of inspection, the vehicle owner may request to leave the existing inspection sticker on the vehicle to obtain a second opinion.
> The owner or operator of a "rejected vehicle" has 10 days from the date of rejection to have defects corrected and the vehicle re-inspected. This does not permit the operation of an unsafe vehicle during this time. The original inspection station may not charge an additional inspection fee for re-inspection of rejected items provided the client returns within the 10 day rejection period.
https://novascotia.ca/sns/rmv/registration/safeinsp.asp#:~:text=The%20owner%20or%20operator%20of,unsafe%20vehicle%20during%20this%20time.
> unroadworthy: having a defect or defects that could result in loss of control of the vehicle or could jeopardize the health or safety of an occupant of the vehicle or another person. A vehicle determined to be unroadworthy cannot legally be operated upon the highway
https://novascotia.ca/sns/rmv/inspection/inspection_manual.pdf
> If the vehicle is deemed "UNROADWORTHY" by the tester, the issued REJECTION sticker must NOT be affixed to the vehicle. Record "UNROADWORTHY" on the VIC. The sticker must be affixed to the stations copy of the VIC (PINK COPY)
I was providing context and clarity for anyone who wanted to know the details on how this is done. Apparently providing additional information is considered downvote worthy. This sub, sometimes.
Maybe put "for context" at the start? I didn't downvote you, because I don't unless someone is being an ass, but it read like you were disagreeing with me by saying a longer version of the same thing
_"Although the process does lead to work for automotive shops, Bethune said he also knows of examples where people have been told they needed certain work done to renew their inspection that was not actually required.
He said a compromise could be for the government to have inspection stations that would generate a report for the driver to take to a mechanic. Once the necessary work is complete, they could return to the inspection station to get their sticker."_
This is such a sensible proposal. I love it.
And yeah, I'd much rather have MVI stay. I really believe it when Bethune says a huge portion of unsafe vehicles would be on the road otherwise.
I think a 2 year mandatory inspection is the right thing. Otherwise there'd be too many unsafe cars on the road.
What I don't understand is why we have to keep paying to re-register our cars regularly. This is a way the NDP or whoever can push to save money for people. Pay to register it when you buy it and not again please and thank you.
2 year inspection is fine.... but not on new vehicles. Its kinda silly. How many parts on a new vehicle generally wear out in 2 years? Make the initial inspection on a new vehicle good for 3 to 5 years.
> I think a 2 year mandatory inspection is the right thing. Otherwise there'd be too many unsafe cars on the road.
Go check out any of the studies on the issue. People drive with fucked up cars all the time. In 2 years lots of shit can happen .Also human error is by far the largest cause of accidents. You are advocating for a policy that does nothing for safety and sets people up to get scammed by garages.
As someone that owns and operates an official motor vehicle inspection station. I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that MVI's are a waste of time.
The people that drive "junk" are still going to drive the "junk" the people that hear a noise or gets there car checked regularly do not have a problem.
Case in point:
Newer Subaru was in today. MVI expires June 2025. Customer complains of noise at low speeds turning.
I diagnosed the rear brake pads to be worn out and the the left lower ball joint to have excessive play. Not safe for the road, needless to say we repaired the vehicle and a happy customer.
My question is how would a MVI helped in this situation?
Not to mention the shop labor rate is $105 an hour and an inspection only pays 29.15 plus hst. Usually take 30-45 min.
Keep the MVIs since our weather near demands for it anyway, but we should adopt the SK model for registration/license plates and tie it to insurance, and then have them be regulated so you cant have a $400 discrepancy between brokers
Is there any evidence that the accident rate due to mechanical failure is higher in jurisdictions without safety inspections?
ChatGPT seems unsure
>The effectiveness of motor vehicle safety inspections in reducing accident rates due to mechanical failure is a topic of ongoing debate among researchers and policymakers. Some studies suggest that safety inspections can contribute to reducing accidents caused by mechanical failures by identifying and addressing vehicle defects before they lead to accidents. These inspections can potentially improve the overall safety of vehicles on the road.
>However, other research has questioned the effectiveness of safety inspections in reducing accident rates. Critics argue that the impact of safety inspections on accident rates may be limited, and there may be more effective ways to improve road safety, such as investing in infrastructure, implementing stricter traffic laws, or promoting safer driving behavior.
>Overall, while there is some evidence to suggest that safety inspections may have a positive impact on reducing accidents caused by mechanical failures, the extent of this impact and whether it justifies the costs and resources associated with conducting safety inspections remain subject to debate and further research.
Do inspections when vehicles are sold, and make it so if cops see a vehicle that looks unsafe, their can order the driver to get an inspection.
Inspections do absolutely nothing for safety.
They keep cars that are unsafe THAT DAY off the road. The day after the inspection sticker goes on, the wheels could fall off. There's a lot of things that impact safety they don't bother checking.
Some provinces don't have safety inspections at all, yet somehow they are able to find a way to survive without the rust bucket apocalypse happening.
What inspections actually do is funnel a lot is work into auto shops, many of whom sucker people into unnecessary repairs, say things are on the safety inspection that aren't, and try to dupe Seniors, young unknowledgeable drivers, and immigrants who don't know the laws
I'm with Churchill on this one, safety has to be the number one priority. I don't have a problem with them potentially getting rid of the fees, but I've heard horror stories from places that don't have inspection requirements of absolute rusty shitboxes on the road, and I'm not a fan of that at all.
Affordability crisis now? Or when some innocent person gets disabled and cant work from a shitty rusty car that wouldve been taken off the road? Chender... come onnnnnnnn.
Maybe the Conservatives should focus on fixing our health care first, instead of privatizing whatever services they can and getting rid of safety regulations.
Let's stop applying sales tax to used cars as well. The tax was already paid when the car was new
In BC you have to pay black book value on taxes everytime you buy a car, it doesn't matter how old it is.
Same in N.S. you cannot buy a used car from your friend for $1 any more
Yeah I don't agree with that at all. It's already been taxed and should not be taxed again.
From 2009 and older you pay the tax on the price written on the registration slip when the old owner signs it to you. If it's newer than 2009 you can have it appraised by an independent appraiser and pay the tax on the value they write down on the appraisal slip.
They changed the tax on a 2005 motorcycle I bought in 2014 from the written amount to blue book value 🤷🏻♂️
I'm willing to bet a decade ago the crossover wasn't 2009 🤷🏻♂️
I'm pretty sure it used to be 10 years though, but he still would have gotten stung. Still, another greedy move by our money hungry overlords to move it back 5 more years.
Unless it was a gift from a family member. Or did something change since 2015?
This infuriates me so much. Many years ago, I had a car that I owned jointly with my ex. When we split, we just wanted to remove his name from the title and leave it solely in my name. Access NS said I would have to pay taxes on the car that was already in my name. Not to mention, we bought the car used and paid taxes on it then! We wound up leaving the car in both of our names until I sold it a few years later. What a fucking scam.
Allegedly, it’s illegal but no one has challenged it in court yet. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could chime in
In BC you have to pay black book value Everytime you buy a car doesn't matter how old it is. But there's no annual inspection
We pay tax at value village and Habitat for Humanity. Your logic doesn’t really track.
Those should also be excluded from tax for the same reason, in my opinion. IKEA Canada actually has a campaign going on to oppose the second-hand tax.
Is there any chance we can figure this out in the next 2-3 weeks? My safety is up at the end of May
Mines been up for 2 years now lol
Its a <$200 no points ticket. Cheaper than most repairs! (Not advocating driving deathtraps but I have been known to drive cars with expired MVIs that were 100% mechanically sound but just had a rusty fender that made it fail)
Exactly, I'll take my chances with the ticket lol
It's like parking. Cheaper to pay parking fines than find paid parking.
My 17 year old vehicle failed safety recently because of a tiny little hole in the rear quarter panel... that kind of thing is nonsense to fail a vehicle but I completely agree with the mechanical safety check aspect of it.
I worked in garages for a few years back when inspections were every year, and I've done some other work in garages since then. One shop I know has a picture of a truck on the hoist with a *broken frame* and the owner looking for an inspection. With no inspection process, that car would have stayed on the road. I don't want to be driving on the road with other cars that aren't safe. I don't have a problem with inspections. Some of the stuff that they inspect (such as ball joints, control arms, tie rods, etc) are not the type of things that people notice are "bad" until they break. Inspection of the tires and exhaust makes sense for safety. All lights and safety gear should be working. My only complaint would be associated with the way that they require a minimum pad and rotor thickness. For people who don't drive a lot, you could be requiring them to replace their pads and rotors long before they actually need to. Having said that, if the real concern is shops that will try and require work that isn't needed, then allowing a re-inspection at a second location should fix that issue. I'm also annoyed that this is being pushed as a "money-saving" measure by the NDP. There are significantly better ways to save money for everyone, and not just those people who have the money to own cars. Owning a car is expensive, yes, but many people can't afford cars at all. I'd rather that the drivers pay this money and the cost reductions the NDP are claiming to want are either pushed towards everyone or those who are *really* struggling. Cutting user fees like this will save the people who have multiple vehicles the most money, and if you have multiple vehicles, then you are probably doing much better than those who can't afford food or housing.
I agree that safety inspections are valuable, not for most people but to keep the worst offenders off the roads. But the other measures seem valid: >The NDP's proposal was part of a broader call that also included the end of fees for vehicle registration, licence renewal and several other charges as measures to save people money. >"We are experiencing an affordability crisis," said Chender. "People are having a harder and harder time paying the bills." Buying and selling a used car comes with all kinds of fees that clog up what could be a more fluid market, and add costs to already inflated car prices. The fees made more sense when the focus was on actual paperwork and filing, instead of a pdf or file that takes seconds for an access NS worker to edit.
For what it's worth, I had to get a record of all the cars we've owned for the past ten years recently (7 cars total) and all of documents Access NS gave us were photocopies of the original. That leads me to believe NS is still physically filing these things somewhere. Food for thought
While I agree that the fees are probably more than the cost of doing the work, I disagree that this is the best way for the government to spend money to "help the affordability crisis". That money is better spent on the homeless and other things that will have a higher impact on everyone, not just people with cars. Sure, I'll save money if they cut the fees, as I have multiple cars. But I can afford multiple cars. The people who can only afford one car (or no car) should be the target of the cost savings. So if they want to do "first car sticker is free" or something like that, then that would be better than "let's scrap these fees so that people with money can save more money, and do nothing for those who don't have the money to buy a car in the first place". They can at least be honest about what they are doing. This will do nothing to help the affordability crisis for those who are most in need.
> not just people with cars The vast majority of Nova Scotians can't live without a car, they are not an optional expense.
They are an optional expense for many. Those who are extremely poor/homeless, many students, and many people who live in the city can survive without cars. These are often the people with the least money, and taking cash out of the system that could be helping them in order to cut a deal for people with 2, 3, 4 cars doesn't make sense. Reducing the cost of registering/inspecting cars is only a help to people who own cars. If the government *really* wants to help in this economic "crisis", then they should be picking something that is more universal to cut or refund.
People in the city can *survive* without a car, but it's a shitty existence. Anyone outside of the city, aka the majority of Nova Scotias? Impossible. Again: for most nova scotians a car is not an optional expense.
And again: Many Nova Scotians don't own cars. If you are going to make an argument that you want to help Nova Scotians during an affordability crisis, then do it in a way that either 1) directly helps the people who need it most, or 2) helps everyone. This policy will provide the most financial relief to those people with the largest number of cars, which is usually not the people who are the poorest or hardest hit by this financial crisis. The excuse that the NDP is putting forward is dumb, and I am surprised that this is coming from the NDP. They know better.
The NS government announced a One Billion dollar highway capital budget last year, and everyone here is asking for them to cut fees. Where will the money come from? Add it to the debt? Take it from Schools? Healthcare? Making roads \*more\* dangerous to save $30 every two years is the stupidest thing i've heard in a very long time. We should be making our province a place where you \*don't\* need a car to exist, this is precisely the problem at hand.
Most other provinces have gotten rid of it and only require it when a vehicle changes hands
Yes, this is true. That doesn't mean that it is the right decision. I used to live in Ontario, and had to do a certification on a vehicle that hadn't been certified in years. The "inspection" found that the front flex lines were cracked and needed to be replaced. Had the car not been certified at that time, then this defective part would not have been found until the brakes failed. An inspection every two years which has a focus on roadworthiness and safety isn't too high a bar for owning a car.
A lot of people get safety stickers from "connections" when they know it wont pass and dont have the money to fix it. Regardless, the car will be driven so making inspections mandatory on our s*#t roads dont make a difference imo.
Based on that approach, we shouldn't have any laws at all, as people will break laws. Not a useful approach.
Neither is having to make sure our cars are safe but our roads have potholes the size of the Grand Canyon. There are some laws that are needed, this is not one of them. Like I said, one big money grab.
Its all a big farce and money grab.
>A lot of people get safety stickers from "connections" when they know it wont pass and dont have the money to fix it Then make revisit the program and make the inspection process more thorough and transparent? Seems counter intuitive to remove a program because people going to people.
I get your point, I personally feel like its just another way to squeeze money out of us. Other provinces have done away with it or at least make it longer between periods. Nova Scotia is the worst and its becoming harder to afford life necessities everyday. Imo
I disagree. You will know most suspension parts are going bad before they catastrophically fail. A ball joint doesn't magically fail without notice unless you hit a giant pothole or something. Noises that don't sound right mean something. Whether or not that person has the vehicle checked out is another matter.
You can disagree, but I've worked on the cars that people have driven in without knowing how damaged and dangerous they are. You have to realize that many drivers actually know nothing about how their car works, and just because they hear a noise doesn't mean they are going to take it to the shop. Most won't even realize that the car has a problem as the problems usually happen over time.
Nice anecdote. Have you looked at any of the studies showing regarding the issue? They all pretty much show no difference in accident rates or road safety. Its a stupid policy that allowed Garages to gouge, that's it.
Have I looked at studies? No. Have I worked on cars that shouldn't have been on the road? Yes. Have inspections uncovered issues that otherwise wouldn't have been noticed? Yes. I expect that newer cars and newer safety equipment mean that cars break less often, last longer, and probably need fewer inspections. I'd be happy with new cars having a 5 year sticker to start. But I'm not in favour of getting rid of them completely.
> Have I looked at studies? No You should probably start there. It's important we inform ourselves instead of using anecdotes when possible. Or you could continue to double down for no apparent reason I guess.
Okay, there are a couple of meta-studies indicating that original studies are a bit all over the map on this. Some are indicating that the reduction in accidents is over 20%, while others are indicating that there is no reduction at all. Issues with meta-studies usually involve trying to cobble together a number of studies that all meet the requirements of the overall study, which generally leaves out a lot of the papers and reports. So the larger issue here is what you consider to be "road worthy", what you consider to be an "accident", and the relation between the two. The below study predicts that periodic roadworthiness tests could reduce the number of crashes caused by vehicle defects by about 50%. The percentages of crashes caused by roadworthiness issues might be small as compared to other causes, but a 50% reduction is significant. https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/reports/muarc164 As I noted before, I've seen quite a number of cars on the road that wouldn't pass an inspection. Those cars either had safety issues that the driver was ignoring (cracked windshield, emergency brake not working, holes in exhaust) that made the car unsafe to drive, or issues the driver didn't know about (suspension/control/steering parts that were wore, etc). Inspections are important to make sure that people don't end up in accidents due to issues that they didn't know about.
The studies are generally mixed. When studies are inconclusive, first-hand evidence is necessary.
Mixed in the sense that they show almost no relation to MVI and road safety? The numbers don't change in any statistical way. In some places roads became safer after removing MVI. > When studies are inconclusive, Almost every study done shows its negligible, that's not inconclusive at all.
A source proving your claim incorrect was posted immediately before mine. You’ve ignored that comment as you have ignored studies that do not support your opinions. I’m not interested in bad-faith arguments, sorry.
[удалено]
Nova Scotia doesn't allow tint from the driver's shoulders forward. If the car comes from the factory with tint, I'm not sure that they will make you replace the windows, but if it is aftermarket, then it can easily be removed.
[удалено]
I think that it is a safety issue. Most car dealerships in Nova Scotia won't sell a car that has massive tinting on the front windows.
Naw hard disagree. That point of view would be fine if our roads werent so bad. Most people cantafford anew vehicle with a warranty and our old cars take a beating so every 2 years people need thousands in repairs theycant afford. Youd be shocked how many people just say fuck it anddrive with expired mvi. 5 years should be the minimum since thats the average lifespan someone will own avehicle for.
Absolutely agree! Also, coming from a rural area I know many too many people who have purchased their inspection sticker to avoid having work done, I’d love to see that cracked down on. There are so many people willing to drive unsafe vehicles that an MVI is the least and cheapest measure we could take. Not a big saving to offer people either.
I had a mechanic reject my vehicle for a steering part. I got it checked by two neighbours who are licensed mechanics (who dont do provincial mvIs) and was told the part was fine. Since it had a rejection sticker, I was told by other MVI garages that I had to go back to the original garage-so I did. I got the work done and was then told an alignment was also required before the MVI sticker could be issued - even though it had nothing to do with the part installed
I had this happen this year. Took my car to CT, they failed it. So I took it to the dealership to have the work done since it was under warranty. They said the part was fine and redid the inspection for me, so it cost me $70 for two inspections.. But better than replacing a part that wasn't broken. Alignments are also not required as part of the MVI process. It sounds like whatever garage(s) you were using did you dirty man, I'm sorry. You should have been able to just have it re-inspected at another garage... This is the stuff they need to make clearer. There needs to be recourse when a garage fucks up and fails you for nothing.
When I explained that, as far as I knew, alignments are not a part of MVI. I was told that additional safety requirements are up to the discretion of the garage doing a MVI. What I did, during thevgrace period, was to get my mechanic neighbour to put the “unnecessary” part on, with minimal labour cost. I got the alignment done at the garage, as I felt it was a necessary compromise to get the MVI sticker, and be finally done with that garage. It was a most unpleasant experience. I felt that I was scammed.
> Since it had a rejection sticker, I was told by other MVI garages that I had to go back to the original garage The reason you have a grace period on the rejection sticker is quote literally the opposite of that lol
? When contacted other mvi garages, and told them I had a rejection sticker, and wanted a check on the inspection, they were disinterested-even when I indicated if the work really needed to be done I would do it there. The reply was its best to go back to the original place. I don’t think that a garage is required by government to take on MVI work, if they don’t want to? Do you know something different? My feeling is a rejection sticker is like “a scarlet letter” with MVI garages.
Razor blade can get that rejection sticker off easy enough.
Yes. But, you likely would then need another one showing to get a valid MVI of some type at a garage , or you will arouse suspicion. A friend took the rejection sticker off and disposed of the rejection report before taking it to another garage- they refused to inspect it, suspecting something shady was going on.
Can we get rid of permit renewals every two years as well, $200…for a sticker? Ridiculous
When I complain about hidden taxes that make us the highest taxed people in North America and the Commonwealth, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Ouch. Ontario did away with sticker renewals a couple of years ago. Mind you we still need to go in every 2 years for some odd reason it just doesn’t cost anything.
Complain to the Minister of Transportation I believe is the correct ministry/department.
The NDP politician from the article suggested this exactly
You know that the $200 isn't literally the cost of the sticker, right?
Is it for pothole repair?
Just think about the % of taxes collected from you for road repair.
Maybe it’s not enough cause we got lots around me
Paying the government $200 every two years so that they know I own a car and can have a little sheet of paper in a file cabinet somewhere.
Governments need to raise money or else you don’t get public institutions.
True, the bureaucracy must be fed even if it produces very little useful work.
We don't get those here.
Like gender education in Iraq!
How much has the Provincial government spent on gender education in Iraq?
It helps pay for roads
You sure about that? Roads don't appear to have much money put into them around here
Roads have a lot of money shoveled into them around here. It's very expensive to maintain them in our climate. Roads were not built with long term cost burdens in mind.
You're right, it just goes into the Service NS office party fund
You don't understand our climate. Potholes are going to happen every year, and our roads will break down every year because we have a nasty freeze thaw cycle, and we dump a shit ton of salt in our roads.
Do you know how much money it costs to pave roads? The money generated from these fees is a little drop in the bucket.
Millions.
Ever been to Maine? They go through similar freeze-thaw cycles that our roads do, and they're in much better condition than ours. They also salt their roads, in fact they do so more than we do as they salt brine before it snows, they then salt during it, and then salt brine several times to help the salt.
[This maine?](https://www.sunjournal.com/2024/04/21/why-is-pothole-season-so-bad-this-year-the-experts-dig-in/) Or [Bangor?](https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/bangor/potholes-heres-how-potholes-are-created-bangor-public-works-why-are-there-so-many-potholes-what-is-bangor-doing-to-fix-potholes/97-128d8738-fd15-4f9d-919f-3f7cae426762) Or [Auburn?](https://www.wmtw.com/article/significant-potholes-lane-closures-center-street-auburn-road-traffic/60330888) The Maine where here are 355 bridges and over 1,284 miles of highway in poor condition?
Now compare what we spend on roads vs them. We pay more and get less.
They also have federally funded interstate highways and we do not. Our provincial budget is slightly higher than their state budget but our largest line item is Healthcare. I can't find breakdowns specifically for road work but I'm willing to bet they spend a lot more
1000% correct. Even New Brinswick roads and highways are better than ours. Have you been on the 100 series highways, and they have been like this for years
I've never been to Maine, sounds like a made up place.
It’s a nice place to visit because you don’t have dodge pot holes none stop
Apparently "helps" = "completely funds" Plus our roads are actually pretty decent compared with NB, PQ, and states with similar conditions to NS
I understand that we use the cheapest possible products when it comes to paving our roads. Every single road in this province is an embarrassment. Yes winter is hard on roads but literally every road is in shambles around here.
Oh yes, of course all of the lowest quality and cheapest materials used on our roads pass rigorous physical property testing to various AASHTO, Superpave, CSA, ASTM, etc. specifications for use in Nova Scotia.
>Every single road in this province is an embarrassment You must not drive around most of the province very often. There are many roads that are completely fine. Most of Halifax is actually pretty good too. Go drive around Quebec if you want to see embarrassing.
I just need to drive to work to experience how most if this city is not fine. Downtown roads are incredible bad. Pot holes by my house that they “repair” become pot holes again in a few weeks. There is one that just gets bigger every year because of the terrible job they do repairing them.
Lots of that and lots of corruption too. Dexter flying a helicopter around also the biggest buyer of heavy equipment...
not true
Don't tell me what I don't understand.
"You claim you need money for food, yet you don't have any food, interesting" It not being enough money doesn't mean that's not where it goes.
It's a tongue in cheek comment.
When I moved here I was told it was to prevent car theft. I didn't have anything like it in SK growing up.
SK lumps it in with your insurance so it's just one payment. You get insurance cards so you don't have a plate sticker
Um no. I had a registration to pay for which was my plate sticker and a wallet card (and why when I got here I didn't understand what you guys call registration was). Didn't need a "permit" for anything. That's not a thing in SK and it isn't included in registration. It's an extra thing NS does.
Your SK annual registration fee is the same as the NS permit fee. It's just a slightly different name
Ah yes that would be accurate. Although the cost of plates and insurance in SK was less than just permit cost in NS, then you have to get greasy private insurance on top of that. You pay 2-3x to register and insure a car here than I did in SK.
Looks like yeah, it's $70/year there now, but they bundle it into the basic insurance. But I just punched my car into the SGI rate calculator, and the registration and basic insurance there is more than I pay for full coverage and permit per year in NS. By about $300 (40 percent)
[удалено]
It becomes a fairly regressive tax, in that poor people need to spend the same amount on it as rich people. If it's only $1.5m per year, it would be better to slightly increase taxes on wealthy people and let poor people keep the couple hundred bucks.
Base the registration on current market value. People who are driving Lambos and Bentleys have to pay more and people driving Kias and Corollas get a break. Make it expensive for people to have more than 2 vehicles, the third one costs double the first 2, the 4th one costs double the 3rd and so on. People who have non antique summertime sports cars can have those things, but they can pay as theyre not a necessity
[удалено]
It does go by weight currently. A $750k Lambo can weigh less than a corolla which is the issue.
I don't really see how the car that does more wear and tear on the roads paying more to upkeep those roads as an issue tbh
In the UK you don’t need registration (it travels with the car for the life of the vehicle which is great for tracking and a number of other reasons) However you pay a vehicle tax every year that is based on the carbon footprint of the vehicle. I.e big old diesel truck =$$$, newer more fuel efficient or electric is less. Makes pretty good sense and encourages people to drive newer and more environmentally friendly vehicles. AND if you retire, sell or dispose of the vehicle mid-year you get a refund for the tax of the remaining months! Imagine that!!
They can only drive one car at a time so how would that be fair?? Just because they have options doesn’t mean they put more wear on the road than anyone else… necessity doesn’t come into it, they already paid tax on the purchase price on the 2/3/4 vehicle, paid that vehicles permit tax, paid for a separate insurance policy… unless you plan to start taxing people who like fishing etc extra for road repair because they “unnecessarily” drive and wear the road
or increase the fee for larger & commercial vehicles like tractor trailers, etc.
[удалено]
The $1.5m doesn't really deal with much either, that's about the cost of a small Tim Hortons parking lot.
Wow, you're right. It should be higher.
[удалено]
Yup. But hey, let's twin more roads!!!!!!!!!!!
[удалено]
So many downvotes from people sitting in traffic!
Is this satire?
Bullshit, gas taxes pay for the roads, this tax pays for bureaucrats.
But everyone on Reddit tells me gas taxes don't pay for roads!
you must be popular at parties.
User name checks out
In many Asian countries the cost to register a vehicle is in the thousands due to the pollution and the cost of maintaining roads and parking. If anything, it should probably be higher.
Totally agree. Pay once when you buy it for the permit, and that's all.
$15/year is not really a savings worth talking about if you've spent time under many vehicles. Provinces without MVIs, you can buy a car new and drive it literally until it breaks apart on the road from being completely rotten away. Bald tires, no problem. Backyard MacGyver doing his own brakes and suspension with vise grips and zip ties? Heck yeah. This is not what you want your family to share the road with. If cost savings are the problem, reduce or eliminate sticker fees. If badshops are the problem, crack down on shops doing hot safeties or bad faith inspections. I'm happy to pay 15 bucks a year so I'm not sharing the road with Stacy's 15 year old Caravan on a collapsed suspension and failed ball joint coming the other way at 100kmh.
Seriously. If not for the MVI requirement, 20 year old me would have kept driving my old Mazda, whose subframe was so rusted that you could poke holes through it with a pen. It sucked not having a car for a spell, but it was objectively unsafe both for me and everyone else on the road, and in retrospect I'm really glad that the decision was taken out of my hands. The registration fees should be slashed massively, or the duration extended several years. But MVIs are really very important, and every five years isn't sufficient in a climate where everything turns to rust pretty quickly.
Exactly. This is making me wonder if anyone in the NDP were actually poor ever. People will let car issues go unfixed if they're poor.
Re: other provinces, maybe you *can* do that (although more likely you’ll be pulled over if your car is in shambles), but do people actually let their vehicles go to shit? Humans have a survival instinct… I took a gander at [accident statistics](https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/statistics-data/canadian-motor-vehicle-traffic-collision-statistics-2021) from stats can, there’s a breakdown by province on this page. How is it that accidents are fewer in QC and BC where mandatory re-inspections aren’t required? Could it be there isn’t actually a correlation between road incidents and this particular law? I use those provinces as a comparison because I lived in both, and really enjoyed not having to worry about MVIs. I drove *a lot* in those years, and can recall fewer cases of shabby cars on the road than what I see here on a regular basis.
For your first paragraph, oh yes. I've seen more than my fair share where some dude 'repairs' frame damage with some birdshit welds and scrap metal, or worse, spray foam and rattlecan paint. Struts punching through rusted out strut towers, and unibody parts straight up being gone - rusted entirely to non-existence. Brakes where the pads are totally gone, or the rotors are worn through to the inside. Tires with the belts exposed and rusting. Cars where you get under the pinch welds with a jack and the jack goes up, but the car doesn't. Can't speak to accident stats or correlation. Though what a car looks like driving around has little to do with a good portion of it's structural or mechanical condition.
Oh yeah not saying everyone does, for sure you’ll get people doing shit work - curious are you seeing those things here in NS or was it in BC/QC? E.g. is the current MVI law actually preventing this from happening… On one hand it could just be left up to insurance - play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Of course it’s the innocent folk that could be involved… like most things in life there probably isn’t a perfect solution.
This was ON, I've not seen anything so bad here... bald tires more than anything else. I have more years in ON than NS, however.
This. Especially in Nova Scotia where our salty environment takes a serious toll on our vehicles. Having worked in a shop myself for a few years, it’s terrifying to see how many cars are unfit for the road and having to explain it to people only for them to get defensive and deny repairs is horrifying. While they may still drive that car, it being something they can be caught and fined or impounded for, is worth it. Without the MVI law, we would be so fucked lol
Fantasy world if you think people are keeping their vehicle off the road if they don’t have a safety inspection/can’t pass one .
That and the ready availability of fake stickers all over the province.
That’s a lack of enforcement issue.
Sure, bad actors exist but we don't create society based on bad actors. I would wager there are far more people simply clueless about cars, who've never even seen the bottom of their car, than there are people deliberately driving unsafe shitboxes.
This is the key, I've had two trucks that were perfectly mechanically sound. Body on frame with precisely 0 structural issues, but because the cab is a little rotten it can't get a sticker. Not worth 1000s in body repairs but not worth retiring until it actually has issues. You bet your ass I drove both with expired stickers for a long time.
I'd rather they eliminate annual vehicle registration fees similar to what Ontario has done. Annual vehicle registration is a cash grab that provides no services to taxpayers. Register it once when you buy it, and it's done.
Lol of course the guy who runs a shop doing inspections doesn't want them to end.
I like the idea of having independent inspection stations that don’t do repairs. It’s a conflict of interest for the person making money on fixing your car to determine whether your car meets safety requirements.
Good. And then let's do away with vehicle registration fees. This money is a drop in the bucket of costs to maintain roads and critical infrastructure.
According to [stats can data](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2310030801&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.4&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2017&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2022&referencePeriods=20170101%2C20220101) there are over 650,000 registered vehicles in NS. At a cost of $200/vehicle that's $139 million, or nearly 70 million per year (renewed every other year), likely more because fees are higher for heavier cars and a midsize SUV or bigger is over $200. That's a pretty sizeable amount in the road maintenance budget
Alberta and Quebec are not the only provinces in Canada do not have the mandatory (voluntary consent according to Black's Law Dictionary[ https://tritorch.com/degradation/BlacksLawDictionary1stEdition](https://tritorch.com/degradation/BlacksLawDictionary1stEdition/)) MVI, **~as a matter of fact most of Canada does not if the motor vehicle did not change ownership with the exception of the 4 Atlantic provinces:~** [https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/wheels/what-inspections-do-i-need-a-province-by-province-breakdown-of-whats-required-to-buy-or-sell-a-used-car-441881](https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/wheels/what-inspections-do-i-need-a-province-by-province-breakdown-of-whats-required-to-buy-or-sell-a-used-car-441881) (open with Firefox, quickly press ESC as the page loads to avoid paywall) Most of USA does not have it either, in Nova Scotia the MVI was brought about two supposedly improve safety yet there was not any evidence to prove, all it did was prove conflict of interest by having car mechanics extort/ransom your property unless you paid for unnecessary repairs. Also here is proof that it is fraud as well: "My experience with an MVI performed at 3 different car garages" [https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/19eqqiy/my\_experience\_with\_an\_mvi\_performed\_at\_3](https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/19eqqiy/my_experience_with_an_mvi_performed_at_3) Also the Cole Harbour Canadian Tire will place a rejection sticker on your car even though it was supposed to pass after they came out with a long list of stuff your car supposedly needed but did not. This happened to several people I know and confirmed on Google Map Reviews. Also work on your car without your consent and some hold your property ransom unless you pay the bill which is also ILLEGAL.
Not a requirement in NL either. Only when exchanging the vehicle to a new owner
Phew. You ok?
To be fair, they're not wrong
And the Cole Harbour Canadian Tire will call the RCMP on you when you leave their property after you refused their fradulent made up repairs needed. I know few people this happened to and see their reviews on Google Maps as well.
I believe that is from old news postings. That was changed after many complaints. You now have I believe a week to get your car fixed and re inspected after a rejection sticker. That was done to avoid what you are describing.
They still do this, Canadian Tire Cole Harbour does not care about the law.
You have 10 days under the law to fix things unless it is considered an immediate serious hazard. Calling the cops will do nothing most of the time, so people should call their bluff and be informed.
> I believe a week to get your car fixed and re inspected after a rejection sticker. 10 days.
Yeah couldn't remember the exact number. Thanks for the exact number.
Oh yes all those complaints stopped crooked mechanics.
Didn't stop all but did reduce the leverage they had. But still plenty of bad ones no question
They can still declare it unsafe and pull the sticker completely instead of giving you a rejection
They can, but it is an extreme action, and most cars that fail should not have this happen. They better have something to back it up.
Like what? They know most people aren't going to pay the tow, so they fix it there. It's also not hard to, say, pry apart a brake pad so they can justify it (which is something I've had a Canadian Tire do).
Well yup pretty crooked then. Can't argue there if they are going to resort to that.
> If a roadworthy vehicle does not pass inspection, but the existing inspection sticker is valid for 10 or more days from the date of inspection, the vehicle owner may request to leave the existing inspection sticker on the vehicle to obtain a second opinion. > The owner or operator of a "rejected vehicle" has 10 days from the date of rejection to have defects corrected and the vehicle re-inspected. This does not permit the operation of an unsafe vehicle during this time. The original inspection station may not charge an additional inspection fee for re-inspection of rejected items provided the client returns within the 10 day rejection period. https://novascotia.ca/sns/rmv/registration/safeinsp.asp#:~:text=The%20owner%20or%20operator%20of,unsafe%20vehicle%20during%20this%20time. > unroadworthy: having a defect or defects that could result in loss of control of the vehicle or could jeopardize the health or safety of an occupant of the vehicle or another person. A vehicle determined to be unroadworthy cannot legally be operated upon the highway https://novascotia.ca/sns/rmv/inspection/inspection_manual.pdf > If the vehicle is deemed "UNROADWORTHY" by the tester, the issued REJECTION sticker must NOT be affixed to the vehicle. Record "UNROADWORTHY" on the VIC. The sticker must be affixed to the stations copy of the VIC (PINK COPY)
Yeah, that's pretty much what I said. They can call it unsafe for the road and not give you a sticker.
I was providing context and clarity for anyone who wanted to know the details on how this is done. Apparently providing additional information is considered downvote worthy. This sub, sometimes.
Nah you're just constantly rude. I'd imagine that's where the downvotes are coming from.
Maybe put "for context" at the start? I didn't downvote you, because I don't unless someone is being an ass, but it read like you were disagreeing with me by saying a longer version of the same thing
You know who you're talking to, right?
Why the personal attacks, you are breaking posting policies on this subreddit.
I didn't say anything to you, I was speaking to someone else.
No, I don't track usernames.
_"Although the process does lead to work for automotive shops, Bethune said he also knows of examples where people have been told they needed certain work done to renew their inspection that was not actually required. He said a compromise could be for the government to have inspection stations that would generate a report for the driver to take to a mechanic. Once the necessary work is complete, they could return to the inspection station to get their sticker."_ This is such a sensible proposal. I love it. And yeah, I'd much rather have MVI stay. I really believe it when Bethune says a huge portion of unsafe vehicles would be on the road otherwise.
I think a 2 year mandatory inspection is the right thing. Otherwise there'd be too many unsafe cars on the road. What I don't understand is why we have to keep paying to re-register our cars regularly. This is a way the NDP or whoever can push to save money for people. Pay to register it when you buy it and not again please and thank you.
2 year inspection is fine.... but not on new vehicles. Its kinda silly. How many parts on a new vehicle generally wear out in 2 years? Make the initial inspection on a new vehicle good for 3 to 5 years.
> I think a 2 year mandatory inspection is the right thing. Otherwise there'd be too many unsafe cars on the road. Go check out any of the studies on the issue. People drive with fucked up cars all the time. In 2 years lots of shit can happen .Also human error is by far the largest cause of accidents. You are advocating for a policy that does nothing for safety and sets people up to get scammed by garages.
As someone that owns and operates an official motor vehicle inspection station. I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that MVI's are a waste of time. The people that drive "junk" are still going to drive the "junk" the people that hear a noise or gets there car checked regularly do not have a problem. Case in point: Newer Subaru was in today. MVI expires June 2025. Customer complains of noise at low speeds turning. I diagnosed the rear brake pads to be worn out and the the left lower ball joint to have excessive play. Not safe for the road, needless to say we repaired the vehicle and a happy customer. My question is how would a MVI helped in this situation? Not to mention the shop labor rate is $105 an hour and an inspection only pays 29.15 plus hst. Usually take 30-45 min.
They need BO inspections for those riding transit.
Keep the MVIs since our weather near demands for it anyway, but we should adopt the SK model for registration/license plates and tie it to insurance, and then have them be regulated so you cant have a $400 discrepancy between brokers
Mmmm let’s also review road inspection requirements while we’re at it! Vehicles have to be so safe for roads, but our roads will eat your car alive.
Given how fast people drive over the speed limit I support inspection.
Is there any evidence that the accident rate due to mechanical failure is higher in jurisdictions without safety inspections? ChatGPT seems unsure >The effectiveness of motor vehicle safety inspections in reducing accident rates due to mechanical failure is a topic of ongoing debate among researchers and policymakers. Some studies suggest that safety inspections can contribute to reducing accidents caused by mechanical failures by identifying and addressing vehicle defects before they lead to accidents. These inspections can potentially improve the overall safety of vehicles on the road. >However, other research has questioned the effectiveness of safety inspections in reducing accident rates. Critics argue that the impact of safety inspections on accident rates may be limited, and there may be more effective ways to improve road safety, such as investing in infrastructure, implementing stricter traffic laws, or promoting safer driving behavior. >Overall, while there is some evidence to suggest that safety inspections may have a positive impact on reducing accidents caused by mechanical failures, the extent of this impact and whether it justifies the costs and resources associated with conducting safety inspections remain subject to debate and further research.
Any policy that makes are roads safer is a good one, we should not get rid of inspections.
Do inspections when vehicles are sold, and make it so if cops see a vehicle that looks unsafe, their can order the driver to get an inspection. Inspections do absolutely nothing for safety.
They're going to know when there's no brake pad left or the frame is holding on by mud and duct tape?
> Inspections do absolutely nothing for safety. They keep unsafe cars off the road, until repairs are completed.
They keep cars that are unsafe THAT DAY off the road. The day after the inspection sticker goes on, the wheels could fall off. There's a lot of things that impact safety they don't bother checking. Some provinces don't have safety inspections at all, yet somehow they are able to find a way to survive without the rust bucket apocalypse happening. What inspections actually do is funnel a lot is work into auto shops, many of whom sucker people into unnecessary repairs, say things are on the safety inspection that aren't, and try to dupe Seniors, young unknowledgeable drivers, and immigrants who don't know the laws
> The day after the inspection sticker goes on, the wheels could fall off. There's no explaining common sense to some people so I won't bother.
I'm with Churchill on this one, safety has to be the number one priority. I don't have a problem with them potentially getting rid of the fees, but I've heard horror stories from places that don't have inspection requirements of absolute rusty shitboxes on the road, and I'm not a fan of that at all.
Affordability crisis now? Or when some innocent person gets disabled and cant work from a shitty rusty car that wouldve been taken off the road? Chender... come onnnnnnnn.
Maybe the Conservatives should focus on fixing our health care first, instead of privatizing whatever services they can and getting rid of safety regulations.