Most of north america doesn’t do that. Some place require a safety check to initiate insurance, after that most just wait for things to break or get pulled over by a cop/ministry of transportation.
Im also a little iffy about #2. We already subsidize drivers enough, making them pay for their lights or at least partly pay sounds reasonable.
I think a middle ground solution would be add the regulations for new cars and enforce the regulation when a noncompliant car changes owners. This way buyers of used cars should be able to research if that cost is likely to impact their model or not. It doesn’t take all the headlights off the road at once but it starts phasing out the problematic cars.
Most of north america doesn’t do that. Some place require a safety check to initiate insurance, after that most just wait for things to break or get pulled over by a cop/ministry of transportation.
Im also a little iffy about #2. We already subsidize drivers enough, making them pay for their lights or at least partly pay sounds reasonable.
I think a middle ground solution would be add the regulations for new cars and enforce the regulation when a noncompliant car changes owners. This way buyers of used cars should be able to research if that cost is likely to impact their model or not. It doesn’t take all the headlights off the road at once but it starts phasing out the problematic cars.
Clearly, a solution for civilized countries :)
But I agree, you can either pay and get the problem solved faster or pass the cost to drivers and wait a decade or more to phase out problematic cars.
I bring up north america mostly because it has the most egregious offenders with high hooded SUVs and trucks.
Yes but US regulates so few things they will obviously not even try to solve this issue. With current administration it’s even less likely.