The Sticker and the Shock: Is It Time for Vermont to Overhaul Its Annual Vehicle Inspection?

Vermont's 300-page inspection manual can lead to failures for issues that many drivers feel have no bearing on safety, when most states have no inspection requirements.

A Facebook group called the "Vermont Inspection protest group" recently crossed the 1,000-member threshold. While a small number in the grand scheme, it represents a growing and vocal frustration simmering in every corner of the Green Mountain State—a frustration centered on the annual ritual of the vehicle inspection sticker.

For many Vermonters, the inspection is more than an inconvenience; it's a source of financial anxiety and a symbol of a state regulation they feel is out of touch with both modern vehicles and economic realities. As one member, Michael Marro, put it, "I dont ever remember voting for the state to use chemicals in the form of liquid salt. Nor did I ever see any rules about a little 1/2 inch rust make my car unsafe."

His comment cuts to the heart of a debate playing out in legislative committees and garage bays across the state: Is Vermont’s rigorous, and often costly, annual inspection program truly making our roads safer, or has it become an unfair burden? And with most of the country having moved away from such stringent mandates, is it time for Vermont to change course?

The State’s Case: A Necessary Check-Up

The Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and program proponents defend the annual inspection on several key grounds. First and foremost is public safety. The state argues that inspections are like preventative check-ups, designed to catch dangerous defects before they cause a crash. During one legislative hearing, it was noted that about 3% of vehicles fail for safety issues, which supporters see as proof the program is successfully identifying and sidelining unsafe cars.

The second pillar of the state's argument is environmental protection. The On-Board Diagnostics (OBDII) test, which checks for a lit "Check Engine" light in cars made since 1996, is part of a federally required plan to control air pollution. Finally, the state suggests the program offers economic benefits by catching minor issues before they become expensive repairs, thereby extending a vehicle's life.

To improve the system, the state has invested in the Automated Vehicle Inspection Program (AVIP), a tablet-based system that sends data directly to the DMV. Officials say this modernization effort reduces fraud and increases transparency, even allowing motorists to look up a used car's inspection history.

A Reality Check on the State's Rationale

While the government’s justifications sound reasonable, they often clash with the experiences of vehicle owners and a growing body of research.

The central claim—that inspections prevent accidents—is surprisingly hard to prove. A comprehensive 2015 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the available research and concluded that it was "inconclusive" and had generally been "unable to establish any causal relationship" between safety inspection programs and crash rates. A key reason is that vehicle component failure is the primary cause in only about 2-3% of all crashes, making it statistically difficult to measure the impact of inspections. While a 2023 study did find a correlation between inspection programs and lower fatality rates, numerous other studies have found no significant effect.

This ambiguity puts the program's costs and frustrations into sharp relief. For many, the inspection feels less like a safety measure and more like a "money grab," a sentiment echoed frequently online. The fact that the same private garages that perform inspections also profit from the repairs creates a clear conflict of interest that fuels public distrust.

Furthermore, the strictness of Vermont's 300-page inspection manual can lead to failures for issues that many drivers feel have no bearing on safety. Take the experience of Rick Bragg, who posted about his 2002 Volvo: "Why do you require that my odometer 'displays' the mileage on my dash?... This has Nothing to do with Safety!" It’s these kinds of rules, along with the notorious "gray area" of what constitutes structural rust in a state that heavily salts its roads, that leave many Vermonters feeling the system is arbitrary and unfair.

How Other States Do It—And a Path Forward for Vermont

Perhaps the most compelling argument for reform is that Vermont is increasingly an outlier. Only about 14 states still require a periodic safety inspection, and many of those are biennial, not annual. Our neighbor, New Hampshire, is a perfect example of the trend toward reform. Facing similar public pressure, its legislature is advancing a plan to exempt new cars from inspection for their first three years and eliminate the OBDII emissions test, pending a waiver from the federal government.

This "down the middle approach" offers a blueprint for how Vermont could modernize its own system. The good news is that Vermont lawmakers are already considering similar common-sense changes:

• Exempting New Cars: One bill (S.105) proposes exempting vehicles less than two years old from inspection, acknowledging that new cars are overwhelmingly safe and reliable.

• Reforming Rust Rules: Another bill (S.103) directly tackles the rust issue, requiring the DMV to clarify the difference between cosmetic rust and true structural threats.

• Focusing on "Imminent Danger": A third proposal (H.358) would limit failures to only those defects that pose an "imminent danger" to people on the road, preventing failures for minor, non-critical issues.

• Studying a Biennial System: A legislative committee is also tasked with studying the impact of moving from an annual to a biennial inspection, a change that would immediately cut the time and cost for Vermonters in half.

For the thousand-plus members of the protest group and many others across the state, these reforms can't come soon enough. While no one wants unsafe cars on the road, the current system places a heavy—and many argue, regressive—burden on Vermonters, particularly those with lower incomes who can't simply buy a new car to avoid a costly repair bill.

The debate over the inspection sticker isn't just about safety; it's about fairness, economic reality, and whether a law designed for the vehicles of 1935 is still the right tool for the job today. ¹ By looking at the evidence and the examples set by other states, Vermont has a clear opportunity to craft a more reasonable, less burdensome system that still keeps our roads safe.