As of January 31, 2026, the number of states requiring annual vehicle inspections will drop from 14 to 13. Last Friday, the governor of New Hampshire signed a new state budget into law, and along with it, a repeal of the mandatory inspections.
Emissions tests could be dropped sooner, if the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services gets a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency. According to CBS Boston, only three states required both an annual vehicle inspection and emissions test: Massachusetts, New York, and New Hampshire.
The New Hampshire Automobile Dealers Association has received the news with dismay. “We want these roads to be safe, and we take a lot of pride in that. By eliminating a safety inspection program, we’re throwing that all out the window,” Jason LaCroix, the association’s chairman, told WMUR. The House Republican Caucus, on the other hand, is celebrating.
“It’s a scam, really, because the data shows that forcing car inspections doesn’t actually lead to safety. It can lead to $1000 bills that average people weren’t expecting,” Rep. Sam Farrington (R-Rochester) told the same outlet.
Those in favor of vehicle inspections argue that they save lives by ensuring vehicles remain in better condition. Those opposing the inspections argue that they force unnecessary and costly repairs. Others, reports CBS Boston, suggest a compromise—eliminate inspections, but have the police keep an eye on things. (The NH State Troopers say they’re already stretched thin, so that probably isn’t a good idea.)
Some of the blame for the situation may lie with the test, which is pass/fail. It’s an awkward format for a machine as complex as a vehicle. The system doesn’t encourage triage, or transparency, and it’s easy to imagine how that could erode the confidence of the driver. For instance, a vehicle could fail an annual inspection due to bald tires—an obvious danger—or simply because a trailer hitch obscures the rear plate. It also seems like a missed opportunity. We had a look at the detailed version of the checklist, and wow—it is extensive.
If the pass/fail grading were replaced by a numerical score, supplemented by an itemized list of what’s wrong with the vehicle, it could help demystify the diagnostic process and provide an owner with an opportunity to do some preventive maintenance, even if their car had a high enough score to pass the test. After all, under New Hampshire’s rules, your car can be failed for low power-steering fluid. It’s cheap to buy and easy to refill, if only someone would identify the problem and show you where to look. And if the inspector is already checking the tires, couldn’t they tell the driver if they’re likely to need a new set … a year ahead?
Perhaps the real question is: Who is ultimately responsible for the condition of a vehicle? Should state governments help keep their constituents safe by holding them accountable, or should those constituents tend to their own vehicles? These are the questions worth debating.
In the meantime, no matter which state you live in, be a good neighbor, friend, and/or parent. Be kind and share your automotive knowledge, however extensive or limited it might be. You and the people around you will be that much safer.
What the data generally demonstrates is that the average vehicle on the road is fairly new and are therefore inherently safe and emissions-friendly. If you are still within your warranty, your warranty essentially guarantees this. I’ve seen one dataset that says one third of vehicles out there are under 5 years old, and less than 1% are older than 25%. The percentage contribution of older vehicles to safety and emissions issues is very low. People operating older vehicles tend to be handier than average (from my personal experience) and are more likely to be aware of the condition of their vehicles. Most states have seen this data and have elected to scale back or eliminate inspections since they really do not provide the benefit they allege to, and it’s just plain smart money economically.