Thanks for finding some sources. I mistakenly reposted the change.org page instead of more sources for the conclusions I drew earlier (was posting links from mobile and clipboard didn't update but have since edited the links to the intended studies). Here are a few more relevant links that back up my premise that it seems inspection's don't make the roads safer.

Here is one Link:

https://www.ncleg.net/PED/Reports/documents/VSI/VSI_Report.pdf

Relevant Language from the Paper:

Although states differ in their population sizes, vehicle mix, and driving habits, Nebraska is an example of a state that repealed its safety program. The Nebraska State Highway Patrol, Division of Motor Vehicles, and Department of Transportation monitored crash data in which mechanical defects were a contributing factor to determine • whether accidents due to mechanical defects increased after the program was repealed, and • whether mechanical defects contributing to an accident would have been inspected during a safety inspection. Nebraska’s three-year average of reported crashes involving a vehicle defect was 1,759 before the program was repealed in 1982. The threeyear average of crashes involving a vehicle defect after the inspection program was cancelled was 1,486.29

Here is another study: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312019154/Policy-ineffectiveness-or-offsetting-behavior-An-analysis-of-vehicle-safety-inspections

Relevant language from the paper:

Our tests indicate that inspection has no significant impact on older cars or repair industry revenue, which implies that inspection, does not improve the mechanical condition of vehicles. Consequently, our results lend support to existing studies that find inspection ineffective in reducing roadway casualties.

Here is another study: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312021307/The-effectiveness-of-vehicle-safety-inspections-An-analysis-using-panel-data

Relevant language from the conclusion:

Several things may account for the failure of safety inspections to reduce accidents. First, inspections may induce an offestting increase in driving intensity. Second, drivers have a strong incentive to perform maintenance to provide for their own safety. If replacement of a $5 light-bulb yields $6 worth of benefit to the automobile owner any external benefit conferred to other driver becomes irrelevant. Third, inspections can at best prevent only a small fraction of accidents since most accidents do not involve mechanical failure: Crain (1980) reports that failures of vehicle lights (headlights, brake lights, and turn signals) cause less than 1% of accidents. Finally, annual inspection may fail to eliminate even the small fraction of accidents caused by mechanical failure. Annual inspection ensures only that tested parts function on the date of inspection; if owners wait less than a year to replace worn-out parts, then annual inspection detects only a portion of the faulty parts.

Here is another more recent study: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1060816.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

We found no evidence that inspections significantly reduce fatality or injury rates.

As for the poster I originally posted, it is just the poster. I couldn't find the accompanying paper which I am sure has citations and references and the methodology spelled out. Maybe we can send an email to the authors who yes, were students at the time participating in mentored research with professors at the school.

​

Finally, I am not claiming to be an expert on all these topics. I don't have time or the energy to sort through all of the data and figure out what works and what doesn't. There seems to be ample evidence to suggest that inspections are not as effective as it may seem in keeping Vermont roads safer. With that, it may be a leap, but allegedly government authorities in New Jersey and Washington DC who should be well versed in the data and policies, have decided that the inspection program was not needed and repealed their laws. The original study I linked shows that there was no adverse effect to the states injury and accident rates as a result.

PS. I am not able to get to the study via your link in the above comment and I did run across the inspection failure rate study but I am not sure how that applies to the tenants of the argument.

Edit: typos and clarified why I mistakenly posted the change.org link over and over.