Agree. To me, if government thought there were specific issues that deserved attention (stancey bois or emissions issues come to mind), it would make more sense to have targeted enforcement (eg encourage police/mto to hand out many more inspection slips). To avoid hammering people too badly, maybe allow an inspection completed in the last six months to be valid so morons that attract attention only need ~two inspections per year.I am not aware of a rash of crashes resulting from vehicle mechanical failures. The vast majority are from driver error ... as it always has been.
If the issue is noisy vehicles leading to complaints, then address that.
If the issue is circumvention of emission controls leading to air pollution, then address that. The current government already expressed its views on this by eliminating Drive Clean - and in view of the minuscule number of failures on newer vehicles, that was probably not wrong. YES there is the odd emissions-defeated vehicle that will be staying on the roads because of this - but the number of them is tiny.
If the issue is modified vehicles leading to stupid behaviour then address the behaviour. (Stunt driving, anyone?) Theoretically the more radically modified vehicles aren't insurable, anyhow.
I don't own a vehicle that is not modified. They're all "safely" modified. If the approach is taken that only absolutely bone-stock vehicles can be "safe" and any aftermarket modification, no matter how well executed, means the vehicle is unsafe for the roads, then that's going to be a problem.
This sure seems like a lobbying law where it will generate untold riches for mechanic shops with little societal benefit.