mrschwarz

Thanks for the comments. I don't know what type of transfer switch is in the inverter, but the specs say it has a 30 ms sync rate, so is it safe to assume that it's solid state? My Winnie is all standard stuff, an Onan 10KW genset, EC-30 autostart, Dimension MSW inverter charger, Paralax ATS (if memory serves). It's also got an Intellitec energy management system, but that's not really relevant to this discussion.

I don't disagree with most of the discussion, but here's a couple of wrinkles. If, when using autostart, the generator starts because of a shore power loss, there is no problem with a surge. What happens when shore power is restored? Even if the generator is under load, the autostart will shut it down and the transfer switch will automatically revert to shore power (with the associated surge, I assume). Also, for those of us with inverters, they also contain a transfer switch. It's not practical to disconnect all 120v devices like clocks, phone chargers, etc. Don't they experience the same thing? When boondocking, I put the autostart into auto mode. I have 120v devices that operate on the inverter. When the battery state of charge drops to the lower limit, the generator starts and the ATS kicks in. When that occurs, the charger/inverter senses 120v source and switches from the inverter to 120v. Based on what I have read, there must be some sort of surge when going from one 120v source to another. I have been doing this for nearly 10 years with no ill effects that I am aware of. The only ATS failure that I experienced was a unit where the magnetic coil in the transfer relay wasn't strong enough to keep the generator contacts connected while driving down the road. I replaced the ATS and everything worked properly. I am not saying that I disagree with the engineers and technicians, it's just that I think in the normal course of operating the electrical system, it's very difficult to avoid all situations where there is power on a transfer switch when it is actuated.

You may be right. YMMV. I usually stay connected to shore power when doing a monthly generator exercise with a minimal load when starting it.

I wouldn't have a problem starting the generator while connected to shore power. Once the generator stabilizes, the relay switch from shore to genset. They are always (at least the ones I have looked at), double throw relays. If they work, they switch over to the generator. If they don't work, they stay connected to shore power. Mechanically, it's not possible to be connected to both. The biggest issue is switching under load. The relays used in transfer switches aren't big enough to handle a large load. You can actually weld the contacts if there is too much current.

And as an added bonus, the county/state gets their cut of the inspection even when there isn't one done. That way folks like Jack Mayer, who is never in the state get to pay for an inspection anyways. What a country...

I find it curious that neither the police or the senator's office didn't pick this up. I sure hope you're right.

When this whole thing started, I contacted our elected representatives. I heard from a staff member in Senator Nichols' office. I had to explain to her why the new law was going to cause problems with full timers that were not in the state when their registration was up for renewal. They got someone from the Public Safety department in touch with me. He explained that, based on their reading of the law, there wasn't any wiggle room for the DMV to defer inspections. If that's not the case, so be it. I am willing to take the state police at their word about defering inspections. If there is a way out of it, I'll have to wait and see. One of my registrations expires in October, so it won't be subject to the new law. My other registration expires in April. I just so happens that we'll be in Dallas in April, so I can get the vehicles inspected then. That gives me a year to see what happens when the smoke clears. I am with the group that is optimistic that the problem is going to be solved and is making contingency plans just in case.

I

First, with due respect to Barb, safety inspections have been around a lot longer than emissions inspections. Your statement is also illogical. As long as SOME counties require emissions inspections, it only makes sense that ALL counties require safety inspections? Really? I don't see the logic there. According to this article (http://www.whec.com/article/stories/s3263610.shtml), there is no relationship between mandatory vehicle inspections, accidents and deaths. According to the article, of the five states with the lowest fatality rates, only one has mandatory inspections. "I'd say it's money spent by the taxpayers including their time toward a program that is not statistically effective,", one expert says. A review of 41 different studies was done for the NHTSA in 1985 (http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/158/71884.0001.001.pdf;jsessionid=031E97D5C21DD27DC6E2E2DB47B82487?sequence=2). They found that "not one of them was able to provide definitive evidence on the question of PMVI (periodic motor vehicle inspection) cost-effectiveness." So, I pose the question again. Only 13 states have mandatory inspections. There hasn't been any proven relationship between accidents and inspections. The Texas Legislature just created a mess by not thinking through the effect of their actions again. Now we have agencies jumping through hoops to compensate (at least I hope they are). Maybe the REAL solution is to just eliminate a waste of our time and money, which it appears the safety inspection is. Maybe we should join the other 37 states that have already figured it out.

Unlike Texas, neither South Dakota, nor Florida have vehicle inspections. Does anyone know of any studies that have shown that vehicle inspections accomplish anything other than income for the state and inspection stations? I have only found references that show inspections make no difference in accidents or injuries. Maybe the solution is to just eliminate inspections.

Let's see if I have this right. For the convenience of DPS officers when they do a traffic stop, every vehicle in Texas should get a safety inspection, even though there is no public or private benefit for doing so. This way, just in case you're from a county where an emissions inspection is required, the officer won't have to look it up, while he is looking up everything else about your registration. For those who live in non-attainment counties (the ones that require emissions tests), wouldn't a better solution be to require them to pass an emissions test as a requirement for registration? Then we could do away with the inspection sticker, eliminate an unnecessary test and expense, and get emissions tested where they are needed. Isn't this a better solution?

We are traveling from Mesa to Dallas. During the drive, I have had some time to think about this. I already sent my suggestions to the front office. AlthoughI like the one about self affirmation better than mine. I also wonder if we are going about this the wrong way. About 12 the states require a safety inspection and the rest don't. That means that if you live in one of the states that requires it, you'll keep your vehicle's safety equipment in working order so you'll pass the required inspection. If you're from a state that doesn't have inspections, you either have other motivations for keeping the equipment in good order, such as the desire not be in an accident, or you don't bother. If enough people don't bother, I would imagine that accidents or other events related to faulty safety equipment would be occuring at greater frequency, If these events occurred at the same relative rate between states that require inspection and those that don't, wouldn't that imply the inspection doesn't accomplish this goal? If there is no difference, perhaps inspections need to be eliminated, rather than coming up with a method to excuse those of us out of state at the time needed. Texas is all about personal freedom and less government intrusion. Wouldn't this be the best solution (other than the profit centers for the government and the inspection stations)? It seems there are more reports showing there is no connection between inspections and accidents. A quick Google search brought up some links This first one is particularly insteresting: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whec.com%2Farticle%2Fstories%2Fs3263610.shtml&ei=zXc7U6TrCY-1sASj7IHwBQ&usg=AFQjCNEPPAS90XvxbMlieO05q_BRGK01Tw&bvm=bv.63934634,d.cWc http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFQQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phillymag.com%2Fnews%2F2012%2F03%2F15%2Fneed-vehicle-inspections-pennsylvania%2F&ei=zXc7U6TrCY-1sASj7IHwBQ&usg=AFQjCNFVlcqCl-QmP-ff_-PbJ-i6P-Ddgg&bvm=bv.63934634,d.cWc I wonder why the legislature didn't just eliminate the inspection entirely. Maybe we should ask them to justify inspections at all?

I went to the DPS web site and couldn't find an affidavit that stated that all vehicles must be registered in Texas. I did find one that requires proof of residency. One form of proof is an unexpired vehicle registration. Is that the one you're referring to? If I owned residences in Texas and also in another state, wouldn't it be reasonable to be able to register a vehicle in the other state, if that was where it was primarily stored and used? Here is a link to the affidavit I found: https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/Forms/DL-5.pdf

This is the best suggestion I have seen so far. These only remaining questions are relevant rules about Texas allowing me to return the state periodically with a South Dakota plate and a Texas mailing address. Also, I wonder how insurance would work. I plan to study this approach as a 'Plan B'. In addition, there are NO inspection (emissions or safety) and it appears that registration fees are less expensive. I plan to contact my insurance company to see how a SD registration would work with a principally garaged address in Texas.

I have written to Rep. White's office twice and have yet to receive any form of response. I hope someone else is working on it, too!

I prefer my conspiracy theory.

Let me guess what the solution might be. There will be an exemption for vehicles as long as they are out of state. Naturally, since the fee is levied at the same time as the registration, everyone, including those out of state will have to pay the state's portion of the inspection fee. This is a win-win for the state. Not only did they not levy an additional tax, they are claiming that this is revenue neutral. The only difference is the state gets its cut of an inspection that never took place. You and I get to pay for it, too. Win-win!

I have been in contact with Senator Nichols'office. They are definitely aware of the issue and have been helpful putting me in touch with people that know what's going on. I just sent a follow-up to his office. If I get any new information, I'll post it.

I'm with Jack. Now is not the time to panic, but it IS the time to make sure our voice is heard while they are making the rules for the new law. I heard from the Escapees front office and they said they have been in contact with Rep. White's office. I haven't heard back from him yet, but. Sen. Nichols' office has been in contact with me so both of our legislators should be aware of what's going on. @bigjim: Surprisingly, I just bought my motorhome in Florida last August. At the time, I was a resident of Waco. To register out of state in lieu of an inspection, they require self certificiation of the VIN. Along with that form, they require proof of residency, such as a property tax bill, utility bill, lease, etc. The DMV office there wasn't familiar with how to take care of it so I ran on Florida paper tags for almost 3 months. When I got to Livingston to register, they said they could have easily taken care of the residency proof requirement. I am not sure if this process is going to change, too.

I sent a note to the Escapees office about this. The Senator's office didn't have any contact with them and were asking who the Escapees had spoken to. My contact mentioned that she had heard from several others in Livingston about this. I think she is seeing the magnitude of it. I also told her about the permanently mounted RVs that were registered, but couldn't be moved. I asked if she would ask the DMV to call me since they are in charge of registrations and rules governing it. I'll report back when I learn more.

For those of us who are fulltimers registered in Texas, plan on being in Texas at some point in a 90 day window before your registration needs to be renewed. There is a new law that goes into effect on 3/1/15. This law eliminates the two stickers on your windshield and replaces them with a single sticker. Within 90 days of your registration expiration, you'll need to get your vehicles inspected, but will only receive a report if you pass it. The inspection station will collect their cut of the inspection fee and update a database that your vehicle has pass. When you submit a registration renewal, the DMV/county will check the database. If there is a record of the vehicle passing an inspection in the previous 3 months, your registration will be renewed. If there is no record, you don't get registered. This development seemed pretty alarming to me. It could potentially remove Texas from my list of fulltime RV-friendly states. I was also rather surprised there wasn’t more discussion about this on the forum. Because of my concern, I contacted the elected members of the state legislature that represent Livingston, TX, the home of the Escapees. I received a call from a member of Senator Nichols staff. I explained the issue to her. I then called her back the following day to more fully explain the issue. She got in touch the Texas DPS, who called me back yesterday. He was familiar with the law and confirmed my description above. He said that the DPS only deals with inspections, not registrations so I would really need to speak with the DMV. He said that, based on his reading of the law, there wasn’t a lot of ‘wiggle room’ for the DMV to grant any sort of exemption. This is a problem for full timers and military who may not be able to return to the state before their registrations expire. If you have two vehicles, you would have to do it twice a year. If you have 3, you get another trip. The staffer said that this is an unintended consequence of the new law. The legislature in Texas only meets every two years. They will be in session in January 2015 so they’ll only have 3 months to fix this. I am not going to hold my breath. When I learn more, I’ll report back. For any of you full timers reading this, contacting your elected representatives would be a good idea. The more people they hear from, the bigger sense of urgency they’ll get. Here are links to Rep. James White and Senator Robert Nichols. http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist3/dist3.htm http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/member-page/?district=19 Here's a link to one of the articles referring to this: http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/vehicle-inspection-stickers-things-that-will-be-antiques-in-a-couple-of-years-when-texas-becomes-a-single-sticker-state.html/

I spoke to someone from Sen. Nichols' (Livingston's state senator) office yesterday and today in response to the note I sent (see earlier post). Claiming ignorance about the whole thing, she contacted the DPS to see what was going on. Upon reflection, I didn't feel like I adequately explained my concern to her so I called back again this afternoon. I explained that many of us who live full time in our RVs cannot necessarily get our vehicles to Texas to be inspected within a 90 window prior to expiration of registration. She mentioned that it seemed like an unintended consequence. She is going to send me an email tomorrow so I can send her links to the new law. First I need to find something definitive enough for her to use with the DMV and DPS. I was pretty impressed that she actually phoned me.Maybe that's the difference between state and federal legislatures. Haven't heard from our representative yet.

Based on my reading, one of the new 'features' of the law is that the state collects their fee for inspection when registration is paid. If they figure out a way to have out of state vehicles avoid inspection, the state still gets to collect its fee.

Here is where you can find the legislators for Polk County: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/County.aspx?CountyCode=373&CountyName=Polk Here is the message I sent to both of them: I just read a study that was produced in the state and learned about the new law passed by the legislature requiring a vehicle inspection within 90 days before a registration sticker would be issued. As someone who lives in an RV full time and only returns to the state occasionally, I was wondering what consideration was given for people like me who cannot always return to the state every time one of their vehicle's registration needs to be renewed. I would imagine someone serving in the military at an out of state post would have the same question. As you must know, the region that you represent has a lot of people in the same situation as me. I am a member of an organization that represents them. I am not in a leadership position, but I participate in an internet forum with many others in the same situation. I am sure your answer would be of great interest to all.

I am in the same boat as you. The Texas legislature has never been famous for getting things right the first time. Let's see what happens in the next year. Perhaps a contact with state legislators that represent Polk County might be in order. They could stand to lose a lot of constituants. I plan to contact them.