> I think you have troubles understanding the concept because it's too remote from what you are accustomed too.

Oh, I understand the concept. It's government regulation of behavior with the intent of protecting the public. I'm quite accustomed to a form of it, with California's emissions checks, as I mentioned.

I just don't believe it produces the desired (to me, the used car buyer) outcome and therefore don't want it [1]. I'd be interested in seeing data showing otherwise. Are long-term maintenance costs reduced by this system?

> The buyer can certainly gets it re inspected if he likes too.

I posit this is the inspection you need to be comparing the ease (and frequency) of, not the initial, seller-initiated one. How buyers in France actually bother? If it's close to zero, then it's just as hard (if not more so) to get a car inspected in France as in the US.

> The inspection is a legal document that's important in case of litigation.

Now that's something I do profess being entirely unaccustomed to: litigation over a used car. I don't think I even know someone who knows someone who has been involved in something like this.

I'm sure it's because US laws don't, in general, support it (and our courts, even "small claims" ones, wouldn't have the bandwidth for it).

I don't want it, anyway, as it could serve to drive up the average price of used cars or drive down their availability. I have a high risk-tolerance [2], so I favor a freer market.

> A car cannot be sold without an inspection certificate. I think the car is also forbidden from being on the road if it didn't pass an inspection in the last 2 or 3 years.

This is exactly like California's "smog", and like other states' "safety" inspections (which may now mostly be in the past).

> A timing belt that's shockingly hold and on the verge of breaking is a serious issue. The vehicle should not be allowed to be sold or driven in these conditions.

I strongly disagree. Although even I might personally choose to tow such a vehicle to the mechanic after purchase instead of driving it, I most certainly don't want the government forcing me to do so [3].

I most certainly don't want the seller being forced to cover up previously poor maintenance habits by replacing only the items that are visibly bad. That actually increases information assymmetry, in a way that cannot be alleviated with additional inspection by the buyer, which is, presumably, contrary to the point of any required and documented inspection. (You never answered if France's inspection certificate includes a full history of such failures.)

Although it doesn't guarantee the behavior, it certainly also encourages the pre-sale repair of only the required part and to use as cheap a replacement part as possible. To the extent that, as a buyer, I'm reimbursing the seller for the expense of that repair as part of the purchase price, it's usually money flushed down the toilet.

The example of timing belts on Hondas exemplifies my predicament. The water pump is driven by the timing belt. A water pump never lasts two timing belts. The vast majority of the cost of replacing either is labor, and the incremental labor cost to replace both at the same time (plus ancillary drive belts) is close to zero. Total cost is around $700 (and reliably lasts 75-120kmi depending on model). A timing belt (only) replacement might be $400, possibly even less with a cheap aftermarket part. The problem is, the water pump could fail immediately (likely enough if the timing belt was way overdue before replacement), and that repair is going to be around $600, plus towing costs and the cost of my time and inconvenience of a breakdown [4]. If there's an aftermarket timing belt, I'm just having the whole $700 replacement done immediately and not risking it, just as I would with an obviously-too-old belt. If neither of those signals is there, I'm left with the risk of not knowing. That risk exists regardless, but it's increased if the seller is routinely forced into this behavior.

[1] I was reading about Lisp's "social" problems on c2.com recently, and there was a mention of an attitude of "you only don't like it because you don't understand it." Such an attitude could be uncharitably condescending, but I don't intend to suggest such an attitude here, as it would be unchartitable on my part.

[2] There already exist options for a relatively wide spectrum of risk tolerances, including new cars (which are covered by "lemon laws" and have available extended warranties, a.k.a. mechanical breakdown insurance (MBI)), manufacturer-"certified" used cars (which, with some manufacturers, make them eligible for the same extended warranty/MBI as a new car), and merely not-as-old used cars with third-party MBI. I actually purchased and used MBI on my one American car (a full-sized van, so no Japanese, or even, at the time, European options), originally puchased new, and it worked out very well.

[3] You may detect a ("small L") libertarian political bias here, which I admit to, but I actually would agree with regulations prohibiting driving a vehicle maintenance problems that are immediate safety concerns. Tires with inadequate tread depth, for example, continuously affect the safety of the vehicle during its operation. The same can't be said for a timing belt that may fail.

[4] Oh yes, I forgot to mention, reliability is another goal besides my 12c/mi long-term maintenance. In my entire time of implementing this goal (i.e. after my first couple cars of my youth where my explicit strategy was to save money with minimal maintenance and by not repairing until a breakdown occurred), excluding the aformentioned American car, I've experienced only two mechanical failures that rendered the car undriveable. Interestingly, both were burst coolant hoses, and both were close enough to be emergency-repaired and driven to the mechanic without a tow. This is 20+ years and over a million miles.