by Rod Hughes

A small, somewhat sensational newspaper called La Teja (Spanish for a roof tile, used as street slang for 100 colones, once issued as a bill when it had a higher value) published a news story recently condemning Riteve, the Ministry of Transport concessionaire for vehicular inspections. The headline read “It’s easy to fool Riteve.”

On the surface, it reads like a legitimate investigative piece. The Association of Integral Costa Rican Repair Shops (ATICOS) selected a spotless 1987 Toyota Corolla and purposely installed defective shock absorbers, as well as lights the mechanics claimed were more powerful than permitted on the road. Early in the news story the paper claims the inspection allows death traps to pass..

But, reader beware! Mechanics here dislike Riteve because the Ministry of Transport took inspections out of the hands of “authorized” private automotive repair shops and let out bidding which Riteve won with the latest automotive testing equipment. In fact, before the ministry relaxed its standards late in the Pacheco Administration, some cars, trucks and buses had to make multiple visits to Riteve inspection points.

Before Riteve, the individual shops had a good thing going for them. It was easy to pass inspection if one slipped the mechanic a few tejas or a few thousand colones if the situation was grave. Granted, a few shops were legitimate but some, if the motorist declined to bribe the mechanic, would insist that expensive repairs were needed. (It was difficult to prove corruption in the ministry authorization of these shops, so not even nosy newshounds were unable to get publishable information.)

The result of this system were trucks, buses and even a few cars laying down dense smokescreens and frequent news stories blaming accidents on faulty mechanical conditions. The air quality deteriorated steadily from traffic in the metropolitan area, bus brakes failed and the average motorist considered shock absorbers optional equipment only slightly less important than having a really loud audio system in the car.

Kenneth Lopez, Riteve’s quality control manager, defended the inspection, noting that efficiency of the front shocks on the Toyota were rated at only 27% while those in the rear were 74%, admitting these figures are low but noting that one could not say the shocks were really “bad.” They had been installed properly, he added. As for the headlights, they were aimed properly and more is not required under ministry regulations that govern inspections.

Actually the car did not pass inspection, as the newspaper would have one believe from its slanted presentation. Berlioth Herrera, Riteve spokeman, said the Toyota failed because of a serious fluid leak from the engine, not for such safety defects as brakes, shocks or lights. But ATICOS spokeman Eddy Gonzalez insisted that the shock absorbers his association installed to discredit the inspection made the car dangerous to drive.

It is for the individual motorist reading these conflicting opinions to sort all this out. Perhaps the only way the average driver be certain is to tind a competent, reliable mechanic and follow his advice. But finding that mechanic will take time and patience.