More RSA Drivel......

Gurgle · 04-01-2013 1:36pm

djimi wrote: »

older cars are prone to issues that do not typically affect newer cars and as such they require more regular and strict maintenance.

Two statements:

1. Older cars require more maintenance
2. Poorly maintained cars are more likely to suffer mechanical failure

I would argue that #2 applies equally to a 4 year old car as an 8 year old car.

The particular maintenance items that affect safety are brakes, steering, suspension, tyres... more?

Which of these applies more to an older car?

Joe 90 · 04-01-2013 1:50pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

ABS are required on all new passenger cars sold in the EU since 2007.

Don't think so. The road legal Radicals don#t have it and they comply with EU regs. For the same reason they have electric mirrors and heatrs and daylight running lights. Not exactly practical day to day cars but they are road legal and not on SVA/IVA.

Zubeneschamali · 04-01-2013 1:56pm

Joe 90 wrote: »

Don't think so.

http://www.obelis.net//directives/mvd-2007-46-ec/

Joe 90 · 04-01-2013 2:27pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

http://www.obelis.net//directives/mvd-2007-46-ec/

Both thr Radical road cars are said to be fully EU compliant? Could there be a derogation for small volume cars?

corkgsxr · 04-01-2013 2:30pm

Joe 90 wrote: »

Both thr Radical road cars are said to be fully EU compliant? Could there be a derogation for small volume cars?

Think there is ya. Different tests

RobAMerc · 04-01-2013 2:31pm

Joe 90 wrote: »

Both thr Radical road cars are said to be fully EU compliant? Could there be a derogation for small volume cars?

I imagine there certainly is - I cannot imagine the likes of the Ariel Atom/ Caterhams/ Morgans have ABS or ESP nor would the buyers want them to.

djimi · 04-01-2013 2:37pm

Gurgle wrote: »

Two statements:

1. Older cars require more maintenance
2. Poorly maintained cars are more likely to suffer mechanical failure

I would argue that #2 applies equally to a 4 year old car as an 8 year old car.

The particular maintenance items that affect safety are brakes, steering, suspension, tyres... more?

Which of these applies more to an older car?

Cars have wearable parts that start to require attention as the car gets older/does higher mileage; all Im reading from these statements is the RSA looking to point this out. The basic message is do not neglect the maintenance of your car; seriously, what is the problem with saying that?

Most of hysteria in this thread has come from people taking a few simple quotes and blowing them well out of proportion. The second reply talks about death traps in response to an article on breakingnews that says nothing more than older cars are more likely to suffer mechanical failures. Ridiculous reactions in this thread.

dr.fuzzenstein · 04-01-2013 2:40pm

After reading this and after some careful consideration I can only say that this is utter sh*te and drivel from a bunch of overpaid morons in a pointless government quango who spout utter nonsense most of the time whilst raking in obscene salaries for an amount of work per week I could do in 15 minutes.
1: Drive Slower!
2: Maintain you car!
3: Obey the rules of the road!
There you go, the entire job of the RSA done.
Overpaid, brainless, halfwitted morons on a gravytrain scratching their arse!
Where do I apply? I can sit on my hole for €50k and go to the pub for liquid lunch and spend the afternoon sleeping under my desk, because it would seem that is the standard working practice in that place.
My GF's MX5 is a 00, an ageing deathtrap accoring to these sh*t for brains, it is being serviced on the button, it has new tires, new exhaust, new ignition pack, new pads and discs all round, timing belt and waterpump changed as well as the rad, anyone who says that is less safe than a 5 year old car that has enjoyed "Irish Servicing" (i.e. none at all) and has bald tires, worn pads and disks and the oil is tar is either a moron or a liar.
I cannot tone down this reply, because I've had it up to there with all the inbred, corrput morons that carve up the country between themselves whilst showing utter contempt for the general population.
I will now change my 06 car for something at least 15 years old and as rusty, smoky and dangerous as I can possibly get away with, drive it up to the RSA headquarters and spend several hours revving the nuts of it, just to annoy those cnuts.
Will I buy a new car? Will I fcuk.

Joe 90 · 04-01-2013 2:41pm

RobAMerc wrote: »

I imagine there certainly is - I cannot imagine the likes of the Ariel Atom/ Caterhams/ Morgans have ABS or ESP nor would the buyers want them to.

I would suspect though that some if not all of those would be on SAV. Pretty certain that the Caterham is. The Radicals are homologated.

No way would I want ABS on a car bought primarily for driving. In fact when I bought an Elise years ago I refused a very good deal on an S2 simply because it had ABS and servos.

flanzer · 04-01-2013 3:20pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

After reading this and after some careful consideration I can only say that this is utter sh*te and drivel from a bunch of overpaid morons in a pointless government quango who spout utter nonsense most of the time whilst raking in obscene salaries for an amount of work per week I could do in 15 minutes.
1: Drive Slower!
2: Maintain you car!
3: Obey the rules of the road!
There you go, the entire job of the RSA done.
Overpaid, brainless, halfwitted morons on a gravytrain scratching their arse!
Where do I apply? I can sit on my hole for €50k and go to the pub for liquid lunch and spend the afternoon sleeping under my desk, because it would seem that is the standard working practice in that place.
My GF's MX5 is a 00, an ageing deathtrap accoring to these sh*t for brains, it is being serviced on the button, it has new tires, new exhaust, new ignition pack, new pads and discs all round, timing belt and waterpump changed as well as the rad, anyone who says that is less safe than a 5 year old car that has enjoyed "Irish Servicing" (i.e. none at all) and has bald tires, worn pads and disks and the oil is tar is either a moron or a liar.
I cannot tone down this reply, because I've had it up to there with all the inbred, corrput morons that carve up the country between themselves whilst showing utter contempt for the general population.
I will now change my 06 car for something at least 15 years old and as rusty, smoky and dangerous as I can possibly get away with, drive it up to the RSA headquarters and spend several hours revving the nuts of it, just to annoy those cnuts.
Will I buy a new car? Will I fcuk.

Sit on the fence why don't you :pac:

visual · 04-01-2013 5:01pm

Thanks for posting and your 100% correct on how it is applied by RSA and NCT

But it only makes any sence if your looking at revenue stream. What simple idiots we are to accept a tax logic applied to a test.

I had two vehicles at time 2nd one was rarely used when I wanted to use it I motor taxed it changed over insurance and got screwed by NCT to enable them through RSA max their profit.

I can understand back taxing a car but back testing a test is ridiculous.

The test should have been valid from day of test for fixed period be it one year or two.

My rant here is not at NCT but at RSA who have put revenue over safety as they do time and time again

djimi wrote: »

The back dating with the NCT is to encourage people to actually get the test done rather than leave it run for months after it expires. Your test is due on the anniversary of the registration of the car, and regardless of when you actually do the test the disc is only valid until the date that the next test would have been due in this cycle.

The reverse of this is that you can do the test up to 3 months in advance, so you can get a test for 27 months on a newer car or 15 months on an older car by taking advantage of the system.

djimi · 04-01-2013 5:07pm

visual wrote: »

Thanks for posting and your 100% correct on how it is applied by RSA and NCT

But it only makes any sence if your looking at revenue stream. What simple idiots we are to accept a tax logic applied to a test.

I had two vehicles at time 2nd one was rarely used when I wanted to use it I motor taxed it changed over insurance and got screwed by NCT to enable them through RSA max their profit.

I can understand back taxing a car but back testing a test is ridiculous.

The test should have been valid from day of test for fixed period be it one year or two.

My rant here is not at NCT but at RSA who have put revenue over safety as they do time and time again

If they didnt back date the test most people wouldnt bother taking it on time; simple as that really. Its no different to charging a penalty for late payment of car tax.

Unless you disagree with the NCT entirely (do you remember the state of the cars on our roads pre NCT?) or think that they should be doing it for free then I dont see how anyone can call the NCT a revenue generator.

visual · 04-01-2013 6:16pm

djimi wrote: »

If they didnt back date the test most people wouldnt bother taking it on time; simple as that really. Its no different to charging a penalty for late payment of car tax.

Unless you disagree with the NCT entirely (do you remember the state of the cars on our roads pre NCT?) or think that they should be doing it for free then I dont see how anyone can call the NCT a revenue generator.

you are reconfirming the logic of a revenue stream not a safety road test.
Its not the RSA or NCT business to be focused on collecting taxes and generating revenue streams but this is all it has become under the pretence of road safety.

If a car can pass a safety test with all 4 shock absorbers faulty then its not even a proper test but it most certianly better than no test, so in all in all the NCT is a good thing but as I said earlier it should be a test vaild from day of test for a set period of time of 1 or 2 years.

porsche959 · 04-01-2013 11:24pm

visual wrote: »

you are reconfirming the logic of a revenue stream not a safety road test.
Its not the RSA or NCT business to be focused on collecting taxes and generating revenue streams but this is all it has become under the pretence of road safety.

Ah, but you misunderstand the nature of government in a country such as Ireland. In a banana republic, the purpose of any arm of government is to extort as much cash as possible from the taxpayer and to inconvenience the life of the average citizen.

I suggest we lobby the IMF to have this useless quango shut down.

dr.fuzzenstein · 05-01-2013 1:32am

flanzer wrote: »

Sit on the fence why don't you :pac:

I know, ambiguity in my posts has always been my biggest problem.:p

dgt · 05-01-2013 3:10am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

After reading this and after some careful consideration I can only say that this is utter sh*te and drivel from a bunch of overpaid morons in a pointless government quango who spout utter nonsense most of the time whilst raking in obscene salaries for an amount of work per week I could do in 15 minutes.
1: Drive Slower!
2: Maintain you car!
3: Obey the rules of the road!
There you go, the entire job of the RSA done.
Overpaid, brainless, halfwitted morons on a gravytrain scratching their arse!
Where do I apply? I can sit on my hole for €50k and go to the pub for liquid lunch and spend the afternoon sleeping under my desk, because it would seem that is the standard working practice in that place.
My GF's MX5 is a 00, an ageing deathtrap accoring to these sh*t for brains, it is being serviced on the button, it has new tires, new exhaust, new ignition pack, new pads and discs all round, timing belt and waterpump changed as well as the rad, anyone who says that is less safe than a 5 year old car that has enjoyed "Irish Servicing" (i.e. none at all) and has bald tires, worn pads and disks and the oil is tar is either a moron or a liar.
I cannot tone down this reply, because I've had it up to there with all the inbred, corrput morons that carve up the country between themselves whilst showing utter contempt for the general population.
I will now change my 06 car for something at least 15 years old and as rusty, smoky and dangerous as I can possibly get away with, drive it up to the RSA headquarters and spend several hours revving the nuts of it, just to annoy those cnuts.
Will I buy a new car? Will I fcuk.

Amen good sir, amen :cool:

I have a 406 that'll do the job

More RSA Drivel......

Comments