NCT test for bikes

delop

Ive heard a rumor, NCT test for bikes coming soon... Does anyone have any information on this? Is it true? When?

My bike will never pass :-(


Or should it be called the NBT test :-)

murphaph

The NCT should be renamed DoT. I hope bikes do come under the regime (lots of really dodgy bikes out there) but the cost should be lower than a car! There's a lot less to check and it won't need half the equipment.

Hotblack Desiato

Total bollix! NCT for bikes would be a total waste of time and money.

Most riders know about the need for maintenance, our life depends much more on the condition of our machine than a car driver's does. Few of them seem to bother checking air or oil never mind anything else.

Very very few bike crashes are caused by poor maintenance etc. and anyway a test once every two years wouldn't prevent most of them, things which pass a test one day could wear out or break the next.

There are nowhere near enough qualified bike mechanics in the country as it is. There is no way I'm letting some semi-trained monkey mess with my bike, legal requirement or not.

It's unreasonable to expect small bikes in particular to go a long distance for a test, so most if not all NCT centres will have to be adapted/equipped/staffed to test bikes, this will cost a fortune for a much smaller number of machines - HUGE costs which WILL be passed on in full to riders. Would you expect the government to do anything less?

As for allowing the trade to do it, like the MoT in the UK, that's the biggest fraud going. All it does is let dodgy dealers fool customers into thinking they bike they're selling (which THEY THEMSELVES have just 'tested') isn't a rolling death-trap. Any inspection which isn't independent is worthless.

If it does come in, it will turn into a exhaust-and-indicator-swapping exercise where people put on 'legal' bits for the test and then take them off. Where is the point in that?

Waste of everyone's time.

Hotblack Desiato

OP, there is little chance (thankfully) of bike testing coming in, for the reasons stated above, we have no infrastructure whatsoever for it in place and there are only about 35,000 taxed bikes in the country. It's just not worth it.

Test the riders and drivers, they're the ones who cause accidents.

We only brought in car testing because the EU forced us to, but there is no EU directive requiring bike testing.

Tomohawk

Spring 2008 is when I hear its going to come in.

murphaph

I would like to be able to see an NCT history with a bike I was buying, particularly the emissions test results.

Hotblack Desiato

Tomohawk wrote: »

Spring 2008 is when I hear its going to come in.

Impossible as nothing is in place.
I doubt we'll have CBT by then, even though 'consultations' on it have been going on for about four years now.

murphaph wrote:

I would like to be able to see an NCT history with a bike I was buying, particularly the emissions test results.

That's not a good reason to make every rider in Ireland pay heavily every two years for your convenience.
No reason why you can't pay to get an independent test done. If the official test wasn't done very recently it will tell you nothing about the current condition of the bike.
Don't see the relevance of emissions tests, it's not like on a car where it could indicate a very expensive catalytic convertor on the way out.

murphaph

An emissions test which is well within tolerance indicates a healthy engine. An emissions test right on the limit indicates something's amiss. Possibly worn rings or poor valve seating etc. It is a very useful indicator.

To be quite honest, having bought a number of bikes both here and in the UK, I rather the UK model. If fosters a greater sense of care and attention. Contrast to some of the absolute dogs you can see even in a dealers window in this country.

I think a motorcycle should fall under the same testing regime as all other vehicles anyway. Why should motorcycles be exempt from safety testing? We all know people who are not particularly careful wrt the care and maintenance of their bikes. The UK tests every 12 months of course. That's twice as often and will consequently catch a lot more problems early on.

A collection of MoT certificates (which can be checked by calling a number!) with steadily increasing mileage also adds provenence to the mileage on the clocks. Without the MoT certs it is much easier to clock.

My last 2 bikes from the UK came with an A4 folder with every scrap of paper of any relevance to the bikes. They had been accumulated and passed on for over 15 years in both cases. The MoT fosters this sort of behaviour. People know a bike with no MoT is effectively worthless, so they make absolutely sure their bikes will pass. If ANY part shows any signs of wear it is replaced. People here tend to try to get by.

It's a cultural thing. Would you mind if the test cost €5 and was performed by proper bike mechanics? Just for argument's sake?

Idleater

that's all well and good, but it doesn't get around the fact that many bikes (and bikers) drive modified bikes, which are reset back close to "stock" in order to pass the MOT.

I do agree with the mileage check though, however, this is not done in the current NCT so I don't see what will change for bikes, and how it will help.

At the end of the day, I agree that bikers in general have no problem keeping their bikes in running order, but there are quite a few crocks out there too. Same with cars, so in my view it is just another expense that I would rather put towards something else.

Tigger

nereid wrote: »

I do agree with the mileage check though, however, this is not done in the current NCT

snip

.

milage is on the nct report if not on the cert

Hotblack Desiato

murphaph wrote: »

I think a motorcycle should fall under the same testing regime as all other vehicles anyway. Why should motorcycles be exempt from safety testing?

Did you read my post above? It will be totally uneconomic and will have practically no effect on safety. We all know what the real problems with bike safety are - car drivers, road surfaces and rider behaviour.

The UK tests every 12 months of course. That's twice as often and will consequently catch a lot more problems early on.

You could test bikes every week, and still only prevent a tiny proportion of accidents. Also it is an offence to use an unroadworthy vehicle, the Gardai should be stopping/impounding obviously defective vehicles.

Without the MoT certs it is much easier to clock.

But there is an epidemic of clocking in the UK.

It's a cultural thing.

Yes I think it's more to do with the culture in the UK (low mileage, fair weather only, anal retentive types are far more common over there ) than the MOT itself. If you ask a car dealer to stamp the service book here, you're likely to get a very odd look. I don't think we even provide service books for bikes here.

Would you mind if the test cost €5 and was performed by proper bike mechanics? Just for argument's sake?

Yes, I would, because it would add nothing to the safety of my bike, waste my time and force me to swap exhausts twice!
But you know it will not be like that. It will have to cost quite a lot of money because the number of bikes on the road is so small, the infrastructure isn't there and the government sure as hell won't subsidise it.

murphaph

Why will you have to swap your exhaust? If it's not road legal you shouldn't use it on the road.

You raise an intersting point-the UK has a low mileage fair weather biking scene, much more so than us. We generally use our bikes in all weathers and all year. To my mind that makes a vehicle more likely to develop a fault.

Can I ask you this ninja. Do you think the NCT/DoE tests should be abolished? It not, why not?

A defective motorcycle is just as capable of killing a pedestrian (in fact possibly more so due to sharp edges) as a motor car. It is also just as capable of polluting the environment with leaking oil seals and noxious emissions. You advocate self-policing, so why not the same for HGVs and so on?

Just take a look around. There are LOTS of junkers on the road with defective everything-tyres, lights, number plates, fork seals, chain wear.......

Idleater

murphaph wrote: »

Why will you have to swap your exhaust? If it's not road legal you shouldn't use it on the road.

Because it is not OEM?

There are also plenty of exhausts that while road legal might not pass certain Tests.

murphaph

A bike doesn't have to have OEM exhausts to pass the MoT. I doubt it would be any different here. So long as it meets noise and gas emissions standards it's all good.

My VFR has an aftermarket exhaust which was present when it passed its MoT just before I bought it.

Idleater

yeah, and my (imported) SV1000 has two cans with BS stamps on them, but they are about as legit as driving the wrong way down a one way street.

Fine for the MoT though apparently.

L.

Del2005

nereid wrote: »

yeah, and my (imported) SV1000 has two cans with BS stamps on them, but they are about as legit as driving the wrong way down a one way street.

Fine for the MoT though apparently.

L.

Don't a lot of these exhaust have removalable baffles to make them legal for the test. Also why shouldn't you use legal exhausts? There are plenty of exhausts that sound good and are legal. If you choose to run a bike with an exhaust that has "Not for road use" stamped on it, you can't give out if it fails. Or if the Gardai start enforcing the law, if they take the bike off you. This also goes for cars. It's a choice you made to break the law and now you are going to give out because there is talk of enforcing it.

BTW I think it's an EU directive that bikes have to be done not the goverment, our fellows rarely do anything without being forced.

galwaytt

Del2005 wrote: »

BTW I think it's an EU directive that bikes have to be done not the goverment, our fellows rarely do anything without being forced.

Well if it is, they can start at home first - Belgium, home of the EU. There's no test for bikes there.......

Here, it's unlikely to happen as it is uneconomic - remember the NCT system is run by a private company, for a profit. If they NCT'd a 100,000 bikes they'd never even pay for the equipment.

Thank God for Capitalism

Btw - the English MOT is nothing to shout about - I've bought two bikes, one from a serving police officer, with a fresh MOT. As soon as I got it home, I put it up on the lift, and found stripped threads on one caliper mount. MOT? Not worth the paper it's written on, I'm afraid............not whilst done by the trade....too many vested interest in it.

Hotblack Desiato

murphaph wrote: »

Why will you have to swap your exhaust? If it's not road legal you shouldn't use it on the road.

Let's not get into that debate. It's road legal under current Irish law as far as I can make out, but if bike testing was introduced I'd expect them to clamp down on the regulations, just because they can now enforce them.

We generally use our bikes in all weathers and all year. To my mind that makes a vehicle more likely to develop a fault.

Not so. There is nothing worse for a motor vehicle than leaving it idle for long periods. If you only do 2000 miles a year you have to do a lot more maintenance per mile than if you do 10000.

Can I ask you this ninja. Do you think the NCT/DoE tests should be abolished? It not, why not?

No I don't. DoE because there are strong commercial pressures to cut corners on maintenance and safety. NCT because the vast majority of car drivers don't have the first clue about maintenance or regular checks. A car can carry several people, frequently we have cars filled with 5 (or more) teenagers and they all end up severely injured or dead. A bike carries two people, but more usually one, so far fewer people are put at risk on the vehicle.

A defective motorcycle is just as capable of killing a pedestrian (in fact possibly more so due to sharp edges) as a motor car.

That's not borne out by the casuaty figures.
Pedestrian fatalities caused by collisions with motorcycles are extremely rare (rarer than would be expected proportionally) but unfortunately that's far from true for cars and trucks.

Del2005 wrote:

BTW I think it's an EU directive that bikes have to be done not the goverment, our fellows rarely do anything without being forced.

:rolleyes: as I posted above, there is an EU directive on car testing but not bikes.

Idleater

Del2005 wrote: »

Don't a lot of these exhaust have removalable baffles to make them legal for the test.

These do exist, and if I were ever to consider replacing the exhausts, that is what I would get, however, I bought the bike as it stands.

Del2005 wrote: »

Also why shouldn't you use legal exhausts? There are plenty of exhausts that sound good and are legal. If you choose to run a bike with an exhaust that has "Not for road use" stamped on it, you can't give out if it fails.

Again, I have no problem with using legal exhausts, that is not the point. The point is that why should there be an MoT test which just encourages swapping of parts in order to pass. (with respect to illegal exhausts, rather than legal ones).

And also, what about the case (that I fall into) where there is NO "Not for Road use" stamp, but there are no baffles or even facility for them.

Del2005 wrote: »

Or if the Gardai start enforcing the law, if they take the bike off you. This also goes for cars. It's a choice you made to break the law and now you are going to give out because there is talk of enforcing it.

Now, why would they be doing that, especially seeing as legally there is nothing wrong, nor have they the facility to even determine if there was something wrong.

bogman

delop wrote: »

My bike will never pass :-(

In that case you shouldn't be on the road, why don't you get it up too spec in stages over the next month or so ?

delop

bogman wrote: »

In that case you shouldn't be on the road, why don't you get it up too spec in stages over the next month or so ?

I have been doing bits and pieces over the last yr, New bearings, new sprokets, new chain, new tyers But Was thinking up upgrading...

Trade in price 1,500
Bike is probably worth about 2,500
Cost to fix = more than the bike is worth, i was informed
I need to get a new back mudguard as previous owner cut it off, and the electrics are in a mess, previous owner changed the headlights..

If anyone knows of a good website for parts for a Hornet (japanese Import) Ill do it myself...
But the advantage is I can park it anywhere in town and bold boys who steal bikes dont seem to look at it twice.. My last bike was fecked up a couple of times while attempts were made to steal it...

I know what your getting at, and its understandable, but I wouldnt drive it if it was dangerous
So Im thinking of just keeping it till its gets too bad and bringing it to a Breakers yard when my restriction time on me license is up

Del2005

nereid wrote: »

These do exist, and if I were ever to consider replacing the exhausts, that is what I would get, however, I bought the bike as it stands.


Again, I have no problem with using legal exhausts, that is not the point. The point is that why should there be an MoT test which just encourages swapping of parts in order to pass. (with respect to illegal exhausts, rather than legal ones).

And also, what about the case (that I fall into) where there is NO "Not for Road use" stamp, but there are no baffles or even facility for them.

Then it may be road legal. But the onus is on the user to make sure they are road legal. TBH there has been a great little side line for Irish bikers selling their standard cans to the UK for their MOTs.

But that is a problem with all safety testing, most people with illegal parts just swap them over. See how many people swap their reg for the NCT. And as the test is only done every 2 years all it proves is that it was safe when the test was done. They could do a test every 2 weeks and things could still be dangerous before the next test.

Now, why would they be doing that, especially seeing as legally there is nothing wrong, nor have they the facility to even determine if there was something wrong.

I agree, but they are going to bring in laws (good only knows when). They are going to set the decibel levels for cars and bikes among other things . And regardless with our Irish laws all a Garda has to do is say he thinks that what you have is illegal and then you are done. But the Gardai don't bother. A friend of mine who is a courier gets stopped loads and never has any bother with his pipes and the "Not for road use" stamp. On his last bike a Garda asked him where he got then as he was going to get some for his own bike.

I was over in the States a while ago and all the road bikes where wrong with standard cans, didn't sound right. Yet all the Harley's had fcuking meagephone exhaustst that could split ear drums.

murphaph

ninja900 wrote: »

Not so. There is nothing worse for a motor vehicle than leaving it idle for long periods. If you only do 2000 miles a year you have to do a lot more maintenance per mile than if you do 10000.

So you believe a garaged bike, only taken out in dry summer weather (but presumably turned over every now and again during the off season) is likely to be in worse mechanical order than a bike that is riddens and left parked outside someone's work 300 days a year, hail rain or shine (and believe it or not the UV rays of the sun do a lot of damage to rubber seals and trim)?

A fair weather bike may require more maintenance per km than a bike used all year round, but that is not the same as being in better mechanical order!

ninja900 wrote: »

No I don't. DoE because there are strong commercial pressures to cut corners on maintenance and safety. NCT because the vast majority of car drivers don't have the first clue about maintenance or regular checks. A car can carry several people, frequently we have cars filled with 5 (or more) teenagers and they all end up severely injured or dead. A bike carries two people, but more usually one, so far fewer people are put at risk on the vehicle.

Hmmm. A cursory glance at these forums shows that many bikers are unable to perform basic maintenance on their machines, nevermind scooter riders who probably know less about routine maintenance than your average car user. I don't see what the number of passengers carried has to do with it? You believe that because fewer people are likely to die in a motorcycle accident caused by defective equipment implies less need for a testing regime?

Essentially you believe that motorcycles are the only class of vehicle which should be exempt from mandatory testing?

vektarman

Hmmm. A cursory glance at these forums shows that many bikers are unable to perform basic maintenance on their machines, nevermind scooter riders who probably know less about routine maintenance than your average car user.

Thanks for that from a 'scooter rider' who can strip and and rebuild a scooter engine in three hours.

Garibaldi

Grr! Grr! Fight! Fight!

I'm sorry? What was the topic again?

Hotblack Desiato

murphaph wrote: »

Essentially you believe that motorcycles are the only class of vehicle which should be exempt from mandatory testing?

Well, I don't really care what they do about other classes of vehicle.
Motorcycles pose practically zero threat to other road users and pedestrians, and casualty figures bear this out. Very few motorcycle accidents are caused by mechanical failure (go look at the NRA figures.) The number of bikes on the road is so small that it is not economic or practical to set up a testing infrastructure. The tiny benefit isn't worth the cost. A 'one size fits all' policy is what's given us the likes of wire rope barriers.

Motorcycles are different from every other class of motor vehicle, they present unique advantages and problems, the approaches used for other classes of vehicle are not necessarily appropriate or effective for us. Better rider education would be more effective than a test every two years. I believe that CBT (when it eventually comes in) will include this.

Also, I've said it before, the Gardai should be removing obviously defective vehicles (of whatever type) off the road, rather than just turning a blind eye.

Torq

Hi Guys,
avoid the nct for bikes buy a classic! There is no NCT on classic cars so it would follow that there should be none for bikes. What's next? Get those noisy, smelly and smokey bikes off the road, ban all 2 strokes?
Keep well,
Torq

KildareMan

nereid wrote: »

Because it is not OEM?

There are also plenty of exhausts that while road legal might not pass certain Tests.

Well to have a noise test as per the UK they (lasy arse polito's) first have to pass/enact noise laws for vehilces here. You can quite legally ride a bike here with a silencer stamped "Not road legal" or what ever because there is no noise law here. If your exhaust is too loud you can be done for noise nuisance but little else.

sutty

KildareMan wrote: »

Well to have a noise test as per the UK they (lasy arse polito's) first have to pass/enact noise laws for vehilces here. You can quite legally ride a bike here with a silencer stamped "Not road legal" or what ever because there is no noise law here. If your exhaust is too loud you can be done for noise nuisance but little else.

Yep, I was just going to say that my self. The Stamp "not for road use" is for countries like USA and England. Which do have set noise laws. Ireland however does not.


Oh and by the by, a proper setup bike with after market cans, can have legal emissions. The bike just has to be correctly configured through the ECU or carbs.

KildareMan

A lot of people may not be aware that not all cars can have the full nct - namely permanent 4 wheel drive, as the test centres have only one set of rollers per test lane.

murphaph

ninja900 wrote: »

Well, I don't really care what they do about other classes of vehicle.

Yes you do, you said above that cars and trucks should be tested!

ninja900 wrote: »

Motorcycles pose practically zero threat to other road users and pedestrians, and casualty figures bear this out. Very few motorcycle accidents are caused by mechanical failure (go look at the NRA figures.) The number of bikes on the road is so small that it is not economic or practical to set up a testing infrastructure. The tiny benefit isn't worth the cost. A 'one size fits all' policy is what's given us the likes of wire rope barriers.

What if the number of bikes on the road increased? Much of your argument centres around the relatively small number of PTWs on the road, but that can change especially as traffic deteriorates.

ninja900 wrote: »

Motorcycles are different from every other class of motor vehicle, they present unique advantages and problems, the approaches used for other classes of vehicle are not necessarily appropriate or effective for us. Better rider education would be more effective than a test every two years. I believe that CBT (when it eventually comes in) will include this.

I believe we need both. CBT for all road users. Proper training and testing for all road users. Proper vehicle testing for all vehicles. A fair and even handed approach for all.

Hotblack Desiato

murphaph wrote: »

Yes you do, you said above that cars and trucks should be tested!

You asked me if they should retain the NCT, I said yes, but it doesn't really bother me that much one way or the other. OK?

What if the number of bikes on the road increased? Much of your argument centres around the relatively small number of PTWs on the road, but that can change especially as traffic deteriorates.

If the number of bikes increased significantly, then the economics of running a test for bikes would improve correspondingly.

Shane_C

galwaytt wrote: »

Well if it is, they can start at home first - Belgium, home of the EU. There's no test for bikes there.......

Here, it's unlikely to happen as it is uneconomic - remember the NCT system is run by a private company, for a profit. If they NCT'd a 100,000 bikes they'd never even pay for the equipment.

Thank God for Capitalism

The most important point here.

Also there are no European guidelines governing motorcycles at the moment.
A quick search found this: europa.eu

murphaph

ninja900 wrote: »

it doesn't really bother me that much [if cars and trucks are tested or not]

I'm surprised by that. I don't think it would be wise to allow HGVs to go untested and it would be counter to most every civilised country in the world. You'd end up with all sorts if death traps failing to stop at the bottom of a hill.

ninja900 wrote: »

If the number of bikes increased significantly, then the economics of running a test for bikes would improve correspondingly.

But earlier you said your objection to testing had nothing whatsoever to do with the cost as I asked you if it was €5 for a test would you mind and you said yes.

Your reasons for objecting to compulsory testing have shifted and I get the feeling you just don't want someone touching your bike. Would that be fair enough to say?

Hotblack Desiato

murphaph wrote: »

I'm surprised by that. I don't think it would be wise to allow HGVs to go untested and it would be counter to most every civilised country in the world. You'd end up with all sorts if death traps failing to stop at the bottom of a hill.

Where did I say they should go untested?
When you asked me, I said earlier that there is a good reason to retain the DoE because of commercial pressures etc. coming before safety.
I also said that there's no reason to do away with the NCT, it's there, it's working well enough and has got some (but by no means all) of the death traps off the road.
Yes, I did say I wasn't that bothered about the regulations affecting other vehicles though, I ride a bike every day, drive a car once a week if that (wife's car, I've never owned one) and don't have a truck licence. I don't see mechanical problems with other vehicles as a big threat to my safety on the bike, it's the drivers that worry me.

But earlier you said your objection to testing had nothing whatsoever to do with the cost as I asked you if it was €5 for a test would you mind and you said yes.

In the real world it will NOT cost €5. But if it did, I'd still think it an unnecessary inconvenience with no benefit to me.

Your reasons for objecting to compulsory testing have shifted

No, they haven't. It's possible to object to something for more than one reason :rolleyes:

and I get the feeling you just don't want someone touching your bike. Would that be fair enough to say?

ONE of the reasons I don't want it is that I don't want some half trained grease monkey touching my bike, yes. I wouldn't let 95% of the so-called "qualified bike mechanics" in this country touch my bike.

GS.ie

An nct for bikes (speaking as a biker) would be good as it might make some of the brain dead couriers replace the rear tyre before it gets to shiney.

Hotblack Desiato

GS.ie wrote: »

An nct for bikes (speaking as a biker) would be good as it might make some of the brain dead couriers replace the rear tyre before it gets to shiney.

That's a Garda enforcement issue, checking tyres every two years isn't nearly good enough.

Oldskoolrod

murphaph wrote: »

Why will you have to swap your exhaust? If it's not road legal you shouldn't use it on the road.

I have just moved from the UK, and ride a Harley Davidson. Now in the UK my exhaust system is deemed illegal because of the noise level, but have you heard a Harley with a stock exhaust, sounds ****e, I mean how many times have you heard " sorry mate I didn't see you" after they have just knocked you off. At least with a loud exhaust they can't say "sorry mate I didn't hear you". I am a great believer in loud exhausts and have been for the last 26 years of riding, they get you noticed, unlike these Japanese sports bikes that you can't hear. Comments like you are making are just the start of legislation against bikers in general, and once they start they won't stop. So get a life , get on your bike and stop whingeing !!!!!! :cool:
You should be greatful you don't live in a country full of stupid legislation, if you like it that much move to the UK!!!

murphaph

Oldskoolrod wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

Why will you have to swap your exhaust? If it's not road legal you shouldn't use it on the road.

I have just moved from the UK, and ride a Harley Davidson. Now in the UK my exhaust system is deemed illegal because of the noise level, but have you heard a Harley with a stock exhaust, sounds ****e, I mean how many times have you heard " sorry mate I didn't see you" after they have just knocked you off. At least with a loud exhaust they can't say "sorry mate I didn't hear you". I am a great believer in loud exhausts and have been for the last 26 years of riding, they get you noticed, unlike these Japanese sports bikes that you can't hear. Comments like you are making are just the start of legislation against bikers in general, and once they start they won't stop. So get a life , get on your bike and stop whingeing !!!!!! :cool:
You should be greatful you don't live in a country full of stupid legislation, if you like it that much move to the UK!!!

Twice the roads deaths per capita as the UK tells its own story my friend. Sometimes the odd rule or two is good.

Run_to_da_hills

ninja900 wrote: »

Total bollix! NCT for bikes would be a total waste of time and money.

Most riders know about the need for maintenance, our life depends much more on the condition of our machine than a car driver's does. Few of them seem to bother checking air or oil never mind anything else.

Not so, I think some form of bringing to attention the safety and maintenance of motorcycles in the form of a MOT would be a great idea as long as it doesn’t turn into a scam like the current DOE/NCT. If it was run in partnership with MAG Ireland. I also think bike maintenance should be made a cumpulsory part of the theory / practical test. There are plenty of idiots out there that dont bother adjusting their chains simply because they dont know how to do it.

I have seen couriers riding around the city on some heaps, bald tyres, brake leavers 1/2 missing, chains almost touching the ground. oil spilling from damaged fork seals on to the front brake disks, indicators missing, the list could go on, Those like your self that maintain your bike need not worry, but there are idiots out there that couldn't tell the difference between the front wheel from the back wheel.

Oldskoolrod

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not so, I think some form of bringing to attention the safety and maintenance of motorcycles in the form of a MOT would be a great idea as long as it doesn’t turn into a scam like the current DOE/NCT. If it was run in partnership with MAG Ireland. I also think bike maintenance should be made a cumpulsory part of the theory / practical test. There are plenty of idiots out there that dont bother adjusting their chains simply because they dont know how to do it.

I have seen couriers riding around the city on some heaps, bald tyres, brake leavers 1/2 missing, chains almost touching the ground. oil spilling from damaged fork seals on to the front brake disks, indicators missing, the list could go on, Those like your self that maintain your bike need not worry, but there are idiots out there that couldn't tell the difference between the front wheel from the back wheel.

These are things the guarda should clamp down on, an MOT/NCT test would only be every 1 to 2 years, for one day, they have no bearing or control over the rest of the time, unless you are going to MOT a bike every five minutes it doesn't work. The guarda should be more vigilant and pull anyone riding an unroad worthy bike, and tell them to put things in order. You have to pay to keep your bike road worthy in the first place, so you don't want to be paying anyone else to tell you the same.
As for more accidents and deaths than the UK, take a look at the idiots in cars and vans that don't give a toss about bike riders, they are the reasons for most of the accidents, not the state of the bike they have just ploughed into, in most cases!!!!!!:cool:

Run_to_da_hills

Oldskoolrod wrote: »

These are things the guarda should clamp down on, an MOT/NCT test would only be every 1 to 2 years, for one day, they have no bearing or control over the rest of the time, unless you are going to MOT a bike every five minutes it doesn't work. The guarda should be more vigilant and pull anyone riding an unroad worthy bike, and tell them to put things in order. You have to pay to keep your bike road worthy in the first place, so you don't want to be paying anyone else to tell you the same.
As for more accidents and deaths than the UK, take a look at the idiots in cars and vans that don't give a toss about bike riders, they are the reasons for most of the accidents, not the state of the bike they have just ploughed into, in most cases!!!!!!:cool:

The Bike NCT would set a standard. It would get lazy / cheap scate bikers that dont bother their h*le to even check their bikes to do something about it every two years. A worn chain / sprocket, damaged fork seals, bald tyres can prove deadly. A good NCT mechanic can pick out all these faults out and make the owner get them sorted. The NCT can also set a standard that the cops can work off and can be enforced throughout the two year pieriod, ie, if a cop sees some idiot with a chain touching the ground he can give the owner 10 days to sort it out.

Steffano2002

Biking is expensive enough as it is. I'm against a NCT for bikes. I'm against ANYTHING that costs more money. (Have to pay over a grand just to get Irish plates so they can fook off now!)

Run_to_da_hills

Steffano2002 wrote: »

Biking is expensive enough as it is. I'm against a NCT for bikes. I'm against ANYTHING that costs more money. (Have to pay over a grand just to get Irish plates so they can fook off now!)

Some common sense statutory check ups once every two years shouldn’t cost too much, If it could save a few lives it would be worth it. It would also mean that people would look after and respect their bikes more.


One thing about the UK MOT is that its a good guide on EBay when you are looking for a scoot. An MOT failure is an instant put off. One knows in advance before taking the boat over that the bike should be in good order with a fresh MOT

Hotblack Desiato

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Some common sense statutory check ups once every two years shouldn’t cost too much

Depends on how it's done. If it's done through dealers like in the UK, it will be cheap but not worth a f**k, dealers doing their own tests on bikes they are selling... scams are common. If it's done like the NCT, it will be expensive unless the government subsidises it (fat chance). A testing infrastructure (and trained testers) will have to be created from scratch for a very small group of road users, it will cost a fortune and riders will be the ones paying.

If it could save a few lives it would be worth it.

Banning bikes would save more than a few lives - that's where this sort of 'logic' leads.
The number of accidents caused by mechanical failures is about 1%, even if it was a good bit more, let's say 3% you'd still only save one life a year, if you're lucky.

Why not just put a bit of effort into better driver and rider education, it would be FAR more effective.

One knows in advance before taking the boat over that the bike should be in good order with a fresh MOT

You serious??? The favourite trick of a dodgy dealer is to get a fresh MOT, it lulls the buyer into a false sense of security.

Run_to_da_hills

ninja900 wrote: »

Depends on how it's done. If it's done through dealers like in the UK, it will be cheap but not worth a f**k, dealers doing their own tests on bikes they are selling... scams are common. If it's done like the NCT, it will be expensive unless the government subsidises it (fat chance). A testing infrastructure (and trained testers) will have to be created from scratch for a very small group of road users, it will cost a fortune and riders will be the ones paying..

This is why i mentioned of a third party like MAG to have some involvement. The Government on their own are useless on this matter. Having roadworthy test "should" technically lower insurance costs which should weigh off the costs of these check ups.

ninja900 wrote: »

The number of accidents caused by mechanical failures is about 1%, even if it was a good bit more, let's say 3% you'd still only save one life a year, if you're lucky..

I would being that figure a lot higher when one would consider it a contributing factor, ie as i mentioned oil on the front calliper, oil on tyres, faulty lights, bald tyres and indicators.

ninja900 wrote: »

Why not just put a bit of effort into better driver and rider education, it would be FAR more effective...

I already suggested making a basic mechanical knowledge of the bike and servicing it incorporated into the driving test both A1 and A.

ninja900 wrote: »

You serious??? The favourite trick of a dodgy dealer is to get a fresh MOT, it lulls the buyer into a false sense of security.

The first thing I would ask is the MOT genuine, and let the guy know that I am travelling over from Ireland. If he is attempting to pull the wool over my eyes I would tell him up front that he is wasting his and my time. It dose not take much to spot something that is passed off. Fortunately any of the imported bikes that I bought in the past were good. (Except for German import Blade i that I knew had crash damage)

Hotblack Desiato

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This is why i mentioned of a third party like MAG to have some involvement. The Government on their own are useless on this matter.

I can categorically assure you that MAG wouldn't touch something like this with a fifty metre bargepole, because it is not in riders' interests, it's just more unneeded bureaucracy and a further expense on riders.

The government have a strong record on just doing whatever the hell they want anyway, for an example just read the reports yesterday about bus lanes. They would love it if all bikers just went away, bikes are a "problem" that needs to be "dealt with" (compare and contrast to the official platitudes about cycling, whose safety record is worse per km travelled)

Having roadworthy test "should" technically lower insurance costs which should weigh off the costs of these check ups.

Nope, because it is only a factor in a very small percentage of accidents, even if you could eliminate ALL mechanical failures you would make eff all difference.

How many feckin' times do I have to say it:

The problem here ISN'T the roads.
The problem here ISN'T the vehicles.
The problem is the drivers (and riders.)
Anything else is just making excuses.


Over 90% of accidents are caused by driver/rider error, FACT. It would make far more sense to be testing the bloody drivers and riders every two years rather than their vehicles.

I would being that figure a lot higher when one would consider it a contributing factor, ie as i mentioned oil on the front calliper, oil on tyres, faulty lights, bald tyres and indicators.

Nope. Mechanical failures are only a contributing factor to a very small percentage of accidents.

Steffano2002

I agree with Ninja. No point in having an MOT. And if motorcyclists in Ireland aren't doing their daily/weekly/monthly checks, let them find out the hard way why they are vital to safe riding.

If you're stupid enough to ride a bike with bold tyres, slack chain, poor brakes, no lights, etc you shouldn't be on a bike.

Pigeon Reaper

Personally I couldn't give a sh*t if they kill themselves. Unfortunately they often crash into others with faulty bikes. Does anyone remember the biker who killed two people in Clonsilla on the bridge around two years ago? The bike had faulty brakes and the forks where already fubar when he hit a mother and child. If someone rides a dangerous bike they're probably more likely to ride dangerously too as they're willing to take risks. The same arguments where made about cars before the NCT but there is no doubt that it removes the worst of the deathtraps from the roads. It's the same with bikes some are simply too dangerous to be on the roads and if they crash they may take someone else with them.

Run_to_da_hills

Steffano2002 wrote: »

I agree with Ninja. No point in having an MOT. And if motorcyclists in Ireland aren't doing their daily/weekly/monthly checks, let them find out the hard way why they are vital to safe riding.

If you're stupid enough to ride a bike with bold tyres, slack chain, poor brakes, no lights, etc you shouldn't be on a bike.

Some people just don't have brains and have to be told what to do, I can remember not too long ago having to refuse a junior member of our club to travell with us because of the appaling condition of his bike. The same person would not think twice to take this bike to work the following day.

Steffano2002

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Some people just don't have brains and have to be told what to do, I can remember not too long ago having to refuse a junior member of our club to travell with us because of the appaling condition of his bike. The same person would not think twice to take this bike to work the following day.

And it is sad that we must share the roads with such idiots! :mad: