RSA Launches Consultation on New Tests for NCT

RSA Launches Consultation on New Tests for NCT

The RSA has launched a consultation paper, today Monday 23rd February 2009, seeking the views of car owners and those involved in the motor trade on proposals to add new test items to the National Car Test in early 2010. The consultation also considers the introduction of annual testing for cars which are over 10 years old. The RSA believes that the new test items will improve the safety of vehicles on our roads and assist in achieving the main objective of the Governments Road Safety Strategy to bring Ireland's road safety record into line with "best practice" countries throughout the World. The proposed changes to the NCT are:

Clarity of windscreen and front side windows
Excessively tinted windscreens or front side windows present a significant safety hazard for drivers and their occupants. It is proposed that the glass in the windscreen and front side windows will be required to have a light transmission level of not less than 65% in order to pass the test.

Rear fog lamp
Rear fog lamps enhance the visibility of a car in foggy conditions by indicating the vehicle's position and direction of travel to other road users. The rear fog lamp, where fitted, will be checked to ensure that when in use it provides a red light which is clearly visible.

Reverse lamp
The reverse lamp of a vehicle provides illumination to the rear when backing up, and warns nearby drivers and pedestrians of a vehicle's backward motion. The reverse lamp, where fitted, will be checked to ensure that when in use it provides a white light which is clearly visible.

Tyres
Car tyres are the only point of contact between a vehicle and the road. The standards to which tyres are designed and built, is critical to ensuring adequate grip is maintained with the road surface. An "E" or “e” mark indicates that the tyre is certified to comply with international regulations. It is proposed that the vehicle will fail if an E or e mark is not visible.

Malfunction indicators for Airbags, Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems and Electronic Braking Systems (EBS) / Anti-Lock Brake system (ABS).
Today’s cars are fitted with a number of warning lamps on a dashboard that let the driver know if certain critical safety, performance and environmental features are not working properly. They are important safety features and it is in the interest of the driver and road safety that all safety systems in the vehicle are in full working order. Vehicles will be checked to ensure that, where fitted, the malfunction indicators for Airbags, Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems and Electronic Braking Systems (EBS) / Anti-Lock Brake system (ABS) are in correct working order. The vehicle will fail if a malfunction indicator is not working or indicates a defect in the system.

Rear registration plate lamp
Rear registration plate lamps provide essential illumination to the registration plate of a vehicle once parking lights are activated.

Vehicle exhaust noise
The nuisance caused by excessive noise from vehicle exhausts is regularly the subject of comments and complaints received by the RSA. A new test is proposed at NCT whereby sound levels will be checked in order to ensure acceptable sound levels are not exceeded.

Annual testing of vehicles over 10 years old
At present two thirds of cars aged 10 years and older presented for a test do not pass first time. It is proposed that annual testing be introduced for cars ten years and older. Cars over 30 years old would continue to be exempt for the moment.

The introduction of the new test items will have no implications for test fees. The owners of vehicles over 10 years old, however, would be required to bear the cost of an annual test.


Site: http://www.rsa.ie/NEWS/News/NCT_Consultation.html

Document: http://www.rsa.ie/NEWS/upload/File/NCT%20Consultation%20Paper%202009.pdf

The RSA would greatly appreciate the views of the public. Responses may be submitted up to 27th March to:

National Car Test Consultation
Road Safety Authority
Moy Valley Business Park
Primrose Hill
Ballina
Co. Mayo

or by email to nctconsultation@rsa.ie

On completion of this consultation process the RSA will be making proposals to the Department of Transport regarding the items to be included in the National Car Test from 2010.

mondeo

Hmm, I dont know about testing cars over 10 years old annualy. One of my car has always past first time and it's 13 years old now. I think it's taking more money out of the pocket of those who cannot afford newer cars..Not really fair..

I am interested to know about the exhaust noise limitation and what sound levels will be accepted...

Tipsy Mac

I support everything there being tested, particularly loud exhaust noise, either it should be part of the NCT or use of such vehicles should be confined to the hours of 9am to 9pm so as not to disturb every civilised person in the country.

BoardsRanger

mondeo wrote: »

Hmm, I dont know about testing cars over 10 years old annualy. One of my car has always past first time and it's 13 years old now. I think it's taking more money out of the pocket of those who cannot afford newer cars..Not really fair..

+1 ... but sure its grand, it will create more revenue!:rolleyes:

Captain Slow IRL

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

I support everything there being tested, particularly loud exhaust noise, either it should be part of the NCT or use of such vehicles should be confined to the hours of 9am to 9pm so as not to disturb every civilised person in the country.

A neighbour of mine (who's been banned off the road twice over the last few years) has a civic with a joke of a silencer and cut suspension springs, as a cheap method to lower the car. And there's an nct disc on the window.

The nct will pass the car if it's up to their standards on the day of the test, kinda useless when they stick the mods back on the next day. The gardai should be enforcing this stuff.

It's a funking outrage that they're doing this to cars over 10 years of age, a 4 year old car can just as easily fail the test as a 10. If it does go through, the fee for the test should be halved for those doing it annually........though that's just wishful thinking. RSA should be renamed HUOA (heads up our ars..)

galwaytt

I fully intend to write to them. Bullet points as follows

• Windscreen Tint - fine by me, with the caveat that OEM tints are exempt.
• Rear Fog Lamp - fine by me
• Reverse Lamp - fine by me
• Tyres - fine by me
• 'Malfunction' Indicators - I do have an issue with this. For a start, 'indicators' do not indicate a fault - they are information. On some newer cars multiple functions are represented by a common symbol - so unless the NCT can determine the EXACT nature of the indicated message, and it's significance, then it cannot legitimately 'fail' a car for an error message. It would require all NCT centres' to be 100% au fait with all messages, on all makes, on all models. Completely impractical. And, even if a car shows an error, if it's not matched by finding a corresponding physical fault (lets say 'brakes'), then it means nothing - apart from the fact that the bulb/LED is lit. Are NCT going to take on diagnosis of on-board electronics now, too ?
• Reg Plate Lamp - fine by me
• Exhaust Noise - definately not fine by me - totally unenforceable, and at best, legally a 'grey area'. See my comments here
• 10 yr+ annual test - absolutely no way. Complete money scam to extract money from those least likely to be able to afford it. To say an 8 or 9 yr old vehicle is fine, but a 10yr old one, not, or more likely to be a 'fail' is completely bogus. I do not believe for an instant that increased frequency of test after an arbitrary age does anything for safety. For govt revenue coffers, yes. Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. And there's the issue of fee - if a 10yr old +, so double frequency, test will have to be at least halved in cost. And, taking vehicles to pass, and taking into account the CO2 NOT produced in making a newer replacement, I'll go further - it's car tax should be HALVED.
  

endplate

Poor RSA they are worried about their jobs or have nothing better to do they are now stepping into the NCT department. Sure isn't there a whole department in Ballina staring at the walls whisteling to themselves:D

Dartz

Now then, they just need to add a couple of zeroes to the test price... Sure, that'll restimulate the motor industry right there. It's how the Japanese government supports it's home auto industry, IIRC

Atomic Pineapple

it all seems pretty fine to me, 99db is a good compromise on the noise of an exhaust it allows proper sports cars with proper exhuast systems pass but will hopefully fail the 1.4 civic or punto with a 3" back box stuck on

The once a year thing is of course a scam and I would encourge everyone to email them saying they feel that way

Darragh29

galwaytt wrote: »

[*]'Malfunction' Indicators - I do have an issue with this. For a start, 'indicators' do not indicate a fault - they are information. On some newer cars multiple functions are represented by a common symbol - so unless the NCT can determine the EXACT nature of the indicated message, and it's significance, then it cannot legitimately 'fail' a car for an error message. It would require all NCT centres' to be 100% au fait with all messages, on all makes, on all models. Completely impractical. And, even if a car shows an error, if it's not matched by finding a corresponding physical fault (lets say 'brakes'), then it means nothing - apart from the fact that the bulb/LED is lit. Are NCT going to take on diagnosis of on-board electronics now, too ?

This was one thing that always p*ssed me off about the NCT. You can go in with a defective airbag and ABS system and no problem, you'll pass. If you have an ECU, airbag/SRS or ABS light on when your engine is running, you have a systems fault within that circuit... All these systems are self testing...

Traumadoc

What is the "significant safety hazard" caused by window tinting?

I dont have tinting myself but hate stupid regulations put in place to placate individuals insecurities.

galwaytt

Darragh29 wrote: »

This was one thing that always p*ssed me off about the NCT. You can go in with a defective airbag and ABS system and no problem, you'll pass.

... and why not, they are not legal requirements. Furthermore, if your ABS is defective, it fails in 'safe mode' meaning your brakes are still fully functioning. No reason for you to be denied your NCT there.

If you have an ECU, airbag/SRS or ABS light on when your engine is running, you have a systems fault within that circuit... All these systems are self testing...

No, a faulty ABS sensor (v.common in the age of the powerwasher), does not affect the brakes on your car, only the ABS. Ther are not the same thing.

Darragh29

galwaytt wrote: »

... and why not, they are not legal requirements. Furthermore, if your ABS is defective, it fails in 'safe mode' meaning your brakes are still fully functioning. No reason for you to be denied your NCT there.


No, a faulty ABS sensor (v.common in the age of the powerwasher), does not affect the brakes on your car, only the ABS. Ther are not the same thing.

ABS is there for a reason, it is a safety feature in itself. If it fails, I accept that you still have your mechanical braking system, but you do not have ABS functionality, which you should have. A defective ABS system was one of the key causes of the Navan bus crash that killed 5 schoolchildren...

Darragh29

Traumadoc wrote: »

What is the "significant safety hazard" caused by window tinting?

I dont have tinting myself but hate stupid regulations put in place to placate individuals insecurities.

I've found on a few occasions when I'm turning into a junction and someone with a very strong window tint is sitting there in their Range Rover, I can't see what way they are looking, I can't tell if they have seen me or not, I can't see them from the side full stop...

Traumadoc

If they were wearing sunglasses would you be any the wiser?

Guy:Incognito

galwaytt wrote: »

[*]10 yr+ annual test - absolutely no way. Complete money scam to extract money from those least likely to be able to afford it. To say an 8 or 9 yr old vehicle is fine, but a 10yr old one, not, or more likely to be a 'fail' is completely bogus. .

Seems to work in other countries.


Thers always moaning on here about this or that aspect of other systems and how they are all way ahead of us, but when soem of the methods are translplanted here theres suddenly peopel cryign foul.

Traumadoc

I have never heard of tinting side windows being the cause of accidents I fail to see how they can be a significant safety hazard.

I think the real reason for the introduction of stricter NCT regulations is to introduce a scrapage scheme by a cost neutral method, I am sure SIMI would be delighted if yearly NCT was introduced. as this would make owning an older car too much stress and cost- leading to an increased demand for new cars.

Guy:Incognito

Traumadoc wrote: »

I have never heard of tinting side windows being the cause of accidents I fail to see how they can be a significant safety hazard.

I think the real reason for the introduction of stricter NCT regulations is to introduce a scrapage scheme by a cost neutral method, I am sure SIMI would be delighted if yearly NCT was introduced. as this would make owning an older car too much stress and cost- leading to an increased demand for new cars.

How would banning tints above a certain level lead to more older cars beign scrapped?

Traumadoc

I think the banning of side window tints has nothing to do with road safety.

I think the yearly NCT for older cars is to make it too expensive to keep on the road and so encourage people to buy newer cars.

Guy:Incognito

Traumadoc wrote: »

I think the banning of side window tints has nothing to do with road safety.
.

So whats their ulterior motive for it then?

Traumadoc wrote: »

I think the yearly NCT for older cars is to make it too expensive to keep on the road and so encourage people to buy newer cars.

Teh same was said about the NCT as a whole when it was introduced.

galwaytt

Darragh29 wrote: »

ABS is there for a reason, it is a safety feature in itself. If it fails, I accept that you still have your mechanical braking system, but you do not have ABS functionality, which you should have. A defective ABS system was one of the key causes of the Navan bus crash that killed 5 schoolchildren...

Couple of things there: first, last time I checked, ABS was not a legal requirement, so on a lot of vehicles, it was only an option, at extra cost. So two examples of the same model car, one with, one without ABS, if it's absent on one, but non-functioning on the other - makes them the same, therefore, both legal. Now I know the law was to change on that (driven by the Germans), but that cannot be retrospective........even if you find a date that it changes from being optional to mandatory, then again, NCT centres will have to know every make, model, version affected. Simply unmanageable.

And for the record, and I acknowledge the appalling tragedy of that crash, but ABS was not the cause of the crash. The cause was the road surface - the Dense Base Macadam the bus was on (courtesy of the Co Co.......), and the need to brake emergency fashion. The (non-functioning) ABS prevented the bus possibly uneventfully, or with a lesser outcome, avoiding a collision as a result of loss of grip under braking. That is not the same thing. ABS would have been a help if the accident hadn't been caused by the emergency and low friction road surface. A far, far greater safety contributor would have been seat belts !

This distinction is what led the the inquest jury - illadvisedly imho - declaring that 'ABS be fitted to all buses' - which of course, is a physical impossibility. Unless ABS is an OEM fitment, it is not possible.

galwaytt

Stekelly wrote: »

Seems to work in other countries.

(honest question: ) please list.

Thers always moaning on here about this or that aspect of other systems and how they are all way ahead of us, but when soem of the methods are translplanted here theres suddenly peopel cryign foul.

That's because of an inherent lack of trust of any system designed by bureaucrats, ostensibly for the validation of their own existence. Applies to Banking, too, btw......;)

Traumadoc

Stekelly wrote: »

So whats their ulterior motive for it then?




Teh same was said about the NCT as a whole when it was introduced.

Ulterior motive: insecurity

National car testing has been pushed by car manufacturers in many countries to encourage a rapid turnover in vehicle ownership.

In Japan the NCT is carried out every 2 years and costs over 1000 euro, owning an older car makes less financial sense so people by new cars and older cars are exported hence the large number of "jap imports" to this country.

Guy:Incognito

galwaytt wrote: »

(honest question: ) please list.

It's listed on the proposal for the NCT changes.
I'll have a look now.

EDIT. Page 9


http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/NCT%20Consultation%20Paper%202009%20FINAL%20ROB200209.pdf

Guy:Incognito

Traumadoc wrote: »

Ulterior motive: insecurity
.

Wha?

Traumadoc

Ask yourself why do people object to tinted windows.

galwaytt

Stekelly wrote: »

It's listed on the proposal for the NCT changes.
I'll have a look now.

EDIT. Page 9


http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/NCT%20Consultation%20Paper%202009%20FINAL%20ROB200209.pdf

Tks - see that. But the only countries that have an annual test for cars over significant (say 8 yrs) age are Switzerland, Portugal and Spain. The only other country of note excepting this is the UK.

It's interesting to see that of the biggest car producing countries in the EU, Germany stays Biannual ........whilst France and Italy are........not on the list at all ? Furthermore the comment "Over 50% of the 14 States that participated in the study had annual testing. This sort of statement is misleading at least, because for a start, there are 27 countries in the EU, so only half of the countries participated...........meaning that showing "50%" is actually an optional illusion. It's only that percentage of participants not of member states at all.

Critically, imho, Germany sees no reason, despite it's huge car population, and a healthy population of older vehicles btw, to warrant anything outside a 2yr inspection. So, weighting those countries by, say, motor industry relevance, in that table would give a completely different impression. I could just as easily point out that Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, and Slovak Republic - all big producers, and so, experts - have determined that biannual testing beyond a certain point satisfies their safety criteria.

Guy:Incognito

Traumadoc wrote: »

Ask yourself why do people object to tinted windows.

Dont need to ask myself anything, theres people giving their views above.

You ask yourslef, why do people need the windows on their cars blacked out?

Guy:Incognito

galwaytt wrote: »

Critically, imho, Germany sees no reason,.

Why single out Germany over , say, the uk though?

Traumadoc

Stekelly wrote: »

Dont need to ask myself anything, theres people giving their views above.

You ask yourslef, why do people need the windows on their cars blacked out?

It looks different, it can look nice, protects contents, protects privacy.

galwaytt

Stekelly wrote: »

Why single out Germany over , say, the uk though?

I'm not, but to say the UK does it, so it must be right would be wrong. They are (very) seriously in the minority on this. Plus their test is (significantly) different to both ours and the German one in terms of methodology and practice e.g. here and Germany etc, test facilities are exclusively that, and independant of the garage trade. The UK one is, significantly, not. You can't make a rule, based on an exception to the pattern, that's all.

Guy:Incognito

Traumadoc wrote: »

It looks different, it can look nice, protects contents, protects privacy.

It looks like you've somethign to hide, it looks like your a drug dealer. If a scumbag cant see into your car (ie they are too lazy to look in the front or rear windscreen wich will be clear) they are just as likely to decide to have a look if they think you have it so they cant see the expensive stuff you have inside.

Traumadoc

Ah the old " you look like a drug dealer " reason for failing the NCT.:rolleyes:

Guy:Incognito

Traumadoc wrote: »

Ah the old " you look like a drug dealer " reason for failing the NCT.:rolleyes:

Yep. Thats all I said. What of the rest of it? Or is your stance going to be built around sarcastic smilies?

CJhaughey

I think the NCT should be farmed out to more competition, having a monopoly is not good for anything.
How long does SGS have the contrat for?

L-M

CJhaughey wrote: »

I think the NCT should be farmed out to more competition, having a monopoly is not good for anything.
How long does SGS have the contrat for?

September/October this year AFAIK

fastrac

All of these suggested rule changes are supported by intense lobbying from the Motor Industry who will try anything to get older cars off the road.In the current cash shortage the RSA are hardly going to tell the Govt to spend more money on safer roads,more gardai etc.Its the usual targeting of the ordinary punter and they should be told so in plain language.

Mailman

Older cars travel fewer miles than newer cars each year. The Motor Industry would love to exaggerate the danger they present.

No new owner would specify extra safety features as optional extras if they knew they would negatively affect the resale value of the shiny new car they are buying.
Tyre pressure monitors are becoming compulsory from 2012 onward. If they're added to the test expect NCT failure rates to shoot up to 80% and a Laguna II will never pass an NCT again. TPMs are notoriously unreliable and are not getting any better.

Guy:Incognito

Mailman wrote: »

Older cars travel fewer miles than newer cars each year. The Motor Industry would love to exaggerate the danger they present..

Are there stats for that?

Do you do less driving because your car is over 8 years old? I know I dont.

Companies buying large amounts of company cars new each year or 3 will of course push the figures in favour of your info.

Saab Ed

Something we are all forgetting is that when the NCT was first introduced the initial standard was lower than now. The reason the government gave at the time was that as the roads improved so too would the severity of the test. They said that over the next couple of years the test would become harder and the time in between would allow people to upgrade or improve their car in line with the pace of the road improvements and the test itself. Now its fair to say that we have a hell of a lot more motorways now that 12 or 13 years ago but the other roads around where I live have'nt improved one jot. In fact some of them are in far worse condition. The new rules were impossed a couple of years after the NCT was introduced but the roads did'nt make the same jump forward in standard. Come off any motorway or national route in this country and the roads are in Sh**e, wrecking my car. I'm all for car testing but fairs fair. The test level should only have to match the standard of roads the cars are being driven on and on that basis it should be very low.

Mailman

Stekelly wrote: »

Are there stats for that?

Do you do less driving because your car is over 8 years old? I know I dont.

Companies buying large amounts of company cars new each year or 3 will of course push the figures in favour of your info.

Here's one from the US because I can't find any from Europe at the moment but I know I've read them

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html

Vehicle age is closely correlated with the number of miles traveled: the newer the vehicle, the more miles it is driven, on average (Figure 3.4). In 1994, the newest vehicles (model years 1994 and 1995(2)) were driven 14,300 miles, about 1.7 times as much as were the oldest vehicles
edit: found another

http://books.google.ie/books?id=z-Aatel3OdIC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=insurance++%22vehicle+age%22&source=bl&ots=iltqMaDkgP&sig=N9eyV3yasb2zEysbecJnLR80eZY&hl=en&ei=tjipSfqFLuKJjAfE2ajkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Older cars become a household's second car and travel fewer miles in a year. Insurers know this and adjust accordingly. Government just want an extra 48 euro out of your so they don't care.

slimjimmc

Mailman wrote: »

Here's one from the US because I can't find any from Europe at the moment but I know I've read them

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html

Vehicle age is closely correlated with the number of miles traveled: the newer the vehicle, the more miles it is driven, on average (Figure 3.4). In 1994, the newest vehicles (model years 1994 and 1995(2)) were driven 14,300 miles, about 1.7 times as much as were the oldest vehicles
edit: found another

http://books.google.ie/books?id=z-Aatel3OdIC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=insurance++%22vehicle+age%22&source=bl&ots=iltqMaDkgP&sig=N9eyV3yasb2zEysbecJnLR80eZY&hl=en&ei=tjipSfqFLuKJjAfE2ajkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Older cars become a household's second car and travel fewer miles in a year. Insurers know this and adjust accordingly. Government just want an extra 48 euro out of your so they don't care.

It could also be argued that
1. older cars generally have higher kilometreage (:)) and have accumulated higher levels of wear and tear and corrosion.
2. Some people take the second car for their daily commute to work and leave the newer family car at home for bringing the kids because its bigger or safer or the wife likes it. The distance travelled might not be much different.
3. There are even people who's attitude is to skimp on proper repairs and maintenance because the alud jiloppy is barely worth it.

Older cars are considered to be at greater risk of failure than newer cars. Naturally there are exceptions to this (just as in everything else) but I think its a reasonable assessment. I drove an old car for years and although it passed every time I always thought a 2yr check was too infrequent.

Therefore I welcome annual testing of 10+ yr old cars. For those who complain about the expense if you can't afford €50 once per year to verify how good your car is then how can you afford to maintain the car to a proper safe standard? The NCT is not a detailed test, they don't even take the wheels off to check brake wear so, imo, any repairs arising from the test would've been needed anyways. Aren't air-bags/pre-tensioners supposed to be replaced after 10yrs?

Gumbo

Stekelly wrote: »

It looks like you've somethign to hide, it looks like your a drug dealer. If a scumbag cant see into your car (ie they are too lazy to look in the front or rear windscreen wich will be clear) they are just as likely to decide to have a look if they think you have it so they cant see the expensive stuff you have inside.

so only scumbags have tints?
only drug dealers have tints?

have you any stats for them comments?

there are peolple who live near me who are mentioned in the sunday world every week for their "choice of job trade" and they drive flash VW's, BMW's with no tints.

also the rear window is allowed to be tinted.

i dont see why people are getting annoyed at the proposals for, you will still be allowed tint your windows, just not have limo tint on the drivers and passengers windows.

so you can get limo tints on the rear doors, rear window and 35% on the front two.

agree with the noise limits though. as said above, proper sports cars can still retain their performance exhausts while hopefully the 1.2 punto with a 4" straight pipe will be took off the roads!

Mailman

slimjimmc wrote: »

It could also be argued that
1. older cars generally have higher kilometreage (:)) and have accumulated higher levels of wear and tear and corrosion.
2. Some people take the second car for their daily commute to work and leave the newer family car at home for bringing the kids because its bigger or safer or the wife likes it. The distance travelled might not be much different.
3. There are even people who's attitude is to skimp on proper repairs and maintenance because the alud jiloppy is barely worth it.

Older cars are considered to be at greater risk of failure than newer cars. Naturally there are exceptions to this (just as in everything else) but I think its a reasonable assessment. I drove an old car for years and although it passed every time I always thought a 2yr check was too infrequent.

Therefore I welcome annual testing of 10+ yr old cars. For those who complain about the expense if you can't afford €50 once per year to verify how good your car is then how can you afford to maintain the car to a proper safe standard? The NCT is not a detailed test, they don't even take the wheels off to check brake wear so, imo, any repairs arising from the test would've been needed anyways. Aren't air-bags/pre-tensioners supposed to be replaced after 10yrs?

careful what you wish for. If these cars are forced off the roads then the price of newer secondhand cars will go up. Extra people will be added to the demand curve and compete with you for supply even if they can't justify or sensibly afford the younger cars. This is a money making racket and nothing more. If RSA and Government cared about the safety of the public Motor Tax would be used to improve the safety of the roads.

Guy:Incognito

Mailman wrote: »

careful what you wish for. If these cars are forced off the roads then the price of newer secondhand cars will go up.

I wouldnt worry. I'd say theres enough stock sittign on forecourts for every one of us to be drivign 2 cars.

Jonny303

As regards with the biannual testing in germany. The germans with their cars (as with most thing in their lives) are taken seriously. Cars are serviced when they are due, maintence items are carried out when its recomended. (Obviously it does not apply to EVERY single german)

The irish attitude in general is quite the opposite. Car maintence in a lot of cases is left down near the bottom of the list of things to do.

And as regards with tinting, no one can deny that if interferes with your ability to see. Obviously the deeper shade, the more it does affect. I think the changes are a good idea.

slimjimmc

Mailman wrote: »

careful what you wish for. If these cars are forced off the roads then the price of newer secondhand cars will go up. Extra people will be added to the demand curve and compete with you for supply even if they can't justify or sensibly afford the younger cars. This is a money making racket and nothing more. If RSA and Government cared about the safety of the public Motor Tax would be used to improve the safety of the roads.

Why should an older car be forced of the road if it is in safe working order and street-legal?

Defective and non-compliant cars should be forced off the road anyway, regardless of age.

However some people have an inate fear of vehicle testing and may choose to replace their old car with a newer one. If this happened in any significant volume than I would expect prices to rise as you predict.
However I don't think we'll see a repeat of the panic buying that happened when the NCT was first introduced when many people traded in their 3yr old car because they feared it would fail the test. I believe anyone who drives an older car already sees the fallicy of this fear even if the motor industry tries to play on it.

Captain Slow IRL

slimjimmc wrote: »

For those who complain about the expense if you can't afford €50 once per year to verify how good your car is then how can you afford to maintain the car to a proper safe standard?

What about the inconvenience - I for one will have to take time off work to go to the test, so that's a half-day's pay gone on top of the fee. Then there's the booking and actually getting the test, bearing in mind the increase in numbers that will be applying for it.

Too many people have been poorly educated in maintenance of their car's or are just too ignorant to know something's wrong. The RSA would be better off launching a campaign to teach drivers some of the basics so they have a little more essential knowledge in care and upkeep.

slimjimmc

Captain Slow IRL wrote: »

What about the inconvenience - I for one will have to take time off work to go to the test, so that's a half-day's pay gone on top of the fee. Then there's the booking and actually getting the test, bearing in mind the increase in numbers that will be applying for it.

Too many people have been poorly educated in maintenance of their car's or are just too ignorant to know something's wrong. The RSA would be better off launching a campaign to teach drivers some of the basics so they have a little more essential knowledge in care and upkeep.

Agreed it would be more inconvenient but if you're already going once every 2 years is upping it to once per 1 year really that big of a problem? People seem to manage medical and dental appointments, weddings, funerals, etc during their working life.

With regards to booking you can do the test up to 6mths before the due date so I'm pretty sure it's possible to arrange a suitable date within that period and make travel arrangements. Many test centres open at weekends too.

People definitely should be educated in basic car maintenance so they would at least be able to recognise if something is wrong. Some basics are already covered in the current driving test. However I don't think it would be wise for the RSA or any other organisation to encourage people to do their own repairs. Some people just should not be let near a spanner and it would be best for all if they leave it to a competent person.

Mailman

slimjimmc wrote: »

People definitely should be educated in basic car maintenance so they would at least be able to recognise if something is wrong.

and those who have some mechanical sympathy, maintain their cars and know their car is in good order resent being told they MUST go for another NCT even though they know their car is in good order.

the objective of this proposal is to keep the age profile of cars as low as possible and stimulate new sales.

slimjimmc

Mailman wrote: »

and those who have some mechanical sympathy, maintain their cars and know their car is in good order resent being told they MUST go for another NCT even though they know their car is in good order.

Same could be said of the bi-annual check too, in fact why do the test at all if you know the cars is ok? You can't have people deciding not to do the test because they are of the opinion (correctly or incorrectly) that their car is sound.

The authorities don't know what condition your car is in until you do the test. Do you not agree its reasonable to expect a higher chance of defects occuring as a car gets older?