nct every year for cars over 10 years!!!!

chiefwiggum

just heard this...fookers are bringing it in in january..what a feckin stupid idea..cars nowadays last much better than yrs ago plenty of good 00 reg cars round..didnt hear if they are bringing it in on the over 30's..i'd be screwed as mine is a 1988:mad::mad:

mountai

About time too !!!!.Too many junkers still on the road. Nearly every other Country in Europe have yearly tests. The good thing about yearly tests is that it will keep the safety standards up. I have seen a lot of VINTAGE M.O.T. failures being brought into this country and allowed to go on the roads in LEATHEL condition. Its time that the test was applied to these cars too.I think its a small price to pay to ensure the safety standards are ensured

Camarague

mountai wrote: »

About time too !!!!.Too many junkers still on the road. Nearly every other Country in Europe have yearly tests. The good thing about yearly tests is that it will keep the safety standards up. I have seen a lot of VINTAGE M.O.T. failures being brought into this country and allowed to go on the roads in LEATHEL condition. Its time that the test was applied to these cars too.I think its a small price to pay to ensure the safety standards are ensured

Wow, LEATHEL, eh?

Well I agree we have to "ensure the safety standards are ensured".

However this does not mean that vintage cars should be subject to mandatory tests.

They should reduce the age limit on the exemption from 30 years to 25 years, and then perhaps a mechanics certification of roadworthiness every four years could be considered.

mountai

Well if you agree that standards are to be kept up --- whats wrong with yearly tests???

c4cat

mountai wrote: »

About time too !!!!.Too many junkers still on the road. Nearly every other Country in Europe have yearly tests. The good thing about yearly tests is that it will keep the safety standards up. I have seen a lot of VINTAGE M.O.T. failures being brought into this country and allowed to go on the roads in LEATHEL condition. Its time that the test was applied to these cars too.I think its a small price to pay to ensure the safety standards are red

In reality its just a way to collect an extra stealth tax to rob the motorist.........

MorrisCooper

Lads, I have a 1950 Triumph Renown which has to be NCTed every 12 months as I use it as a PSV vehicle. It's no biggy. They don't do emissions and they don't use the shaker plate. If you ever go to the UK to buy an old car, which will you buy, the one with a current MOT or the one without?

Think about it.

TigerTim

I've no problem doing the test every year but they now need to halve the cost & spread it over 2 years rather than charging the full price every year. Some hope of that !!!

T.

chiefwiggum

but sure thats the whole point...its a money makin scam

mamakevf

Can't see how they are going to test cars every year as they can't cope with the back-log of cars doing two year tests already, this is in Donegal anyway.
Building more test centres is a possibility.

carchaeologist

Is there a link to back this up?

chiefwiggum

matt cooper talkin to some dude about it today on today fm

chiefwiggum

good point about the back log

bbam

mountai wrote: »

About time too !!!!.Too many junkers still on the road. Nearly every other Country in Europe have yearly tests. The good thing about yearly tests is that it will keep the safety standards up. I have seen a lot of VINTAGE M.O.T. failures being brought into this country and allowed to go on the roads in LEATHEL condition. Its time that the test was applied to these cars too.I think its a small price to pay to ensure the safety standards are ensured

Seriously... have you seen any stats on how much safer we are since the NCT was brought in? I for one think it's far too speculative, I was having problems getting a pass in one centre and they told me "it would never be passed".... Brought it to a centre 18 miles away and no bother, first time !

Camarague

It's a major hassle for those of us with several classics which are not regularly used. Imagine 4 trips to the NCT centre every year? Completely ridiculous

It's a money making exercise, that's it.

I think it's a strategy to increase new car sales. The 9 year limit on taxi's is screwed up too.

I think that there is an ever-more obstructive bureaucracy progressively taking shape in this country, and it's time we put a stop to it.

There are vested interests behind these new regulations, which need to be exposed.

Even if you agree with this particular regulation, you'll find an rigid, detailed regulations in an area that affects you personally & negatively soon enough.

Dancing_Priest

There's no fear of it boosting new car sales. If your'e driving a 10 year old car and you really want to avoid a test every year (I can see why, btw), You're going to buy a 8-3 year old car, not a new one.
I work in the motor trade and the market seems pretty split between those who "Want to keep the plate up to date" and those who "want to let the other poor fecker take the hit".
This is a classic car forum, by definition it is inhabited by people who take serious care of their motors, 30 years old or otherwise.
It's the people who want to direct as little effort and money as possible to motoring that this is aimed at.
Theyr'e the ones who are Driving future classics into the ground, theyr'e the one running on one headlight, theyre the ones who still come into me lookin for remoulds, FFS!
So I can see the reason behind more stringent testing of older cars.
BUT I can also see why It's unfair that the cost of an individual test has not halved for those cars will need one every year. But if it improves the standards of upkeep in this country, then so be it!

carchaeologist

Camarague wrote: »

It's a major hassle for those of us with several classics which are not regularly used. Imagine 4 trips to the NCT centre every year? Completely ridiculous

It's a money making exercise, that's it.

I think it's a strategy to increase new car sales. The 9 year limit on taxi's is screwed up too.

I think that there is an ever-more obstructive bureaucracy progressively taking shape in this country, and it's time we put a stop to it.

There are vested interests behind these new regulations, which need to be exposed.
Well said!i agree totally.Maybe the 30 year cut off will still stand?
Even if you agree with this particular regulation, you'll find an rigid, detailed regulations in an area that affects you personally & negatively soon enough.

Well said!i agree totally.im sure the 30 year cut off will still stand?

Dancing_Priest

carchaeologist wrote: »

Well said!i agree totally.im sure the 30 year cut off will still stand?

It seems that they will not be subject to the new rules. :D:D:D

Heres the article from the times

CARS OVER 10 years old will have to be tested every year under changes to the National Car Test approved by the Minister for Transport. Noel Dempsey has also effectively banned excessively tinted car windows and noisy exhausts under the changes due to come into effect in January.

The Minister has accepted a range of additional checks in the NCT proposed by the Road Safety Authority.

The requirement for cars over 10 years old to be tested annually, rather than the current biennial test, is expected to lead to around 120,000 additional tests a year. The pass rate for cars aged 10 and over in 2007 was about 32 per cent.

The switch to an annual test should bring in about €6 million extra annual revenue for the test provider, although the new scrappage scheme is likely to see the number of cars in this age group fall.

Under the new rules, a car will fail the test if it has tinted windscreens or front-side windows with a light transmission level of less than 65 per cent. Car exhausts generating over 99 decibels will also fail. The NCT will also start testing rear fog lamps, reversing lights and rear registration-plate lamps.

Tyres will also have to have an “E” mark, certifying that their grip and performance meets international standards. This follows moves by the department to restrict the sale and supply of retreaded tyres.

The final change to the car test is that malfunction warning lights for airbags, electronic and anti-lock braking systems and electronic stability control will be checked. The vehicle will fail if these don’t work properly.

The RSA said the additional test items will improve vehicle safety and reduce road deaths and injuries.

But the authority has not suggested that vintage cars aged over 30 years should be included in the testing regime. Mr Dempsey has ruled out an increase in the €50 car test, and €28 retest, fees for 2010. The changes also make no mention of the car test being used to collect odometer readings.

Two new test centres will open early next year, in Carndonagh, Co Donegal, and in Greenhills, Dublin 24.

The changes come just weeks before Applus+ takes over car testing on January 4th after winning a 10-year contract, worth an estimated €400 million, and beating the current provider, NCTS Ltd, into second place. Applus+ operates car road-worthiness testing in Spain.

In May the Minister introduced penalty points for drivers without an NCT certificate, leading to a surge in applications.

LINKEY/ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2009/1216/1224260753473.html

mountai

What it boils down to is this --- picture-- Guard knocking on your door one night telling you your child has been mown down by a COMPANY car that the wheel flew off whilst rounding a corner .Particular car was 11 years old , was in ****e condition and should never have been on the road.
As for vested intrests ---- yes I have a vested intrest---I"d like to be safe while driving the roads. I also have numerous Classics and would have no problem in submitting them for a test each year . I think the price, for peace of mind, is a small one to pay.

overdriver

To make a new tax or charge acceptable, call it a green tax or say its to do with safety and people will fall over themselves to pay it.


Its about money, not safety.

Mountai, your COMPANY CAR in capitals will not be brought by its scrote owners to NCT anyway. Its not helpful to try make an argument with these extreme scenarios.

Its going to be worth an extra 6 million a year. there's your motivation, no other.

galwaytt

Dancing_Priest wrote: »

..This is a classic car forum, by definition it is inhabited by people who take serious care of their motors, 30 years old or otherwise. ......So I can see the reason behind more stringent testing of older cars. .....BUT I can also see why It's unfair that the cost of an individual test has not halved for those cars will need one every year. But if it improves the standards of upkeep in this country, then so be it!

Sorry, but I disagree: I drive a car that is both Classic, and a long way from being 30, so I'll get caught. 3 times, in fact. This is a blatant money-grabbing exercise, pure and simple.

I agree that this especially so given the cost not being halved - that much I can concur with.

mountai wrote: »

What it boils down to is this --- picture-- Guard knocking on your door one night telling you your child has been mown down by a COMPANY car that the wheel flew off whilst rounding a corner .Particular car was 11 years old , was in ****e condition and should never have been on the road.
As for vested intrests ---- yes I have a vested intrest---I"d like to be safe while driving the roads. I also have numerous Classics and would have no problem in submitting them for a test each year . I think the price, for peace of mind, is a small one to pay.

Prove to me that the NCT has made any contribution to road safety, apart from lining the pockets of SGS and the Dept of Environment. I am all for having cars properly maintained, and do keep mine so, but I don't do it because of a sticker on the windscreen. There's no shortage of sub-standard 10yr old cars who won't get caught, either.

Consider: I have an 06 car, and a 1993 car. Let's NCT them both on the same day. The 06 car does 15k yr, and the 93 about 4k. Fast forward 12 months - why would the 93 warrant an NCT again, given less mileage/use ? This is vindictive revenue generation, as a sap to some Green Party or SIMI asshole, nothing else.

As pointed out by someone above, the people who are causing those problems, not only won't have NCT, so won't be affected, they probably won't have a licence or insurance either. So what good does this new NCT move, make ? Zero, that's what. Did you not see Prime Time this week, on petty criminality ? Do you honestly think that that ilk, given their contempt for felonious law, give one flying hoot about a 'civil' matter ? FFS, cop on.

overdriver wrote: »

To make a new tax or charge acceptable, call it a green tax or say its to do with safety and people will fall over themselves to pay it...........Its about money, not safety........Its going to be worth an extra 6 million a year. there's your motivation, no other.

Absolutely, agree 100%. :mad:

Camarague

mountai wrote: »

What it boils down to is this --- picture-- Guard knocking on your door one night telling you your child has been mown down by a COMPANY car that the wheel flew off whilst rounding a corner .Particular car was 11 years old , was in ****e condition and should never have been on the road.

Did my child get knocked down because the NCT was every two years instead of every year? Oh! Well then...

A vehicle can have a valid NCT certificate and still not be roadworthy - so this is irrelevant.

It is against the law to drive an vehicle that is not roadworthy regardless as to whether the car has an NCT or not.

MorrisCooper

Like all legislation, it really only matters if it's enforced. How many learner drivers are driving around unaccompanied or use motorways everyday?

I think the anti's would be worried about all the modifications/alterations made to their cars that they haven't declared, either to their insurance company or on their logbook. An NCT for classics would probably clear out all the "adopted" Escort RS2000s and Mini Coopers which have been imported and given Irish logbooks for 1.1 Escorts and 850cc Minis.

The classic scene is far from squeaky clean.

drunkmonkey

This is the death nell to my wrx, haven't manged to get an nct since owning it, was hoping to pass the nct some time next year, now if it's to be done ever year i'm sending it to the scrapper, no fault with the mechancis only a random blip in the o2 reading. Fully roadwordy, emissions have feck all got to do with road saftey, it's going to send a lot of cars to an early grave.

ikillcopiers

The NCT was done wrong from the get go, it should have been run by local
garages like in the UK.

This encourages people to build up a relationship with their local indie,
and by and large cars are better maintained because of it.
It's also a hell of a lot more convenient to leave your car at your local
and they will do the necessary work in order to bring it to standard,
whereas with the NCT we have to bring ourselves and car to the
test centre, more hassle.

It also brings more trade into the local community, instead of outsourcing
it to another national body (ie NCTS).

Also add to the fact that most of the NCT "technicians" aren't even trained
mechanics.

Every time I go down there I am glued to the inspection window with knots
in my stomach, hoping they won't do something stupid to my car.

I've seen them bring more than one 4x4 vehicle onto the rollers,
but thankfully not mine.

And then when I imported a car they only gave me a 3 month cert due
to the month of registration.

So I had to go back AGAIN and get ANOTHER test, more money and
time off from work, and they failed it on brake pads (which had been
replaced just prior to the last test). Asked how did they assess the brake
pads without taking off the wheels and no-one wanted to answer me.
So new set of pads and left the receipt on the seat for a re-test
was the only was to sort out that crap.....

If that's not money making, I don't know what is....

MorrisCooper

I can't agree with the local garage doing the work. This is Ireland, don't forget, where if you're legally not entitled to something, you go to your local TD and get it fixed. The same would happen with the NCT.

Local garages wouldn't usually have the equipment to do all the necessary testing and what garageman wouldn't turn away 50 Euros to turn a blind eye to the perished brake hoses or rusty sills that don't show up on any diagnostics.

An NCT must be independent to have any credibility and ideally, though I concede it isn't always, consistent.

ikillcopiers

Valid points, I do agree, but at the same time all the money that was
ploughed into outfitting all those buildings and training the "technicians"
could have went towards helping the garages with those things.

Also a stringent monitoring system could have been put in place to alleviate
some of those concerns.

I suppose we aren't as "honest" as our UK counterparts in those regards,
but there already has been numerous cases of NCT guys being caught
with their hands out, and I know of one or two dealers who have
"good relationships" with the testers.

At the very least, they should reduce the test cost for the older cars,
give that they now have to do double the tests.

I still think that we should have went the MOT direction, I suppose it suits
me more as I maintain my cars to a high standard anyways, and it's obvious
from the condition of many Irish cars in comparison to UK cars I'm in the
minority....

MorrisCooper

I remember a case a few years back where a local MOT garage owner in England was shot dead because he wouldn't supply a local "legitimate businessman" with blank MOT certs.

Say what you will about the NCT system but by keeping the public behind the glass window, the whole system is more transparent, pardon the pun.

therewillbe

MONEY MONEY MONEY! THATS ALL THEY WANT:mad:

Dades

Bastards. I just put two years NCT on and was banking on only needing one more test before 30 years.

It's less the actual change in the law than the motives that piss me off about this.

chiefwiggum

yeah i was banking only a few more tests....but looks like i have quite a few!!!!

Thinkingaboutit

I thought I read that it would not relate to older cars, mine is '71 not really old, but probably old enough. Still it would fug up the supply of native Irish future classics.

kyote00

Sorry, now but this is nonsense....

If I buy a new car in Jan 2010, it will not need an NCT until 2014...
Under the current rules, my 10 year old car will have been 'checked for safety' by the NCT twice in that 4 year period....

mountai wrote: »

What it boils down to is this --- picture-- Guard knocking on your door one night telling you your child has been mown down by a COMPANY car that the wheel flew off whilst rounding a corner .Particular car was 11 years old , was in ****e condition and should never have been on the road.
As for vested intrests ---- yes I have a vested intrest---I"d like to be safe while driving the roads. I also have numerous Classics and would have no problem in submitting them for a test each year . I think the price, for peace of mind, is a small one to pay.

jimmyw

Sorry if this is a dumb question but what about cars between 4-10 years?

overdriver

Its sheer machiavellian genius on the government and SIMI's part - look at it this way...

Sales of new cars will be helped by the Crappage scheme, right? But how will the potential buyers offload their 3 - 10 year old cars?

Because this new scheme will create an extra tier of hassle. ( and they learned their lesson well in 2000 when the onset of NCT made shedloads of people scrap their cars rather than go through a test.). And this hassle will be more than some people - particularly those who know nothing about cars - will be prepared to suffer.

Look at them on any day in an NCT centre. You'd see less concern in a maternity ward.


This nonsense makes these 3 year old and older cars more desireable. SIMI sell more cars, the Givernment make more money on VRT and VAT, as well as their cut of the new tests.

Not about safety at all. No way.

mumblin deaf ro

I have a 22-year-old car but to be honest I don't have a problem with more regular testing. I plan to keep the car fit to at least NCT standard, and while it's a bit of hassle I'm not that hung up on it. My cert says my next test is in 2011 - does this mean I will have to get an NCT in 2010 or does the annual requirement only kick in once your current NCT cert expires?

chiefwiggum

im the exact same.. car 22 yrs old test till late 2011...i'd say it will be when your current test runs out

mamakevf

I would be all for the yearly test for all cars, not just 10 year olds as a lot of people think they can drive from test to test without so much as lifting the bonnet or checking tyres/lights etc.
Over 30 exempt of course.

PanhardPL

mountai wrote: »

Well if you agree that standards are to be kept up --- whats wrong with yearly tests???

Crazy to expect an Annual Test on Classics seeing that their owners only use them mainly during the summer months and the annual mileage would rarely exceed 2000 miles.
Do you own a Classic ?, if so lets hear what you have.

sogg

PanhardPL wrote: »

Crazy to expect an Annual Test on Classics seeing that their owners only use them mainly during the summer months and the annual mileage would rarely exceed 2000 miles.
Do you own a Classic ?, if so lets hear what you have.

That's grand if you're not actually driving the car regularly but lots of people are! My boyfriend drives a 'classic' Porsche which breaks down every 2-5 miles and I get freaked out every time he goes any further than the shops cos he's nearly killed himself in it more than once!!

You could have a point there hidden in there though...might make more sense to go by mileage maybe??

BeardyGit

I don't see what all the bloody fuss is about. If I could go to my local mechanic and pay €50 once a year to have him give me a computerised report on the braking and suspension performance/imbalances, emission report (where the levels will let me know if she's in/out of tune), whether there's work required or welding etc to at least protect the level of safety the car would have afforded in the first place, I'd take it.

In all honesty fellas, what's the big deal about that? Maybe it's unfair, but this bitching about paying so little each year to have a clean bill of health signed off strikes me as a tad too miserly.... This isn't a tax - You're paying for an inspection where the lads who are doing it are 'experts' in spotting faults that even the best intentioned DIY mechanic may miss. If you're really that put off by the cost, I'd hate to think how many little things might be ignored in terms of maintenance and welding on an older car, just for the sake of a few quid.

Ignore all the bullspit about it being a rip-off, a con or whatever. It's a full safety inspection for €50. In my books, that's a flipping bargain. I'd put every classic I owned or was buying through an NCT if I could.

BeardyGit

PanhardPL wrote: »

Crazy to expect an Annual Test on Classics seeing that their owners only use them mainly during the summer months and the annual mileage would rarely exceed 2000 miles.
Do you own a Classic ?, if so lets hear what you have.

The argument doesn't stack up. A car can deteriorate while just sitting there during the winter, despite the best precautions, becoming inherently unsafe whether it's racking up the miles or just sitting idle under a cover. That 2000 miles per annum might be the most unsafe 2000 miles you'll do in a year - Who's to say otherwise? If an annual test became mandatory, you'd at least be confident the car you're sitting in was signed off....instead of just taking a chance on the basis you drive it so little....

PanhardPL

Gil_Dub wrote: »

The argument doesn't stack up. A car can deteriorate while just sitting there during the winter, despite the best precautions, becoming inherently unsafe whether it's racking up the miles or just sitting idle under a cover. That 2000 miles per annum might be the most unsafe 2000 miles you'll do in a year - Who's to say otherwise? If an annual test became mandatory, you'd at least be confident the car you're sitting in was signed off....instead of just taking a chance on the basis you drive it so little....

Generally Classic Car owners treat their Classics with the greatest of respect.
How many Classics have been involved in any kind of accident over the past 10 years, very very few I would say.

Camarague

Gil_Dub wrote: »

Ignore all the bullspit about it being a rip-off, a con or whatever. It's a full safety inspection for €50. In my books, that's a flipping bargain. I'd put every classic I owned or was buying through an NCT if I could.

I thought you could put a classic over 30 years old through the NCT, but that it was not compulsory

BeardyGit

Camarague wrote: »

I thought you could put a classic over 30 years old through the NCT, but that it was not compulsory

I've managed to do so twice in the past, but with the most recent purchase, they wouldn't oblige....

c4cat

mountai wrote: »

What it boils down to is this --- picture-- Guard knocking on your door one night telling you your child has been mown down by a COMPANY car that the wheel flew off whilst rounding a corner .Particular car was 11 years old , was in ****e condition and should never have been on the road.
As for vested intrests ---- yes I have a vested intrest---I"d like to be safe while driving the roads. I also have numerous Classics and would have no problem in submitting them for a test each year . I think the price, for peace of mind, is a small one to pay.

I understand your meaning, but a 10 yr old company car!!!? now I know of no company providing 10 yr old cars. Company are mostly leased vehicles and usually no more then 2 yrs old

MorrisCooper

I have to agree with Gil Dub, what are ye afraid of? A car laid up for most of the year may well have seized brakes, perished tyres and brake hoses, flat spots on the tyres, stuck points, etc. I could go on. Having an annual NCT would raise the standard of classic cars and definitely make them more sellable.

50 Euros for an annual check-up is cheap. If your car fails for legitimate issues, fix them, bring the car back for a retest, and know that your car is safer for the effort.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Would you buy a UK car without an MOT?

monkeypants

From the article:

The changes also make no mention of the car test being used to collect odometer readings.

Can someone please tell me what this would achieve if they did it?

Dades

MorrisCooper wrote: »

50 Euros for an annual check-up is cheap. If your car fails for legitimate issues, fix them, bring the car back for a retest, and know that your car is safer for the effort.

I think what annoys classic owners is the implication that we all need to be prodded by the government into keeping their cars roadworthy. That and the fact that it's just a way of squeezing more money from the motorist.

While there may be a point for beat up taxis and hoon-mobiles with baked bean exhausts, most classics trundle around the suburbs or get occasional long trips on rare fine days or for shows.

With some notable exceptions (see sogg's post above) owners of older or rarer cars are enthusiasts who don't want to see their cars fall into scrap. I used to bring my NCT exempt SL to get checked out by my mechanic at least once a year even when it was running perfectly.

On an aside I also would like to know if cars over 10 years can run our their current NCTs before falling into the "every year" slot. Oh please oh please oh please

Traumadoc

I think its a way for the motor sales industry to generate new sales, carsover 10 years will be practically worthless, no one will want one if they have to go through all that bother.

The 1500 scrappage will look very attractive if you only get 500 as a second hand value.

I dont think the main aim is to generate revenue from the test rather it is from the revenue generated from new car sales.

The Japanese have a similar system to "encourage" new car sales, NCT over there costs hundreds :eek: the second hand value in japan is very little hence so many end up over here.

Redrocket

i dont think 1500 is much incentive to buy a new car that drops 10% in value once its driven off the fourcourt. I think regardless of the incentives of this law, whether to genuinely make the cars on the road safer or to generate money, its completely ridiculous that car must have been nct'd within the last year in order to scrap it.

mountai

Well I dont seem to be "A voice crying alone in the wilderness" any more. If this proposal were a TAX GATHERING SCHEME , then there are easier ways of getting money in. All that would be required, is for the powers that be, to increase the annual Tax on vintage cars, to whatever levels they like.There is nothing that could be done about it. The VINTAGE owners in this country are not exactly a powerful lobby group, are we??. Like so many other people, I believe that minimun standards, should be applied. Dont forget that tests are carried out, to the standard that these cars were at, when they were first licensed to go on the road, so emission tests are not part of same.What worries me, is that there are people now importing MOT failures from GB, setting themselves up as "EXPERTS" and taking advantage of people who are know nothing about Classics. A current NCT would at least give some form of guarantee, that when they are put on the road, they would be safe.