NCT annually for cars 10yrs+

BostonB

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1028939&postcount=12

http://www.motorcheck.ie/blog/new-nct-rules-2010/

Changes with effect from June 2011:

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. These older vehicles are more likely to be involved in a collision. Almost half (47%) of collisions that occurred in 2007 involved vehicles that were 9 years old or more. From 1 June 2011 annual testing of cars over 10 years old will commence. Cars over 10 years old will be issued an annual certificate after this date.

First I heard of this.

Any info on the cause of these 47% of accidents? Driver error. Light not working on number plater, or noisy exhaust? Maybe emissions?

Opium led greed

BostonB wrote: »

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1028939&postcount=12



First I heard of this.

Any info on the cause of these 47% of accidents? Driver error. Light not working on number plater, or noisy exhaust? Maybe emissions?

So an even larger percentage (53%) of accidents involved cars less than 9 years old, what are they trying to prove?

PrettyBoy

Fucking ridiculous.

ottostreet

i dont think the idea itself is ridiculous, due to the fact that maintenance, by force, will be applied to people who maybe dont maintain their cars and just sell it on. look at how many cars on donedeal or gumtree have 2-3 months remaining on NCT, or 'NCT just out'.

the MOT system in the UK seems to work (its done at garages rather than centres isn't it) its just the fact that the NCT doesn't seem to be as in depth, and has stupid failworthy items such as incorrect format on licence plates, or exhaust noise. this makes the NCT appear to be nothing but a money making scam from the government.

i have no opposition to one year testing as such, its just that Noel Dempsey has proposed this, despite the astronomical costs of motoring in this country, a lot of which goes straight back to the government, and yet the roads on which we drive on are in disgraceful condition. His moronic comments on Today FM this evening were shocking to hear.

T83

These older vehicles are more likely to be involved in a collision.

The most ridiculous, baseless thing I've ever heard said in attempt to sell a new money making scheme. Do they have a mind of their own? Are they suicidal or something?

PrettyBoy

ottostreet wrote: »

this makes the NCT appear to be nothing but a money making scam from the government.

This.

Absolutely pathetic bringing up that stuff about accident statistics and the likeliness of accidents with cars that are over 9 years old - WTF were they thinking??

BostonB

I haven't seen this anywhere else. Is it true?

ottostreet

it is true yes. Noel Dempsey was on Today FM this evening talking about it

The Real B-man

Of Course there Would be a High Percentage of Older Cars not everybody Can Afford a new Motor or Why Change it if its a Good Car, Why are the Goverment making it Harder and Harder to Keep a Motor on the Road :rolleyes:

nkay1985

My 2000 Corolla won't be happy to hear this. Neither will my wallet.

sdanseo

Older cars have no ABS, sometimes no power steering, etc, can be harder to control in an emergency and behave differently in an emergency. Or for that matter in wet conditions, stopping distances etc.

For the most part though an accident in an older car is no more likely than in a 2010 one.

What the government and the RSA mean to say is that an older car is more likely to kill you that a new one. And unless they intend retrofitting ABS and airbags in the NCT centre, a yellow piece of paper twice as often as required now won't help

Clearly the RSA/Dempsey havent collectively got two brain cells in their posession to rub together. Lunacy.

Only possible reason behind this is money -€50 times maybe 50,000 older cars is €2.5 million.

Dayo93

sdonn wrote: »

Older cars have no ABS, sometimes no power steering, etc, can be harder to control in an emergency and behave differently in an emergency. Or for that matter in wet conditions, stopping distances etc

at this point most ten year old cars have all the above

daveharnett

T83 wrote: »

These older vehicles are more likely to be involved in a collision.

The most ridiculous, baseless thing I've ever heard said in attempt to sell a new money making scheme. Do they have a mind of their own? Are they suicidal or something?

(No of 10+ yo cars in collisions/No of 10+ yo cars) > (No of 9- yo cars in collisions / No of 9- yo cars). Simple really.

I drive a 99, and I don't see any problem with this. I start from the basis that cars should be legal, roadworthy and safe all the time, not just once every two years. If you accept this, then the NCT is a pretty cheap way of highlighting any problems that need addressing. If something is awry, and it's subtle enough that I don't notice it, i'd rather know about it sooner than later, so I can get it sorted.

It's all the more important for people who don't look after their cars, and will drive them until the engine falls out unless they are told otherwise.

daveharnett

sdonn wrote: »

And unless they intend retrofitting ABS and airbags in the NCT centre, a yellow piece of paper twice as often as required now won't help

Of course it can help. They can't fit airbags, but they can prevent you driving around with dodgy tyres, brakes, suspension, lights etc for an extra year :eek:

sdanseo

daveharnett wrote: »

Of course it can help. They can't fit airbags, but they can prevent you driving around with dodgy tyres, brakes, suspension, lights etc for an extra year :eek:

Yes but they'd all have been brought up to scratch to pass the year before, no airbags etc would be a flaw with the car since manufacture. Big difference.

Seth Brundle

sdonn wrote: »

Older cars have no ABS, sometimes no power steering, etc, can be harder to control in an emergency and behave differently in an emergency. Or for that matter in wet conditions, stopping distances etc.

For the most part though an accident in an older car is no more likely than in a 2010 one.

Its quite likely that 47% of incidents in 2007 involved a car 10+years. However, there is no mention of whether they actually caused the incident!

sdonn wrote: »

What the government and the RSA mean to say is that an older car is more likely to kill you that a new one. And unless they intend retrofitting ABS and airbags in the NCT centre, a yellow piece of paper twice as often as required now won't help

No, I don't think so _ i think they are scaring people into:
a) annual NCTs (for all cars eventually
b) stimulate them to buy new ones

BostonB

If you could stand on any junction in a city in Ireland and pull all the people speeding, braking the lights and queue jumping. Basically enforce the law. You'd save more lives than this NCT lark.

Delboy5

Can anyone answer if i NCT my 00 car this month, will i have to NCT it again this time next year or will my NCT last me for the 2 years and there-after ill have to NCT it every year !?

rebel.ranter

Delboy5 wrote: »

Can anyone answer if i NCT my 00 car this month, will i have to NCT it again this time next year or will my NCT last me for the 2 years and there-after ill have to NCT it every year !?

If the legislation only kicks in from June 2011 onwards any car tested prior to that comes under the old rules, i.e. your NCT will be valid for 2 years.

Like the window tinting, one week it was not an issue that next it was.

rebel.ranter

I would have no issue with an annual test provided the cost was 50% of the 2 year one.

One thing that did strike me though is that any car can become unroadworthy within a 2 year time frame, not just a 10+ year old car.

The other thing that bothers me is that the test itself is flawed, I have seen some right junkers* scrape through the test but an incorrect font on a number plate will fail.

* Click here for an example of such a junker

barryfitz

Its a money racket full stop. Jeebus what is going to happen to the backlog for tests when they bring this in..

Gurgle

daveharnett wrote: »

(No of 10+ yo cars in collisions/No of 10+ yo cars) > (No of 9- yo cars in collisions / No of 9- yo cars). Simple really.

Yes, exactly. The most basic bloody statistic to back up this so-called report.
A proper study would be a breakdown of accidents by driver experience, road conditions etc.

You see a higher percentage of older cars on the country back roads than you do on the main roads - who is going to spend 10s of €k to rattle a nice new car to pieces over a few years.

sdonn wrote:

Older cars have no ABS, sometimes no power steering, etc, can be harder to control in an emergency and behave differently in an emergency. Or for that matter in wet conditions, stopping distances etc.

Cheap cars from the 80s / early 90s maybe, but those are mostly long gone to the great big forecourt in the sky.

Keep an eye on the backs of the cars you see - the older the year the better the chances it was originally an expensive car. These are the ones which are economically worth hanging on to (and survive on the country roads).

This is just another crutch to support our so-called motor industry.

peasant

Gurgle wrote: »

This is just another crutch to support our so-called motor industry.

Yepp ...that's exactly what it boils down to.

Create demand where there really isn't one.

Even if all those owners of older cars can't afford to buy a new car, they can afford to buy a newer one and so help clear the forecourts of the trade-ins. (Keeping Bill Cullen in coddle and penny apples for another year)

BostonB

Gurgle wrote: »

Yes, exactly. The most basic bloody statistic to back up this so-called report.
A proper study would be a breakdown of accidents by driver experience, road conditions etc.

You see a higher percentage of older cars on the country back roads than you do on the main roads - who is going to spend 10s of €k to rattle a nice new car to pieces over a few years.


Cheap cars from the 80s / early 90s maybe, but those are mostly long gone to the great big forecourt in the sky.

Keep an eye on the backs of the cars you see - the older the year the better the chances it was originally an expensive car. These are the ones which are economically worth hanging on to (and survive on the country roads).

I don't think thats entirely true. Something like a late 90's Micra will still be mint, no ABS, and won't have any expensive electrical, or mechanical bills, or tax and insurance that will take an old luxo barge off the road. Lots of small cars like that.

Seth Brundle

In some cases yes, in others no!
My wife's '00 206 (without ABS and not too many electrical items (which is a plus in a French car)) is the same model as the one that continued until 2006. Does this mean that the 2006 produced version is unsafe also?

Lisnagry

So a car is unsafe now if it dose not have abs or other electronic crap that is being invented to sell cars to over the top safety people,everywhere you go safety,safety,safety ENOUGH!!!!

It's mostly stupid people cause crashes not cars,even if they are 10 years old or not(the cars not people)

metzengerstein

What the government and the RSA mean to say is that an older car is more likely to kill you that a new one. And unless they intend retrofitting ABS and airbags in the NCT centre, a yellow piece of paper twice as often as required now won't help

makes lots of sense seen how newer cars are made with less efficiancy as older cars ,look at the toyota recall ,and most new cars just keep having problems ..so a big **** *** to mr dempsey .ive 94 never broke down once never been in a collision where do they get these ridiculous stats

Seth Brundle

Also, now that I think of it, in 2007 (the NCT's reference year) I was involved in two crashes one in a 1997 car and one in a 00 car. (For the record, in neither case was I responsible). In one of the cases, it was a learner driver driving an untaxed and un-NCt'd car.

IIRC in both cases, the cars that did cause it were older than 9 years old! Therefore of my incidents, 75% of the cars involved were over 9 years.

I was also involved in an incident the previous year in my then 9 year old car which was caused by a much younger car.

In each of the three cases, the incident was caused by the driver responsible not paying proper attention. Neither incident would have been avoided had any of the cars been brand spanking new. Neither incident would have been lessened had the car been newer.

For the NCT & Dempsey, to come out with a statistic without providing the complete underlying data is misleading.

Jip

Dayo93 wrote: »

sdonn wrote: »

Older cars have no ABS, sometimes no power steering, etc, can be harder to control in an emergency and behave differently in an emergency. Or for that matter in wet conditions, stopping distances etc

at this point most ten year old cars have all the above

Absolutely, my car will be 10 next year and not only has it ABS it has all sorts of stability control, something new cars at the moment aren't even being sold with.

Every year is pretty crap, and Dempsey came across as some idiot on the Last Word yesterday evening. As has been said, his stupid statistic about the percentage of cars over 9/10 years old involved in accidents also highlights the amount of young cars involved in accidents.

Kashkai

This daft idea is the stick to the scrappage scheme carrot, ie avail of the scrappage scheme incentives or else get hammered every year in the increasingly petty NCT test. Either way the garages win and you lose in the pocket.

I'd agree with the comment on bangers getting through the NCT. While I was putting my four year old car through the test last November, a 96 starlet that had more rust than bodywork initially failed due to headlamp alignment but when the eastern European NCT tech was explaining this to the owner, she lost the plot and berated the tech until he actually backed down and changed his mind and passed the starlet!!! I couldn't believe it but the owner got her cert and went noisily on her way (the exhaust must have been gone too but it didn't fail on that either)

no1beemerfan

In my humble opinion Mr Noel Dempsey is a twat.


Now that I've cleared that up I'd like to say I support an annual test for every car not just 10 yrs or older. All cars need looking after not just the older ones.

My car is 1997 and not far off 200k miles but it passed its nct last sat week no problem because I look after it!

metzengerstein

why do our goverment like to make us suffer for everything ..

you cant have anything thats fun or good for you anymore .makes me sick

Jip

no1beemerfan wrote: »

Now that I've cleared that up I'd like to say I support an annual test for every car not just 10 yrs or older. All cars need looking after not just the older ones.

My car is 1997 and not far off 200k miles but it passed its nct last sat week no problem because I look after it!

Annual tests are just ridiculous.

mcwhirter

Annual tests are good idea, but the cost of the test should be half.
I have a 00 car and the reason I have it is i can't afford a new model, yet people like myself are going to be charged more to keep their cars on the road. This ireland is a ****hole.

metzengerstein

mcwhirter wrote: »

Annual tests are good idea, but the cost of the test should be half.
I have a 00 car and the reason I have it is i can't afford a new model, yet people like myself are going to be charged more to keep their cars on the road. This ireland is a ****hole.

a1+

flynnlives

Gaurantee within 10 years every single car regardless of age will have a nct every year.

Reckon it will start with every five years, then every 2 years and then every year for cars younger then 10 years.

The whole thing is just a scam, for instance a new regulation introduced this year, the rear upper brake light, if fitted, must be working even tho there is no legal requirement to have it!

And then there is the E numbers on tires!

no1beemerfan

Jip wrote: »

Annual tests are just ridiculous.

Care to say why? As in a proper reason not just your opinion.

metzengerstein

complete s**t

mine failed one year because the rubbercover over the brake pedal had a tiny hole in it you would even get your finger into it nor could you see any metal ,i felt like slapping him with it

rasper

Absolute bloody scam , a total handover to our car retailers, this government sickens me to the last , hammering the home and car owners at every chance.
Its no wonder we have a totally useless public transport system and Victorian era property rental laws , if the person on the street has no choice then he's an easier target.

I wonder would Ireland have a week of mourning if our beloved cabinet were involved in an accident similar to the Polish aircraft.

mcwhirter

rasper wrote: »

Absolute bloody scam , a total handover to our car retailers, this government sickens me to the last , hammering the home and car owners at every chance.
Its no wonder we have a totally useless public transport system and Victorian era property rental laws , if the person on the street has no choice then he's an easier target.

I wonder would Ireland have a week of mourning if our beloved cabinet were involved in an accident similar to the Polish aircraft.

#
Now I'm sure we could organise that!!!

Jip

no1beemerfan wrote: »

Care to say why? As in a proper reason not just your opinion.

The same reason people are saying an annual test is beneficial, I have no factual proof to back up my argument other than opinion.

metzengerstein

youd wonder are the way new cars are being made a scam to keep the car companies and mechanics in business to rob us blind or to make people opt for these horible hybrids and electric cars ,i thnk most new cars you cant do any of the work on it yourself ..and electric cars !! wheres the fun in them ,if you want to go on a long trip youd be stopping probably every so often

Pkiernan

no1beemerfan wrote: »

Care to say why? As in a proper reason not just your opinion.

Annual tests are crazy, and unnecessary.

Why pick it on an annual basis?

If it is for safety, then shouldn't it be say, every month - after all, it's for the children.

The scope of the test is simply too big to be tested annually.

If we are going to put it under the "Safety" Banner, then it would also make sense that our houses are inspected annually to ensure that there are no fire or other hazards.

Our electrical appliances should also be tested every year to make sure they don't cause a fire.

Our Christmas treess should also have to be inspected to make sure they are not too dry.....

Say €50 per test per year - no problem if it saves lives. :rolleyes:

daveharnett

Gurgle wrote: »

Yes, exactly. The most basic bloody statistic to back up this so-called report.
A proper study would be a breakdown of accidents by driver experience, road conditions etc.

You see a higher percentage of older cars on the country back roads than you do on the main roads - who is going to spend 10s of €k to rattle a nice new car to pieces over a few years.

Some good points there. It wouldn't surprise me if 10+ yo cars are more likely to be driven by less experienced drivers, including mr 17 yo petrolhead in his 17 yo boxy starlet

The thing is that given the RSA's history of citing statistics that are downright irrelevant (remember the furore over morning breath checkpoints), basic is a step forward.

daveharnett

kbannon wrote: »

Its quite likely that 47% of incidents in 2007 involved a car 10+years. However, there is no mention of whether they actually caused the incident!

Sure, but the gardai generally don't get involved in finding fault unless somebody is killed/seriously injured. To say that they have a higher chance of being involved is sufficient to tell us that something statistically significant is going on.

Either:
- When things go pear shaped, people are eyeing up the oldest car in sight for a crumple zone.
- The older cars are mechanically less safe (in the active, accident avoiding sense)
- Something about older cars' drivers (geography, experience, whatever) make them more prone to involvement in accidents.

Seth Brundle

daveharnett wrote: »

Sure, but the gardai generally don't get involved in finding fault unless somebody is killed/seriously injured. To say that they have a higher chance of being involved is sufficient to tell us that something statistically significant is going on.

I'm sure that it wouldn't be an impossibility to get the basic claim stats from the insurers!

Buford T Justice

Ha! Good luck to them managing this. They can't even handle the volume that they have in the centers as it is, and they want to take cars that are normally every two years to every year? They won't cope

My car is a 98 and is due an NCT. I contacted them to book it, and they've said that they're fully booked, and only take bookings 6 weeks in advance. But rest assured that they will be in touch when they have a slot.

Now I have no valid NCT because they can't mange the volumes they have and it doesn't look like I'll have one any time soon. What in the name of god will happen once they switch this to every year

Yet again another magnificent piece of work thought up by our government to swindle more cash out of us because they can't mange the country properly.

friendface

In fairness, I don't see the reason for all the uproar about annual testing. The charges aren't extortionate and more frequent testing of cars can only be a good thing. If it even saves one life on our roads would it not be worth 50 quid out of your pocket?

I take good care of my car but there are problems I might not have become aware of had it not been for the NCT. Last time I brought it in, I was checking the tyres and noticed a bulge on one of my tyres sidewalls, something I certainly wouldn't have noticed had I not been looking for it. There was obviously a danger of a blowout so I had the tyre replaced.

I get the point that the majority of accident are caused by driver error rather than car faults. However, I'm sure a (small) percentage of accidents could be avoided with proper car maintenance and given the potential cost of accidents on our roads, I think that any step to make cars safer has to be the right move.

bongi69

daveharnett wrote: »

Sure, but the gardai generally don't get involved in finding fault unless somebody is killed/seriously injured. To say that they have a higher chance of being involved is sufficient to tell us that something statistically significant is going on.

Either:
- When things go pear shaped, people are eyeing up the oldest car in sight for a crumple zone.
- The older cars are mechanically less safe (in the active, accident avoiding sense)
- Something about older cars' drivers (geography, experience, whatever) make them more prone to involvement in accidents.

The first point could be seen as people thinking of their insurance, and having a lower claim if they hit an older car, but I doubt a person about to crash is thinking about this.

And the last point, of course its more common for a young/learner driver to have an older car, in more deprived estates with smaller roads there would be a greater concentration of older cars involved in accidents around these estates, so yes the statistics can be squewed abit.

And as far as this annual test goes, if its half the price of the normal NCT, I don't see a problem with it. Yes it reeks of dealer prop ups, racketeering etc etc, but if the price is reflected, it will (maybe) get some of true the bangers off the road.

And on the safety issue, my 11 year old car has driver, passenger, and side impact airbags. ABS, Eletronic Stabilty control, Electronic Traction control, seatbelt pretensioners, the ISOFIX system for child car seats, and a 4 star EURO NCAP rating to boot. And its a run of the mill hatchback. More gadgets than the neighbours 03 Almera.

Jip

friendface wrote: »

worth 50 quid out of your pocket?

You're forgetting the time taken off work if required.

daveharnett

kbannon wrote: »

I'm sure that it wouldn't be an impossibility to get the basic claim stats from the insurers!

Wouldn't be impossible, but it'd cost about eleventy billion euro. If you're a taxpayer, it'd be cheaper to let it slide and pay the €50 every year