NCT no longer every 2 years?

The Chessplayer

Just got my car NCT'd. It's a '99 reg and I noticed that the disk is only valid for 1 year. Is it because of the age of the car or are all cars now required to NCT every year?

mickdw

Cars over 10 years old must now be tested every year

Vanbis

The Chessplayer wrote: »

Just got my car NCT'd. It's a '99 reg and I noticed that the disk is only valid for 1 year. Is it because of the age of the car or are all cars now required to NCT every year?

Any car 10yrs old or older now require a NCT every year.

The Chessplayer

What a joke

mickdw

The Chessplayer wrote: »

What a joke

?

Max Power1

The Chessplayer wrote: »

What a joke

Yeah, spending money to maintain a car to road worthy condition. What a waste of money.

While I'd like to think this is a safety measure, I'm sure it's more to prop up the new car market.

GTE

Max Power1 wrote: »

Yeah, spending money to maintain a car to road worthy condition. What a waste of money.

The cost of an NCT doesn't go towards maintaining a car.

A badly maintained new car NCT'd every couple of years can be more unsafe on our roads then a well maintained old car.

For me it's just out to make more money under the guise, which has worked, that its out to rid the road of unsafe cars.

msg11

Max Power1 wrote: »

Yeah, spending money to maintain a car to road worthy condition. What a waste of money.

I have no problem bring my car for a test every year.

I do have a problem paying 50euro to be tested every year while someone else in another car get's a cert for two years because there car is not ten years old. Bring the price down on the cars that have to be tested every year.

What's the difference between two car's one 9 years old and one 10 years old apart from age. One go away with a cert for one year and the other for two years?

What a money making racket.

What makes it worse , it says on the cert that this doesn't mean your car is in a fit state or something to that effect.

Agricola

Yeah its a revenue raising exercise pure and simple. The price should come down to reflect the car being tested annually, but theres no surprise its stuck resolutely to 50euro.

How exactly does the timing work though, my car was first registered 3-jan-2001 which made it 10 years old last jan. I tested it in June (after this came in) and I got a two year nct.

I also agree that testing every year is a pain, the nct it a money making racket imo.

msg11

msg11 wrote: »

I do have a problem paying 50euro to be tested every year while someone else in another car get's a cert for two years because there car is not ten years old.

It should of been left at the 2 years or changed to 1 year for all ages. There are a lot of 10 year old plus cars on the road better maintained and in a better condition than a 5 year old one etc...

NCT now is geared more towards making money than checking the safety of a vehicle.

mickdw

Kailee Wrong Shoulder wrote: »

How exactly does the timing work though, my car was first registered 3-jan-2001 which made it 10 years old last jan. I tested it in June (after this came in) and I got a two year nct.

I also agree that testing every year is a pain, the nct it a money making racket imo.

I think the new rule only came in at end of june so you would have escaped it.

The Chessplayer

Plenty of people going around these days without the nct and more power to them.

Once a year? No chance will I be abiding by this law. Just another bill, unbelievable...

coylemj

The only cars that young male drivers can afford are old models, typically 10 or more years old. These drivers are statistically the most dangerous drivers on the road so it stands to reason that older cars being driven by these drivers are over represented in fatal accidents.

This gives rise to a statistic along the following lines (not the actual numbers): cars that are 10 years old and higher represent 5% of the current car stock but they are involved in 10% of the fatal accidents.

The RSA has analyzed the statistics, have come to the (correct) conclusion that older cars are proportionately more likely to be involved in fatal accidents but their solution is that these cars should undergo annual tests. For what purpose is beyond me, it's the drivers that are causing the accidents, not the cars.

This is despite the fact that their own statistics show that the mechanical condition of the car is almost never the primary cause of or a major contributor to the accident. Excessive speed, alcohol and inexperience account for the bulk of accidents.

They have added 2 and 2 and come up with 5.

The-Game

As has been brought up numerous times in this thread i would welcome yearly tests on cars if the price was reduced compared to the people getting the 2 year test.

mb1725

Maybe we should keep quiet on this one. Government logic would be to double the price of the two year test, not half the one year!! :rolleyes:

-Corkie-

The Chessplayer wrote: »

Plenty of people going around these days without the nct and more power to them.

Once a year? No chance will I be abiding by this law. Just another bill, unbelievable...

You wont be saying that when you get 5 penalty points..;)

Why didnt you test your car before the end of June and get the two year cert.

Tigger

bbk wrote: »

The cost of an NCT doesn't go towards maintaining a car.

A badly maintained new car NCT'd every couple of years can be more unsafe on our roads then a well maintained old car.

For me it's just out to make more money under the guise, which has worked, that its out to rid the road of unsafe cars.

so nct it every year then ?

dev100

coylemj wrote: »

The RSA has analyzed the statistics, have come to the (correct) conclusion that older cars are proportionately more likely to be involved in fatal accidents but their solution is that these cars should undergo annual tests. For what purpose is beyond me, it's the drivers that are causing the accidents, not the cars.

They have added 2 and 2 and come up with 5.

Best thing about statistics is the results can be made to suit to what you want them to be. Your nct road worthiness is only valid when it passes the test and is sitting in test centre. As soon as it leaves the nct premises they no longer stand over they re work

What a fantastic idea Op Another money generating idea have an annual car test for all cars:D Its a load of tosh....Money making scheme. Its a ply to incentives people into buying newer cars etc etc

GTE

Tigger wrote: »

so nct it every year then ?

That is the flip side to look at it but from my stand point, which is that its a money making idea, then doing it that way would cause much more uproar then applying the age limit as the age thing can be logically argued more then a flat 1 test a year policy.

In my opinion what has been done is create a way to make more money and not because of car safety. They have not made as much money as a 1 year test interval but the 10 year thing does give a financial boost with less aggravation from the public.

Personally I think a 2 year test interval is fine.

Max Power1

bbk wrote: »

The cost of an NCT doesn't go towards maintaining a car.

A badly maintained new car NCT'd every couple of years can be more unsafe on our roads then a well maintained old car.

For me it's just out to make more money under the guise, which has worked, that its out to rid the road of unsafe cars.

€50 extra every second year is a miniscule amount when it comes to the amount that would be spent keeping a car on the road.

People complaining against this are the same type of people that complained when the NCT was brought in first. Typical paddy attitude of not spending any money on car servicing/maintenance and then complaining when it breaks.

FWIW I drive a 10 year old car, so from 2013 I'll be subject to this rule too.

Yet I', in favour of it. It should be yearly for all cars, and should be from year 2 not year 4.

GTE

coylemj wrote: »

The only cars that young male drivers can afford are old models, typically 10 or more years old. These drivers are statistically the most dangerous drivers on the road so it stands to reason that older cars being driven by these drivers are over represented in fatal accidents.

This gives rise to a statistic along the following lines (not the actual numbers): cars that are 10 years old and higher represent 5% of the current car stock but they are involved in 10% of the fatal accidents.

The RSA has analyzed the statistics, have come to the (correct) conclusion that older cars are proportionately more likely to be involved in fatal accidents but their solution is that these cars should undergo annual tests. For what purpose is beyond me, it's the drivers that are causing the accidents, not the cars.

This is despite the fact that their own statistics show that the mechanical condition of the car is almost never the primary cause of or a major contributor to the accident. Excessive speed, alcohol and inexperience account for the bulk of accidents.

They have added 2 and 2 and come up with 5.

I wonder how many of the cars that are +10 years old crashed within a year of getting their latest NCT cert at the time of the crash.

corktina

how can people think this is a money making racket? It must cost €50 minimum to test the car, taking premises wages equiipment admin and all the other costs into account.

MagicMarker

corktina wrote: »

how can people think this is a money making racket? It must cost €50 minimum to test the car, taking premises wages equiipment admin and all the other costs into account.

Err, do you think they're operating at a loss or something?

dev100

corktina wrote: »

how can people think this is a money making racket? It must cost €50 minimum to test the car, taking premises wages equiipment admin and all the other costs into account.

Go stand in the viewing area in Deansgrange Nct centre. They use 3 lanes and every bay is full all day every day. Its like shooting fish in a barrel!!! Its definitely not a loss making business :eek:

corktina

Try going to the Doctors and it costing less than €50!

MagicMarker

corktina wrote: »

Try going to the Doctors and it costing less than €50!

And that's relevant because.... ?

The Chessplayer

It's a revenue raising exercise. 100%.

Anyone who thinks differently hasn't a brain in their head.

mickdw

People who complain about the yearly test are not complaining about the €50 IMO, I think its more the fact that they know they are driving an NCT failure and it is going to cost them money to get the new cert. With that in mind, the yearly test is a great idea.

mickdw

Duplicate post

-Corkie-

mickdw wrote: »

People who complain about the yearly test are not complaining about the €50 IMO, I think its more the fact that they know they are driving an NCT failure and it is going to cost them money to get the new cert. With that in mind, the yearly test is a great idea.

And they are the same people who spend thousands on fags and booze every year and not a word about it..;)

dev100

corktina wrote: »

Try going to the Doctors and it costing less than €50!

I only go to the doctor when Im really sick and need medical help . I dont bring my car to NCT when its broke down and they certainly dont fix it!!! My mechanic tells me whats wrong with my car.

corktina

dev100 wrote: »

I only go to the doctor when Im really sick and need medical help . I dont bring my car to NCT when its broke down and they certainly dont fix it!!! My mechanic tells me whats wrong with my car.

fair enough, how much does your mechanic do for €50 then? same analogy.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

The Chessplayer wrote: »

What a joke

What's so funny about making sure a very old car is roadworthy??

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

dev100 wrote: »

I only go to the doctor when Im really sick and need medical help . I dont bring my car to NCT when its broke down and they certainly dont fix it!!! My mechanic tells me whats wrong with my car.

Once you hit 50 you'll be going at least once a year for a check up. Blood Sugars, prostrate checks etc,. :rolleyes:

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

The-Game wrote: »

As has been brought up numerous times in this thread i would welcome yearly tests on cars if the price was reduced compared to the people getting the 2 year test.

Costs the same to administer each test.

Greyfoot

mickdw wrote: »

People who complain about the yearly test are not complaining about the €50 IMO, I think its more the fact that they know they are driving an NCT failure and it is going to cost them money to get the new cert. With that in mind, the yearly test is a great idea.

I drive a 19yrs old car which is in much better state and mechanical condition than most newer cars. I doubt that there is a real reason behind this decision apart form the earlier mentioned that its just another way to milk the cow. Now dont get me wrong, some cars are in a bad shape due to old age but if a 25quid fee would be introduced noone would be p***ed off.

whatcartoget

As far as I know the English NCT/MOT is done every year and the cost of it is £54.85. So the Irish NCT is actually cheaper.
By having this system in place people are more likely to maintain there vehicle well because it's required by law.
When a fatal road accident happens it costs the state a large sum of money. Fatal road accidents also wreck families and most of these can be avoided. If one of these accidents were cause by a poorly maintained vehicle due to no National car test being in place. I think 50euro is a little prize to pay.

dev100

corktina wrote: »

fair enough, how much does your mechanic do for €50 then? same analogy.

To be quite honest I took a dislike to the NCT shower from the start had a problem with one of the nct operators telling me I needed to pay for an unnecessary retest. I was on ****e apprentice wages at the time:D Ive always kept my car in good condition. Intend on doing so in the future.


My mechanic is quite reasonable by the way:)

dev100

whatcartoget wrote: »

As far as I know the English NCT/MOT is done every year and the cost of it is £54.85. So the Irish NCT is actually cheaper.
By having this system in place people are more likely to maintain there vehicle well because it's required by law.
When a fatal road accident happens it costs the state a large sum of money. Fatal road accidents also wreck families and most of these can be avoided. If one of these accidents were cause by a poorly maintained vehicle due to no National car test being in place. I think 50euro is a little prize to pay.

Do you know what most people do? let a car go thru the nct to find out whats wrong with their car this will certainly be the case in future with a yearly test and money becoming tighter. You will actually get people thinking Its actually cheaper to do this rather than waste money letting a mechanic look at it first. Thats not really a good idea either .

You talk about poorly maintained cars in accidents etc... Look at other causes also. How about poorly maintained roads? Untreated roads during the snow and heavy freeze? Massive potholes subsidence on back roads etc. If im expected to make my car safe then surely the government have to make road conditions safe.

dev100

Saul Gigantic Banknote wrote: »

Once you hit 50 you'll be going at least once a year for a check up. Blood Sugars, prostrate checks etc,. :rolleyes:

Get that done as a yearly check by company doc/nurse.... Ay roll eyes prostrate annual check not due for another 28 years:D The company doc doesnt have a cats chance of doing that :eek:

skelliser

dont worry lads, wont be long before its every year for every car regardless of age.

as can be seen from reading here and the recent primetime doc, the NCT is a complete farce.
Cars passing one day and failing another.

We should have followed the scandinavian model, where irrc if you want to sell your car it most go thru a nct/mot
to prove its road worthiness but then you wouldnt be getting a nice reliable revenue stream

And to those of you naysayers going on about road safety. Simple why to settle this.
Show me the statistics of cars over 10 years involved in fatal crashes?!
oh wait they dont exist! i wonder why that is!

msg11

mickdw wrote: »

People who complain about the yearly test are not complaining about the €50 IMO, I think its more the fact that they know they are driving an NCT failure and it is going to cost them money to get the new cert. With that in mind, the yearly test is a great idea.

Well I have a problem with it. And it is too do with the 50, I want too see it at 25 then I will have no problem. For your information, I have just bought four new tyres for my car got my wheels and headlights aligned and my test is not till the 10/11.

My problem is this cert should be 2 years for every car. If this is the case. They should be testing every single car over 1 year old then.

Car's over one year old get a cert for 3 years
Car's over two years get one for 2 years
Car's over two+ get one for 1 years.

Or even better!!

All car's over one year old get a cert for 1 year and bring the cost of testing down to 25.

Oh wait, sorry. New car's are safe after three years of wear and tear and owners putting off servicing. My bollox, there is no point having rules for one set of people, everyone get's a cert for 1 year.

Let's be honest here. A one year old car, not looked after for that one year going into it's second year not looked after is in my option as bad as a car that is ten years old going into it's second year without been looked after from it's last NCT.

Such a money making racket. Safety my arse, has anybody looked at the state of the roads ? Am I the only one or can the RSA not see that poor roads are as much to blame as young drivers, bad cars, bad judgement and drink driving.. If the basics are not right when the wheel is driving on the road then what do they think is going too happen ?

mickdw

If the yearly test even forces people to keep their tyres in reasonable condition, its a good thing.
I saw the worst tyres ever on a laguna parked at liffey valley shopping centre last weekend.
They were worn completely evenly so no excuses there but canvas was out through the whole surface of the tyre. the passengerside sill was also completely distroyed over its entire length. Complete disgrace of a car. THat type of driver would need testing every 2 months. Still there is a greater chance of people not maintaining their car when its at a pretty worthless level.

mickdw

Duplicate post again??

sparkle_23

I don't have a problem with NCT'ing my car every year....It's the paying €50 I have a problem with! But I just bought an 05 car so hopeful they'll keep the ten year rule until after 2015. Knowing my luck they'll probably change it next year :rolleyes:

end a eknny

mickdw wrote: »

If the yearly test even forces people to keep their tyres in reasonable condition, its a good thing.
I saw the worst tyres ever on a laguna parked at liffey valley shopping centre last weekend.
They were worn completely evenly so no excuses there but canvas was out through the whole surface of the tyre. the passengerside sill was also completely distroyed over its entire length. Complete disgrace of a car. THat type of driver would need testing every 2 months. Still there is a greater chance of people not maintaining their car when its at a pretty worthless level.

there isnt a test in the world that could prove a car would be safe for a month never mind twelve or twenty four. there is also nothing stopping somebody putting a good set of tyres on a car testing it then taking them off once it has passed

mickdw

end a eknny wrote: »

there isnt a test in the world that could prove a car would be safe for a month never mind twelve or twenty four. there is also nothing stopping somebody putting a good set of tyres on a car testing it then taking them off once it has passed

I agree but alot of cases of dodgy tyres are carelessness and many wont just swap wheels.

Henry Ford III

€50 p.a. isn't excessive for testing, and testing a 10+ year old car annually isn't excessive either.

p.s. All pre 1980 cars don't need testing, so all must be perfect!

Guy:Incognito

msg11 wrote: »

Such a money making racket. Safety my arse, has anybody looked at the state of the roads ? Am I the only one or can the RSA not see that poor roads are as much to blame as young drivers, bad cars, bad judgement and drink driving.. If the basics are not right when the wheel is driving on the road then what do they think is going too happen ?

If a road is that bad why would you drive at a speed that would cause you damage or make you crash?


How much would it cost to pay a garage to do a full test exactly like the NCT? Emissions test, proper brake test with equipment, slip slid test and putting it on a ramp and checking over the underside?