NCT - Fail Dangerous

timmy4u2

djimi wrote: »

The point though is how do you determine what is dangerously defective and what isnt, and more importantly whether or not a car has been repaired to a standard that it would no longer be considered to be dangerous? If the NCT have deemed a car to have a dangerous defect then they should be required to carry out an inspection to assess whether or not the repairs have been carried out correctly before declaring the car roadworthy again.

A dangerous defect is down to a matter of interpretation.

while there is a defect affecting the vehicle which he knows of or could have discovered by the exercise of ordinary care and which is such that the vehicle is, when in motion, a danger to the public

One bald tyre on a vehicle would never be regarded as a dangerous defect whereas four could but the vehicle would have to be found in use on a public road when the surface was very wet as bald tyres will grip better on a dry surface than tyres with 7mm of thread.
Also it is possible that a driver may not notice one bald tyre but four would hardly escape the exercise of ordinary care.
Four defective shock absorbers could be regarded as dangerous at a car found in motion at 160km per hour on a bumpy road whereas that same car would not be a danger to the public while being driven away from an NCT station at 40kmh.
It is all relative and a determination that canbonly be made in a court.

Go back to the bonnet safety catch returning a few seconds slow, and before I go any further this bonnet catch issue did in fact happen at Abbeyfeale NCT station three years ago.

The car in question got a dangerous, not to be used on a public road tag because the safety catch took about three seconds to go to the latch position.
Cognisance was not taken of the fact that when the bonnet is pushed down to fully lock that it automatically closes the safety catch, or that the owner would ensure that the safety catch was closed before the car was put in motion, thus the car would not be a danger to the public when in motion.
Any competent person can repair a defect and when done the offence does not now exist as the driver now knows and believes that there is no longer a defect affecting the vehicle and knowledge of the existence or continued existence of a dangerous defect is a key ingredient.

Going on the bonnet lock alone shows that it is dangerous to place such control on those that do not take cognisance of the proofs.
Take for instance a pair of wipers.

Will the NCT issue a dangerously defective tag for wipers that do not work.
Wipers that do not work on a dry sunny day will not be regarded as a dangerous defect but if a driver is found driving at night at 60kmh in a downpour with defective wipers thatvis dangerous and Section 53 Dangerous Driving and Sec 54 Defective vehicle as amended are inextricably linked.
Wipers notwithstanding that if the windscreen can be opened you do not require wipers nor do you require a wiper on the passenger side as outlined by Justice Murty DeBurca at Limerick District Court some years ago in a case taken by a Garda Ben McNamara

Rather than a new post.
The short answer is that only a District Justice can determine when the car has been defective, dangerous while in motion having heard all the evidence.
A member of An Garda Siochana is the only other person that "temporarily" can remove such a vehicle from the road if he believes there is a defectvaffecting......
And that is only to have it examined by a competent person; the Garda PSV Inspector.

CiniO

As subject develops, I decided to have a look how it works in Poland - just to compare.

Vehicles there are due test at 3 year old, then 5, and then annually.
For vehicles 5 year old or older test cert is always valid for one year from date of the test (no matter if it's done early or late).
Vehicle can be only driven in public with valid test cert.
If vehicle fails the test, and previous cert is still valid, vehicle can be driven away from test centre, and used normally until old cert expires. However if it's not repaired and brought to the test centre before old cert expires, it must be towed for next test.

If vehicle is deemed by tester to be dangerously defective during the test, he will keep VRC (vehicle reg. cert.) and vehicle will be illegal to be driven on public road (no matter if it still had previous test valid or not). It must then be towed away from test centre to garage, and after repair it must be towed back to the test centre. Only after passing the test, VRC will be returned and vehicle will be again legal to be driven.

Also in between tests, police during road checks can check roadworthiness of the vehicle, and if they discover it's not roadworthy, the will keep VRC. Depending on scale of unroadworthiness, they will either give permission to drive for f.e. 7 days (in case it's minor fault), during which owner is meant to fix the problem, and have this particular issue retested at the test centre (f.e. baldy tyres), and only then VRC can be picked up again.
If however policeman will decide vehicle is dangerously defective, he will keep VRC, and not allow it to be driven, in which case vehicle must be towed away to garage to be fixed, and again to test centre for this particular issue to be checked (f.e. not working brakes).

timmy4u2

CiniO wrote: »

As subject develops, I decided to have a look how it works in Poland - just to compare.

Vehicles there are due test at 3 year old, then 5, and then annually.
For vehicles 5 year old or older test cert is always valid for one year from date of the test (no matter if it's done early or late).
Vehicle can be only driven in public with valid test cert.
If vehicle fails the test, and previous cert is still valid, vehicle can be driven away from test centre, and used normally until old cert expires. However if it's not repaired and brought to the test centre before old cert expires, it must be towed for next test.

If vehicle is deemed by tester to be dangerously defective during the test, he will keep VRC (vehicle reg. cert.) and vehicle will be illegal to be driven on public road (no matter if it still had previous test valid or not). It must then be towed away from test centre to garage, and after repair it must be towed back to the test centre. Only after passing the test, VRC will be returned and vehicle will be again legal to be driven.

Also in between tests, police during road checks can check roadworthiness of the vehicle, and if they discover it's not roadworthy, the will keep VRC. Depending on scale of unroadworthiness, they will either give permission to drive for f.e. 7 days (in case it's minor fault), during which owner is meant to fix the problem, and have this particular issue retested at the test centre (f.e. baldy tyres), and only then VRC can be picked up again.
If however policeman will decide vehicle is dangerously defective, he will keep VRC, and not allow it to be driven, in which case vehicle must be towed away to garage to be fixed, and again to test centre for this particular issue to be checked (f.e. not working brakes).

That is very fine but when in Rome we must dovas the Romans do.

The Gardai here are empowered to stop, examine and to seize, for examination by an authorised person, the PSV inspector, any vehicle that they believe has a defect............

It would be a dangerous thing for entrust that function to a static test as the vehicle has to be in motion and all the circumstances taken into account, plus the ridiculous application of their, the NCT, interpretation viz the bonnet safety catch.

dr.fuzzenstein

CiniO wrote: »

As subject develops, I decided to have a look how it works in Poland - just to compare.

Vehicles there are due test at 3 year old, then 5, and then annually.
For vehicles 5 year old or older test cert is always valid for one year from date of the test (no matter if it's done early or late).
Vehicle can be only driven in public with valid test cert.
If vehicle fails the test, and previous cert is still valid, vehicle can be driven away from test centre, and used normally until old cert expires. However if it's not repaired and brought to the test centre before old cert expires, it must be towed for next test.

If vehicle is deemed by tester to be dangerously defective during the test, he will keep VRC (vehicle reg. cert.) and vehicle will be illegal to be driven on public road (no matter if it still had previous test valid or not). It must then be towed away from test centre to garage, and after repair it must be towed back to the test centre. Only after passing the test, VRC will be returned and vehicle will be again legal to be driven.

Also in between tests, police during road checks can check roadworthiness of the vehicle, and if they discover it's not roadworthy, the will keep VRC. Depending on scale of unroadworthiness, they will either give permission to drive for f.e. 7 days (in case it's minor fault), during which owner is meant to fix the problem, and have this particular issue retested at the test centre (f.e. baldy tyres), and only then VRC can be picked up again.
If however policeman will decide vehicle is dangerously defective, he will keep VRC, and not allow it to be driven, in which case vehicle must be towed away to garage to be fixed, and again to test centre for this particular issue to be checked (f.e. not working brakes).

Now THAT is how that is done.

V.W.L 11

quick question regarding windscreen,will the nct fail a car if the windscreen is gone white around the edges??!

PADRAIC.M

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

quick question regarding windscreen,will the nct fail a car if the windscreen is gone white around the edges??!

No

V.W.L 11

PADRAIC.M wrote: »

No

cheers,i heard it did

dissed doc

Henry Ford III wrote: »

So the NCT decide that a car is dangerous and can't be driven, but anyone can decide it's no longer so.

That's the most ludicrous thing I've read here in some time.

If you can't as an adult with a driving license determine when a car is not dangerous to drive based on information printed out and given to you, which can then be fixed, then you shouldn't be let near a car IMO.

The tell you what's wrong, then go fix it. No need for nannying and bureaucracy. The driver of the car has to ensure that the car is safe to drive with what could be reasonably expected of an adult with a license.

djimi

dissed doc wrote: »

If you can't as an adult with a driving license determine when a car is not dangerous to drive based on information printed out and given to you, which can then be fixed, then you shouldn't be let near a car IMO.

The tell you what's wrong, then go fix it. No need for nannying and bureaucracy. The driver of the car has to ensure that the car is safe to drive with what could be reasonably expected of an adult with a license.

And what is to say that the repair has been carried out properly?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

djimi wrote: »

And what is to say that the repair has been carried out properly?

The offense is being aware that your car is being driven with a known dangerous mechanical defect.

If it has been fixed, or the owner believes it to be fixed, then there is no offense committed and the car is no longer a "fail dangerous".

The NCT center cannot tell you not to drive your car. The reason effectively you cannot drive when you get a "fail dangerous" is because you are "Made aware" of a "serious mechanical defect".

dr.fuzzenstein

I can only keep quoting that.
Because this is Ireland, you are guaranteed to get some guy that will repair his suspension with blue baling twine and then go on Joe Duffy "I have a right to drive my car! My rights are being trampled on! How dare the nanny state boss me around!".
Because 90% of drivers wouldn't know if their car hasa dangerous defect and a lot of garages are chancers and cowboys, the right to decide if a car is safe once declared unsafe HAS to be removed from the owner and garage.
It's called "doing things properly". It's the European equivalent of "shure, be grand to fcuk".
If you think you know better, that's very nice dear, but there should be no exceptions.

CiniO wrote: »

As subject develops, I decided to have a look how it works in Poland - just to compare.

Vehicles there are due test at 3 year old, then 5, and then annually.
For vehicles 5 year old or older test cert is always valid for one year from date of the test (no matter if it's done early or late).
Vehicle can be only driven in public with valid test cert.
If vehicle fails the test, and previous cert is still valid, vehicle can be driven away from test centre, and used normally until old cert expires. However if it's not repaired and brought to the test centre before old cert expires, it must be towed for next test.

If vehicle is deemed by tester to be dangerously defective during the test, he will keep VRC (vehicle reg. cert.) and vehicle will be illegal to be driven on public road (no matter if it still had previous test valid or not). It must then be towed away from test centre to garage, and after repair it must be towed back to the test centre. Only after passing the test, VRC will be returned and vehicle will be again legal to be driven.

Also in between tests, police during road checks can check roadworthiness of the vehicle, and if they discover it's not roadworthy, the will keep VRC. Depending on scale of unroadworthiness, they will either give permission to drive for f.e. 7 days (in case it's minor fault), during which owner is meant to fix the problem, and have this particular issue retested at the test centre (f.e. baldy tyres), and only then VRC can be picked up again.
If however policeman will decide vehicle is dangerously defective, he will keep VRC, and not allow it to be driven, in which case vehicle must be towed away to garage to be fixed, and again to test centre for this particular issue to be checked (f.e. not working brakes).

djimi

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

The offense is being aware that your car is being driven with a known dangerous mechanical defect.

If it has been fixed, or the owner believes it to be fixed, then there is no offense committed and the car is no longer a "fail dangerous".

The NCT center cannot tell you not to drive your car. The reason effectively you cannot drive when you get a "fail dangerous" is because you are "Made aware" of a "serious mechanical defect".

Im not necessarily arguing with how it is; Im saying how it should be. If the NCT declare a car to be fail dangerous then it should remain in that state until they have re-tested it and declared it to be safe. Anyone could carry out a "repair"; there is nothing at all to say that what was previously considered to be a danger has now been repaired to a proper standard.

dr.fuzzenstein

djimi wrote: »

Im not necessarily arguing with how it is; Im saying how it should be. If the NCT declare a car to be fail dangerous then it should remain in that state until they have re-tested it and declared it to be safe. Anyone could carry out a "repair"; there is nothing at all to say that what was previously considered to be a danger has now been repaired to a proper standard.

That.
I simply cannot understand how anyone could argue otherwise.
But Joe, I personally put in the baling twine to fix the suspension, it was the good stuff! How can they tell me that's not good enough, I should decide if my car is safe, not some jumped up official with lots of fancy qualifications. Jaysus, haven't i been fixing the tractor since I was 11, I know better than anyone else!

challengemaster

djimi wrote: »

Im not necessarily arguing with how it is; Im saying how it should be. If the NCT declare a car to be fail dangerous then it should remain in that state until they have re-tested it and declared it to be safe. Anyone could carry out a "repair"; there is nothing at all to say that what was previously considered to be a danger has now been repaired to a proper standard.

Particularly when you have common occurrences of people having mechanics "fixing" issues (handbrake, light alignment, etc) the day before an NCT, only for it to fail on that.

GTE

Given the OPs example of a windscreen problem and it being a problem which can be fixed by a replacement, a replacement receipt from a reputable company and/or insurance would allow Garda to use discretion if the car is on the way for the retest or there is proof of a retest being booked.

That said, I am sure there are fail items which are more difficult to detect and a receipt from any old garage would not cut the mustard. There are so many combinations of this, that and the other, people could be arguing here for weeks about it.

I failed an NCT on tracking and headlight alignment a while back. I got it fixed that day and carried the NCT test details and repair receipts and got the thumbs up from three checkpoints. Not a fail dangerous I know, but similar for the windscreen situation, which is what the context of the OP is which is probably a fairly rare occurrence where it is easy to prove a competent repair.

dr.fuzzenstein

bbk wrote: »

Given the OPs example of a windscreen problem and it being a problem which can be fixed by a replacement, a replacement receipt from a reputable company and/or insurance would allow Garda to use discretion if the car is on the way for the retest or there is proof of a retest being booked.

That said, I am sure there are fail items which are more difficult to detect and a receipt from any old garage would not cut the mustard. There are so many combinations of this, that and the other, people could be arguing here for weeks about it.

I failed an NCT on tracking and headlight alignment a while back. I got it fixed that day and carried the NCT test details and repair receipts and got the thumbs up from three checkpoints. Not a fail dangerous I know, but similar for the windscreen situation, which is what the context of the OP is which is probably a fairly rare occurrence where it is easy to prove a competent repair.

Re read, it wasn't an issue with the windscreen.

V.W.L 11

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Re read, it wasn't an issue with the windscreen.

it was a windscreen issue that i posted

dr.fuzzenstein

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

it was a windscreen issue that i posted

Ah, ok, carry on then...