Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

New changes to the testing of vintage Cars/Trucks?

  • 13-10-2014 10:39am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 694 DakarVert


    Anyone heard anything about this?
    There's supposed to be some new proposed legislation regarding the above?


«13456713

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,542 ✭✭✭ Blue850




  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Dades


    What's anyone's take on that doc?

    It reads to me that the pre-1980 exemption is for the chop.


  • Registered Users Posts: 551 ✭✭✭ adunis


    Bing it on I say,it might get rid of all the "rebodied" yokes.obviously the test will have to make the odd concession for the right old cars,it shouldn't have any road tax insurance. Repercussions I would have thought,it also might make me replace my windscreen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭ hi5


    I read it the other way, that they're going to do away with testing for all vintage, the criteria of which has yet to be decided.

    The Road Safety Authority (RSA) is now reviewing this area and is considering a number of options in providing an exemption from the requirement to undergo compulsory roadworthiness testing for vintage vehicles used for social and domestic purposes only1 and first registered either:

    They are also using statistics from the IVVCC who are batting for the exemption for commercials.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭ hi5


    Response form is here, I'm opting for the '30 year rolling' myself;)

    http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Vehicle%20Std%20Leg/Consultations/Roadworthiness_Testing_of_Vintage_Vehicles_Response_Form.doc


    The closing date for receipt of submissions is Friday 14 November 2014. Your feedback should be e-mailed to: [email protected] or posted to:

    Vintage Vehicles Consultation
    Vehicle Standards Section,
    Road Safety Authority,
    Moy Valley Business Park,
    Primrose Hill,
    Ballina,
    Co. Mayo.

    Tel No: 096 25014


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 694 DakarVert


    Yup, I'd agree with the 30 year rolling.....

    Would a weight limit not be better for Commercials though? Say 3500kgs gross.
    So the likes of a Transit would be exempt, But some dude pulling a 40ft container (Even for show purposes) would need to have it tested.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,305 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    I've replied. As a comment, I referenced the noticeable lack of an issue with road traffic accidents involving classics. If the brief is to save lives, this doesn't seem to be a priority area.

    There's some heaps dragged along to shows alright, but it's questionable that they've posed much risk to road users to date, and conversely, most classics are, by definition, going to be less safe than modern cars for their occupants, even if in perfect shape. It's never going to be a motoring niche that's not at odds with the RSA's mandate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 530 ✭✭✭ unfit2006


    All classic car enthusiasts need to make their voices heard on this matter.
    Clubs representing classic car enthusiasts also need to get their submissions in.
    I understand that owners of commercial classics feel particularly hard done by under the present regs.

    No doubt the issue of using classic cars for daily use as well as the increasing number of "pre 1980" ringers on the roads could be used by the authorities to demonstrate how any proposed extension of test or tax exemptions for classic cars could be counter productive to their overall aims be they exchequer or road safety returns.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭ Silvera


    It may be controversial, but I believe that all vehicles should undertake (basic) NCT (or CVRT) testing - with certain conditions attached, e.g.

    - Two-year testing periods for vehicles over 30 yrs old used for social, domestic and pleasure purposes.
    - No (or wider parameters) emission testing (e.g. visual smoke test only)
    - Training for testing staff regarding extra care/empathy when testing vintage vehicles


  • Registered Users Posts: 6 ✭✭✭ rochie52


    The vintage community must have their voices heard on this.Classic Commercial drivers do feel particularly hard done by at the moment. The current DOE testing regs for vintage and classic are crazy.

    I disagree I think that not all vehicles should be tested. If you put some of the older vintage cars i.e. 50's, 60's and 70's on some of the testing equipment they would be torn asunder.

    As for emissions, even at the moment, anything with a carb is only tested for emissions at tick over.

    I also think that it is unrealistic to think that the NCT centres are going to handle this. On the radio at the moment we are being told to book our test for January? How would they cope with the extra vintage and classic vehicles?

    If we are to talk about upskilling the NCT testers to cater for the vintage vehicles...come on how much would that actually cost!?

    Empathy towards your vintage vehicle from testing staff? No offence to testing staff but how would you even suggest to train this/enforce it? Rubbish.


    Dakarvert why should a vintage artic with trailer for show purposes have to test over anything else?


    What about the system of garage reports of years ago? Would be the simplest way of ensuring road worthiness. THere has been a discussion group made up of vintage enthusiasts in consultation with the RSA and the dept of transport on this matter for months. We have a short window of opportunity here to have ourselves heard and defend our pastime.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭ Silvera


    rochie52 wrote: »
    The vintage community must have their voices heard on this.Classic Commercial drivers do feel particularly hard done by at the moment. The current DOE testing regs for vintage and classic are crazy.

    I disagree I think that not all vehicles should be tested. If you put some of the older vintage cars i.e. 50's, 60's and 70's on some of the testing equipment they would be torn asunder.

    As for emissions, even at the moment, anything with a carb is only tested for emissions at tick over.

    I also think that it is unrealistic to think that the NCT centres are going to handle this. On the radio at the moment we are being told to book our test for January? How would they cope with the extra vintage and classic vehicles?

    If we are to talk about upskilling the NCT testers to cater for the vintage vehicles...come on how much would that actually cost!?

    Empathy towards your vintage vehicle from testing staff? No offence to testing staff but how would you even suggest to train this/enforce it? Rubbish.


    Dakarvert why should a vintage artic with trailer for show purposes have to test over anything else?


    What about the system of garage reports of years ago? Would be the simplest way of ensuring road worthiness. THere has been a discussion group made up of vintage enthusiasts in consultation with the RSA and the dept of transport on this matter for months. We have a short window of opportunity here to have ourselves heard and defend our pastime.

    As I stated above, I believe in basic testing for all vehicles, not all the 'bells-and-whistles' testing applied to modern vehicles. Garage reports could be an option, but could be more open to 'messing about/interference'.

    Capacity of the NCT system to cope with extra tests would be an issue.

    Empathy - how have other countries' test-regimes managed to test vintage vehicles all these years without 'tearing them apart'?!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,045 Grimreaper666


    At the end of the day the only winners here will be the NCT and the RSA, it's all down to money, pure and simple. We must be the most regulated country in the whole of the EU and without a doubt, the most expensive!


  • Registered Users Posts: 6 ✭✭✭ rochie52


    Silvera wrote: »
    As I stated above, I believe in basic testing for all vehicles, not all the 'bells-and-whistles' testing applied to modern vehicles. Garage reports could be an option, but could be more open to 'messing about/interference'.

    Capacity of the NCT system to cope with extra tests would be an issue.

    Empathy - how have other countries' test-regimes managed to test vintage vehicles all these years without 'tearing them apart'?!



    Agreed, my argument is extreme....but do not forget who you are up against here.....they are not "vintage people". They bring a different agenda to the table and if we do not shout loud enough, with the stroke of a pen we could all be going for an NCT.


  • Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭✭ John Larkin


    rochie52 wrote: »

    Empathy towards your vintage vehicle from testing staff? No offence to testing staff but how would you even suggest to train this/enforce it? Rubbish.

    I put my exempt 1967 car through the NCT each year and it passes. I find the NCT to be reasonable to deal with.


  • Registered Users Posts: 182 ✭✭ selfdiy


    Here are my thoughts, given I have two classic currently off the road and probably will be until I find a lot of time!!

    I think they should be tested yearly for brakes and excessive corrosion.

    I think the test should be free, with the 30 year rolling rule.
    As a lover of classic cars, I think that the owners should be rewarded/incentivized for keeping these on the road so thats others can enjoy seeing vehicles that otherwise would be long forgotten.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭ hi5


    I put my exempt 1967 car through the NCT each year and it passes. I find the NCT to be reasonable to deal with.

    The most recent NCT results show that pre 1980 cars tested have a higher pass rate than the general population of cars.

    In the period from 1st January until 30th Sept 2014, 172 vehicles with a date of first registration prior to 1st January 1980 were tested with the first time pass rate recorded being 56%.


    Note that the average first time pass rates in 2012, 2013 and from 1st January to 30th Sept 2014 were 48.3%, 46.6% and 50% respectively for the total population of vehicle tested at NCT.


  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭ pryantcc


    I'm of the opinion that if a car has structural/braking/steering/visibility issues, I'd prefer that it wasn't on the same road as me and my family, regardless of whether it's going to the shop for a litre of milk, on the way to/from a show or being driven daily to and from work by someone. I also like the idea that there's an oppertunity to nobble the crew with old plates on a modern car.

    Certainly, there's a difficult area of standards to be defined for a very wide range of vehicle types and technologies, but I think it's well worth having any road going vehicle checked over.

    I have a classic campervan which had to pass a DOE test as a condition of the insurance policy. It seemed perfectly sensible to me.

    I think that garage based assesments/reports are way too wide open to abuse. We're a nation of chancers and would definitely try to get away with it if we could.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,225 Going Forward


    If a classic is to be driven in public, surely it must be certified as meeting some sort of roadworthiness criteria.

    Any test could only test for original equipment integrity and tolerances etc.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Dades


    A common concern here seems to be how any test is undertaken. People don't want have to bring their pride and joy through the conveyor belt that is the NCT system, where you can come across all manner of tester - good and bad.

    And training testers to apply different criteria to subjective visual tests on certain cars sounds like an impossible ask.


  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭ pryantcc


    Dades wrote: »
    A common concern here seems to be how any test is undertaken. People don't want have to bring their pride and joy through the conveyor belt that is the NCT system, where you can come across all manner of tester - good and bad.

    And training testers to apply different criteria to subjective visual tests on certain cars sounds like an impossible ask.

    They could get some stuff going quite easily. Check the age and condition of tyres, check that the brakes are relatively well balanced from side to side. Check that the windscreen is see-through and that the lights come on and go off as they should. Check for any rusty holes within x cm of a structural component or suspension mounting point. Check that nothing is about to fall off or go on fire.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭ homingbird


    THEY dont have nct in the USA so how do they manage wrecks on the road.


  • Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭✭ John Larkin


    homingbird wrote: »
    THEY dont have nct in the USA so how do they manage wrecks on the road.

    About a third of the US states have vehicle safety inspections. Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection#United_States


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭ Silvera


    pryantcc wrote: »
    I'm of the opinion that if a car has structural/braking/steering/visibility issues, I'd prefer that it wasn't on the same road as me and my family, regardless of whether it's going to the shop for a litre of milk, on the way to/from a show or being driven daily to and from work by someone. I also like the idea that there's an oppertunity to nobble the crew with old plates on a modern car

    Well put!


  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭ pryantcc


    Well, I've made my submission to the RSA. Some reasonable questions on the form. My only criticism is that it comes across as "Which of our great ideas do you think is best?" Rather than "What do you think would be a good way to do this?". Still, it's nice to be asked anyway!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,658 ✭✭✭✭ whisky_galore




  • Registered Users Posts: 19,305 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    pryantcc wrote: »
    I'm of the opinion that if a car has structural/braking/steering/visibility issues, I'd prefer that it wasn't on the same road as me and my family, regardless of whether it's going to the shop for a litre of milk, on the way to/from a show or being driven daily to and from work by someone.
    But the reality is that there hasn't been an issue to date with classics endangering anyone's family. The risks are probably less than say, untested tractors taking to the roads daily - a risk which also hasn't resulted in carnage of families either. Emotive calls for additional regulation surely should be backed up with some evidence of practical value. I'm not convinced that there is much of a case here.

    Don't get me wrong - my classic is kept pristine, and has been upgraded for safety where possible, and would cope just fine with a NCT test, but applying one-cut-fits-all regulation like the NCT to a range of cars which may or may not have any relevance to modern standards, is just asking for trouble. And for what benefit?
    pryantcc wrote: »
    I also like the idea that there's an oppertunity to nobble the crew with old plates on a modern car.
    How would an obligatory NCT make any difference to elephants? They wouldn't be checking anything other than the reg matching the logbook.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,059 ✭✭✭ Kenny Logins


    alastair wrote: »
    But the reality is that there hasn't been an issue to date with classics endangering anyone's family. The risks are probably less than say, untested tractors taking to the roads daily - a risk which also hasn't resulted in carnage of families either. Emotive calls for additional regulation surely should be backed up with some evidence of practical value. I'm not convinced that there is much of a case here.

    Don't get me wrong - my classic is kept pristine, and has been upgraded for safety where possible, and would cope just fine with a NCT test, but applying one-cut-fits-all regulation like the NCT to a range of cars which may or may not have any relevance to modern standards, is just asking for trouble. And for what benefit?


    How would an obligatory NCT make any difference to elephants? They wouldn't be checking anything other than the reg matching the logbook.

    The VIN is checked too, no?


  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭ pryantcc


    alastair wrote: »
    But the reality is that there hasn't been an issue to date with classics endangering anyone's family. The risks are probably less than say, untested tractors taking to the roads daily - a risk which also hasn't resulted in carnage of families either. Emotive calls for additional regulation surely should be backed up with some evidence of practical value. I'm not convinced that there is much of a case here.

    I agree, the risks are very small due to the proportionately small number of cars involved and the hugely reduced milage covered by these cars. However, I still subscribe to the view that if it can't pass a basic roadworthiness test, it shouldn't be on the road. For me, it's not so much about preventing mass carnage, rather doing as much as feasible to ensure that anything which weighs as much as a car and travels as fast as a car in such proximity to other cars can stop, steer, see and be seen. Even if it saves 1 person from having their legs broken at a pedestrian crossing because an irresponsible classic car driver had bald tyres, then, it's worth doing.

    alastair wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong - my classic is kept pristine, and has been upgraded for safety where possible, and would cope just fine with a NCT test, but applying one-cut-fits-all regulation like the NCT to a range of cars which may or may not have any relevance to modern standards, is just asking for trouble. And for what benefit?
    I think for basic things like tyre age & condition, lighting (functionality rather than performance), structural integrity, brake balance, brake line/linkage condition, you can certainly apply a universal methodology too. It doesn't have to be really fancy, just basic safety.
    It's also important to note that nobody is suggesting applying the current modern NCT test to old cars, it would be a modified version specifically for cars in this age group.
    alastair wrote: »
    How would an obligatory NCT make any difference to elephants? They wouldn't be checking anything other than the reg matching the logbook.

    I thought that the NCT guys played a role in vehicle registration of imported vehicles? They check that a car declared for registration as a 1.6 Sierra isn't a lunatic 4x4 Cosworth. They could also spot that a swanky looking discovery isn't a 70s Range Rover.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,305 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    The VIN is checked too, no?

    Good point. There's still nothing stopping the dodgy owner fixing in their own VIN plate however, as there's no cross-checking of the VIN plate with the chassis as part of the NCT test.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,305 ✭✭✭✭ alastair


    pryantcc wrote: »
    They could also spot that a swanky looking discovery isn't a 70s Range Rover.

    But that doesn't mean it's illegal, or there's anything that would mean it shouldn't be allowed on the road. And unless all NCT staff are briefed on the complexities of what chassis/body swaps are viable/legal, it wouldn't really help identify abuses of the law.


Advertisement