New changes to the testing of vintage Cars/Trucks?

Sam Russell

corktina wrote: »

Means Of Escape wrote: »

there's no need to resort to insults. If a classic wouldn't pass a basic safety check, it shouldn't be on the road, and everyday there are dozens on donedeal that wouldn't pass...

But it is not a basic safety check. It is a full NCT test. A bsic safety test would be fine, but that is not on offer. It is intended to test the car to the specification that it was built to, not basic safety. It will include revving the guts out of the engine (which proves what safety aspect?) and shaking the suspension till it disintegrates, and poking a screw driver till it penetrates the bodywork. Testing brakes, lights, steering, and chassis for safety - OK. That is not on offer.

Cars on DoneDeal are not indicative of all (or even very many) classic cars. Many are obviously try-ons, and are 'spares or repairs' and are priced ridiculously by dreamers.

In the car club I belong to, car safety is taken very seriously, and cars are all well maintained, and are driven safely and regularly checked by the more knowlegeable members. I think most car clubs are the same.

I am in favour of a basic safety check, but not done by the NCT.

Sam Russell

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

I think they should test "classic drivers" (drivers over 70) annually, and not classic cars.
Which one contibutes to more accidents, hmmmmm

They do - well those over 80, and those over 70 get checked every 3 years. The test is a medical check, including eyesight. For someone who passed his test at 20, this will be the first time that his eyesight will be checked in 50 years (as far driving is concerned).

Edit: and also the first time his health will have been check for driving.

corktina

Sam Russell wrote: »

corktina wrote: »

But it is not a basic safety check. It is a full NCT test. A bsic safety test would be fine, but that is not on offer. It is intended to test the car to the specification that it was built to, not basic safety. It will include revving the guts out of the engine (which proves what safety aspect?) and shaking the suspension till it disintegrates, and poking a screw driver till it penetrates the bodywork. Testing brakes, lights, steering, and chassis for safety - OK. That is not on offer.

Cars on DoneDeal are not indicative of all (or even very many) classic cars. Many are obviously try-ons, and are 'spares or repairs' and are priced ridiculously by dreamers.

In the car club I belong to, car safety is taken very seriously, and cars are all well maintained, and are driven safely and regularly checked by the more knowlegeable members. I think most car clubs are the same.

I am in favour of a basic safety check, but not done by the NCT.

It's not anthing yet. It's only a consultation at this stage.

Whatever cars are on DD, they are still able to be used on the road with no NCt if pre 1980 and could be death traps.

Do you not realise how you are proving the case with your post? If a car falls apart during an NCT it might just as easily do that on the road and as for poking with a screwdriver...well, don't you think it's a good idea to find out if a car
is so rotten you can make a hole with a screwdriver?

corktina

Sam Russell wrote: »

They do - well those over 80, and those over 70 get checked every 3 years. The test is a medical check, including eyesight. For someone who passed his test at 20, this will be the first time that his eyesight will be checked in 50 years (as far driving is concerned).

Edit: and also the first time his health will have been check for driving.

that's nonsense. All you need is a letter from your GP. There is no medical or eyesight check

Means Of Escape

Sam Russell wrote: »

corktina wrote: »

But it is not a basic safety check. It is a full NCT test. A bsic safety test would be fine, but that is not on offer. It is intended to test the car to the specification that it was built to, not basic safety. It will include revving the guts out of the engine (which proves what safety aspect?) and shaking the suspension till it disintegrates, and poking a screw driver till it penetrates the bodywork. Testing brakes, lights, steering, and chassis for safety - OK. That is not on offer.

Cars on DoneDeal are not indicative of all (or even very many) classic cars. Many are obviously try-ons, and are 'spares or repairs' and are priced ridiculously by dreamers.

In the car club I belong to, car safety is taken very seriously, and cars are all well maintained, and are driven safely and regularly checked by the more knowlegeable members. I think most car clubs are the same.

I am in favour of a basic safety check, but not done by the NCT.

A safety check is not on the cards
It's an NCT or nothing whatever way one rolls the dice
There won't be any tailor made test ,you will get an allowance on the emissions but all the rest of the testing will be applied.
You will be hit with 3 points on your licence on your limited use of a car with no NCT
The RSA are no longer being funded by the government and get their funds from a slice of the NCT charge
More cars in the net more revenue
The NCT will not guarantee that your car will not develop a mechanical fault as you drive away after the cert is issued

You as a classic/ vintage owner are responsible for the maintenance of the car and if you crash like a modern car you will pay for it in your next premium
If you know anything about the car you drive you will know the basic mechanical trouble spots
You will know the feel of the car ie steering and have it addressed
As it stands there hasn't been a fatality callingin this division of cars or a major collision.
The insurance companies aren't looking for it, club members in general aren't seeking it , the gardai aren't demanding it only the RSA so why agree to it?
If you want total peace if mind then nct it off your own bat
A blanket compulsory nct for all vintage cars is unnecessary and there is no basis for it .
If you drive a NCTd car like a clown you will crash as you will with a non NCTd vintage car
Difference is vintage car owners don't and hence the non exsistent crash rates.

mattroche

Cortina, I beg to differ. I had my SECOND eyesight test last June in order to renew my driving licence, and it was quite stringent, as was the first one. I have been driving since 1958, and " touch wood", accident free!. The forms that one has to fill in are quite detailed, but of course, people can give false information. However, the eyesight test is a different matter, unless you get a careless doctor. My doctor told me 3 years ago, when I had my first test, which included all the classes, that he does not need to know if I am capable of driving a lorry or not, so long as I was medically fit to do so. I agree that there are some seniors on the road that perhaps should consider their position in relation to their driving, but then again at times that also applies to all ages.

corktina

mattroche wrote: »

Cortina, I beg to differ. I had my SECOND eyesight test last June in order to renew my driving licence, and it was quite stringent, as was the first one. I have been driving since 1958, and " touch wood", accident free!. The forms that one has to fill in are quite detailed, but of course, people can give false information. However, the eyesight test is a different matter, unless you get a careless doctor. My doctor told me 3 years ago, when I had my first test, which included all the classes, that he does not need to know if I am capable of driving a lorry or not, so long as I was medically fit to do so. I agree that there are some seniors on the road that perhaps should consider their position in relation to their driving, but then again at times that also applies to all ages.

maybe there has been a change, but then maybe the Lorry license is different.?

Sam Russell

corktina wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

It's not anthing yet. It's only a consultation at this stage.

Whatever cars are on DD, they are still able to be used on the road with no NCt if pre 1980 and could be death traps.

Do you not realise how you are proving the case with your post? If a car falls apart during an NCT it might just as easily do that on the road and as for poking with a screwdriver...well, don't you think it's a good idea to find out if a car
is so rotten you can make a hole with a screwdriver?

Have you read the consultation document? It says that the tests may need modification to the parts about glass, headlamp aim, tyre specification. Oil leaks in the transmission might have to be ignored because of 'vehicle's design characteristics'. Missing exterior mirrors.

As for DD cars, it is an offence to drive an unroadworthy car on the road. Always has been. The NCT is not proof a car is roadworthy, only that it passed the NCT test on a particular day, at a particular time.

Poking with a screw driver does not prove that the chassis is strong. A well bodged chassis will not give for a screwdriver, but will in a serious collision.

Sam Russell

corktina wrote: »

maybe there has been a change, but then maybe the Lorry license is different.?

If he has been driving since 1958, he has a FULL licence including lorries under 7.5 tonnes. The doctor has to certify he is medically fit, and doeas so in any way he thinka appropriate, but has to stand over such tests. He also certifies eyesight and does a full test on eyesight - he does not just tick a box. Furthermore, the form is not just

Driver John is fit - signed Dr. Bill MD. - It ask many detailed questions.

The area that the RSA should be concentrating on - eyesight, and testing driving skills of those that have a full licence without a test cert.

corktina

and your point is?

It's the cars on donedeal that are dangerous and are able to drive on the road with no testing at all which will force the NCT or a lesser test on all cars. It is in the interests of the "Community" to get these removed from the road.

Prodding with a screwdriver may well prove exactly the opposite! (that a car is not safe)

swarlb

I've read all the above posts and am more confused than ever, can some answer these questions with a simple yes or no answer...

Will all cars built between 1880 and 1980 have to pass an NCT ?
If they fail will they have to be scrapped ?

Means Of Escape

corktina wrote: »

and your point is?

It's the cars on donedeal that are dangerous and are able to drive on the road with no testing at all which will force the NCT or a lesser test on all cars. It is in the interests of the "Community" to get these removed from the road.

Prodding with a screwdriver may well prove exactly the opposite! (that a car is not safe)

Why remove them from the road?
Accident risk?
Danger to the community overall?
Any stats to validate this stance of yours?

corktina

swarlb wrote: »

I've read all the above posts and am more confused than ever, can some answer these questions with a simple yes or no answer...

Will all cars built between 1880 and 1980 have to pass an NCT ?
If they fail will they have to be scrapped ?

possibly (yes)

and (no) won't be allowed on the road until they pass if so

Sam Russell

swarlb wrote: »

I've read all the above posts and am more confused than ever, can some answer these questions with a simple yes or no answer...

Will all cars built between 1880 and 1980 have to pass an NCT ?
If they fail will they have to be scrapped ?

I think it is most likely that all cars built from 1880 to 1960 will be exempt.
From the document, 1960 to 1980 - NCT required, followed by scrapping.

If they fail, they are scrap, unless a very large effort is put in to keep them on the road. For most ordinary cars - that means scrap. An Austin Metro - probably not worth saving, yet an MG Midget - probably, an E type, deffo worth saving.

There are no accidents that an NCT would avert in this cohort of cars.

Means Of Escape

Of course one could argue that there are those who support the move as they have put a bucket load of cash and time into restoring a car that they hope will increase in value if "poorer" examples of the same model gets scrapped.
These are known as the "could you have brought something better to the show"bunch who look down on others cars that are not up to par.
Cars from Donedeal that have cosmetic issues for example
Those who flock to find fault.

swarlb

corktina wrote: »

possibly (yes)

and (no) won't be allowed on the road until they pass if so

Possibly !!!
Most, if not a vast percentage of 'modern' cars that fail the current NCT, are allowed leave the rest centre, until such time as they undergo whatever repairs are deemed suitable.
Why would there be different regime for 'classics' ?

corktina

he asked two questions and I gave two answers.....


possibly they will need a test
and
no they wont have to be scrapped if they fail.

Why twist my words?

swarlb

corktina wrote: »

he asked two questions and I gave two answers.....


possibly they will need a test
and
no they wont have to be scrapped if they fail.

Why twist my words?

I'm not twisting your words, because what is written above is not what you said in the post.
Anyway, regardless of all that, the correct answer is that nobody knows for certain what is going to happen.
Having a heated debate about 'muppets' ripping floors asunder with metal probes, revving engines till they explode, tearing suspension and brake systems asunder is pure conjecture.
If it happens, it happens, get on with it.
'Classic' cars owners do not deserve any more special treatment than anyone else.
If a car, any car has a 'rusty chassis', subframe, floor, insofar as there are 'holes' in the structure, then it should be fixed. You don't need a test to tell you that.
If a car is spewing multi-coloured smoke from its exhaust, or leaking fluids, then it should be fixed, you don't need a test to tell you that.
If a car has defective brakes, suspension, steering, tyres etc, then it should be fixed, you don't need a test to tell you that.
However, and this is the issue, if there is no test, to tell you what is wrong (or not wrong) with your car, chances are you'll ignore it, and not fix the problem, till it is a real problem.

corktina

swarlb wrote: »

I'm not twisting your words, because what is written above is not what you said in the post.
Anyway, regardless of all that, the correct answer is that nobody knows for certain what is going to happen.
Having a heated debate about 'muppets' ripping floors asunder with metal probes, revving engines till they explode, tearing suspension and brake systems asunder is pure conjecture.
If it happens, it happens, get on with it.
'Classic' cars owners do not deserve any more special treatment than anyone else.
If a car, any car has a 'rusty chassis', subframe, floor, insofar as there are 'holes' in the structure, then it should be fixed. You don't need a test to tell you that.
If a car is spewing multi-coloured smoke from its exhaust, or leaking fluids, then it should be fixed, you don't need a test to tell you that.
If a car has defective brakes, suspension, steering, tyres etc, then it should be fixed, you don't need a test to tell you that.
However, and this is the issue, if there is no test, to tell you what is wrong (or not wrong) with your car, chances are you'll ignore it, and not fix the problem, till it is a real problem.

yeah, it wasn't me said that stuff and, I agree , you need a test to deal with the guys who will ignore those problems.

Means Of Escape

corktina wrote: »

yeah, it wasn't me said that stuff and, I agree , you need a test to deal with the guys who will ignore those problems.

Break out the egg sandwiches and tartan coloured flask.

alastair

swarlb wrote: »

I'm not twisting your words, because what is written above is not what you said in the post.
Anyway, regardless of all that, the correct answer is that nobody knows for certain what is going to happen.
Having a heated debate about 'muppets' ripping floors asunder with metal probes, revving engines till they explode, tearing suspension and brake systems asunder is pure conjecture.
If it happens, it happens, get on with it.
'Classic' cars owners do not deserve any more special treatment than anyone else.
If a car, any car has a 'rusty chassis', subframe, floor, insofar as there are 'holes' in the structure, then it should be fixed. You don't need a test to tell you that.
If a car is spewing multi-coloured smoke from its exhaust, or leaking fluids, then it should be fixed, you don't need a test to tell you that.
If a car has defective brakes, suspension, steering, tyres etc, then it should be fixed, you don't need a test to tell you that.
However, and this is the issue, if there is no test, to tell you what is wrong (or not wrong) with your car, chances are you'll ignore it, and not fix the problem, till it is a real problem.

There are lots of classic cars on the road that are designed with leaking fluids from new, that have ample colourful smoke coming out the back, from new, and have brakes and suspension that never adhered to NCT test standards. Admittedly they're mostly pre '60, but the principle remains the same - they certain do demand 'special treatment', because they are special - insofar as modern testing standards are concerned.

Sam Russell

alastair wrote: »

There are lots of classic cars on the road that are designed with leaking fluids from new, that have ample colourful smoke coming out the back, from new, and have brakes and suspension that never adhered to NCT test standards. Admittedly they're mostly pre '60, but the principle remains the same - they certain do demand 'special treatment', because they are special - insofar as modern testing standards are concerned.

That is actually mentioned in the consultation document as needing special consideration, along with modifying the brake requirements. I think rust is another item that requires special consideration.

These vehicles average 2,000km per year, and are not involved in collisions that cause harm. The insurance companies have no interest in having this test.

So where is this coming from?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

The IVCC response says it all, pretty similar to my view if I'm honest

http://www.ivvcc.ie/php/site.php?page=rsaresponse

hi5

Tomorrow is the closing date for anyone that hasn't filled it out yet.....



http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Vehicle%...ponse_Form.doc


The closing date for receipt of submissions is Friday 14 November 2014. Your feedback should be e-mailed to: vintagevehicles@rsa.ie 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

swarlb

alastair wrote: »

There are lots of classic cars on the road that are designed with leaking fluids from new, that have ample colourful smoke coming out the back, from new, and have brakes and suspension that never adhered to NCT test standards. Admittedly they're mostly pre '60, but the principle remains the same - they certain do demand 'special treatment', because they are special - insofar as modern testing standards are concerned.

I never said the cars did not need special treatment. I said that people who OWN classic cars should not be treated any differently than any other car owner.
I never said that 'modern testing' standards should be applied to older cars. I simply said that cars need to be tested in order to point out what may or may not be wrong with them, in order to have them maintained to a particular standard.

kadman

No matter what type of NCT test for classic cars, soft test or hard approach.

If the tester still has the "Visual Fail Refusal weapon ", then I have no doubt , most will fail first time out.

I personally believe that most new age laptop mechanics would have no clue about oldschool motors. Despite any proposed further training.

If its down to basic roadworthiness testing, then it might be a different matter.

But visual, and a rust bubble, then beware.

Dades

hi5 wrote: »

Tomorrow is the closing date for anyone that hasn't filled it out yet.....

Just sent mine off. Thanks for the reminder.

Means Of Escape

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is actually mentioned in the consultation document as needing special consideration, along with modifying the brake requirements. I think rust is another item that requires special consideration.

These vehicles average 2,000km per year, and are not involved in collisions that cause harm. The insurance companies have no interest in having this test.

So where is this coming from?

It's coming from the RSA who will benefit from more cars being brought under the nct requirement umbrella.
Nct fee- revenue for the RSA
Grasping for funds off a group that have the best safety record on the roads.
Hopefully enough members will pressure them to take a long walk off a short pier .

macplaxton

It's coming from the EU.

Directive 2014/45/EU has to be transposed into national law by 20th May 2018.

Member States can't sit on their backsides and do nothing, they have to tidy things up and implement the directive. There's scope for interpretation, but even if they wanted to keep the current date, they'd have to apply more than just the criterion of age.

They have to apply the other two criteria:

— its specific type, as defined in the relevant Union or national law, is no longer in production;

— it is historically preserved and maintained in its original state and has not undergone substantial changes in the technical characteristics of its main components;

Now whether the RSA use this opportunity to implement the directive in its most basic form or to gold-plate it massively is another matter.

corktina

It's that "original state" that is going to catch a lot of people out

macplaxton

There's still plenty of scope for defining the following terms?

"original"

"substantial"

"main components"

At one end of the scale you have the unrestored, unused vehicle and at the other a full custom/retro chop. But where is the cross-over point? When the points get chucked for a Lumenition? Or when the chassis gets chopped around?

unkel

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Break out the egg sandwiches and tartan coloured flask.

You're more than welcome to continue discussing this subject. But let's play the ball, not the man.

Sam Russell

macplaxton wrote: »

There's still plenty of scope for defining the following terms?

"original"

"substantial"

"main components"

At one end of the scale you have the unrestored, unused vehicle and at the other a full custom/retro chop. But where is the cross-over point? When the points get chucked for a Lumenition? Or when the chassis gets chopped around?

The UK do not follow the lead of Germany, Spain, and others because there is substantial economic activity in the vintage vehicle world. In Spain Germany and others, the car must be as built, but the UK use a set of rules that use a points system for major components. We do not have the expertise to follow that, unless we use the VRT system to verify the cars - and that is not going to happen.

Nearly all such cars are modified in some way - mostly because the engines, brakes, suspension are all upgraded to make the car safer and more driveable. Extra mirrors and safety belts are common.

I think this requirement for originality will be ignored.

Having asked, will they accept the answers?

macplaxton

Who's talking about the UK? I'm not.

I'm just throwing the quotes straight from the EU directive into the conversation. It's those things that have to be defined, because the directive doesn't say "ah sure grand it's over 30", it adds two conditions on top of that.

So if the directive is to be properly implemented, then it how can the requirement for originality be ignored? It can't be.

corktina

Sam Russell wrote: »

The UK do not follow the lead of Germany, Spain, and others because there is substantial economic activity in the vintage vehicle world. In Spain Germany and others, the car must be as built, but the UK use a set of rules that use a points system for major components. We do not have the expertise to follow that, unless we use the VRT system to verify the cars - and that is not going to happen.

Nearly all such cars are modified in some way - mostly because the engines, brakes, suspension are all upgraded to make the car safer and more driveable. Extra mirrors and safety belts are common.

I think this requirement for originality will be ignored.

Having asked, will they accept the answers?

doesn't it follow that if a car has been upgraded "for safety", that someone needs to check those modcifications to ensure they are in fact safe?.

alastair

macplaxton wrote: »

Who's talking about the UK? I'm not.

I'm just throwing the quotes straight from the EU directive into the conversation. It's those things that have to be defined, because the directive doesn't say "ah sure grand it's over 30", it adds two conditions on top of that.

So if the directive is to be properly implemented, then it how can the requirement for originality be ignored? It can't be.

The requirement for originality doesn't need to be ignored, it just needs to have a very loose interpretation of what originality means applied. I'd expect that the actual boundary of originality resides somewhere in the 'restomod' territory, and certainly would not extend into 'custom/rod' territory. Essentially a car that retains the substance, rather than the veneer of the original design. If they opt to take that approach, which is subjective (as indeed any approach is going to have to be - how many historically important classics are Trigger's broom candidates?) - then this shouldn't have to be a problem.

What's of more concern is that the definition of historic interest cars stipulates exceptional and infrequent use on public roads. Again there's scope for interpretation of what that means, but it certainly doesn't look like a daily driver qualifies.

alastair

corktina wrote: »

doesn't it follow that if a car has been upgraded "for safety", that someone needs to check those modcifications to ensure they are in fact safe?.

Not if the car is exempted from testing, it doesn't.

swarlb

Forget about what happens in the rest of the world for a minute, and concentrate on what happens here.
For argument sake, take that a 'classic' car is 30 years old, or older.
1984 back to dot....
How many people drive pre 1984 cars as dailys. What I mean by dailys, is every single day, ferry the kids to school, back and forth to work, up and down to the shops, and at the weekend all polished up and off to the show.
How many 'daily' 1970's, 60's, 50's, etc do you see on the road.

Very very few I would imagine.

If you intend using a 'classic' as a daily, mixing it with modern traffic, on busy roads etc, then the car should be tested, the same as everyone else.

If, however, you have a beautiful example of a classic, every last nut and bolt correct, spotless and rust free, living in de-humidified storage and cared for better than your children, and brought out (only in fine weather) to bee seen and enjoyed...
It may also need to be tested.
Old cars that are not used that much, can suffer from all kinds, no matter how well they are looked after.
The brake hose that worked ok on the way to Terenure, may simply fail after a winter on non use.
In the same way that a brake hose on a 3 or 4 year old car may simply fail.

corktina

alastair wrote: »

Not if the car is exempted from testing, it doesn't.

but that's the point of what they are trying to do....exemption for standard cars over a certain age, but test for modified vehicles because noone knows how the modifications will affect safety.

alastair

corktina wrote: »

but that's the point of what they are trying to do....exemption for standard cars over a certain age, but test for modified vehicles because noone knows how the modifications will affect safety.

The distinction between 'modified' and 'unmodified' becomes the issue then. I've replaced all the brake lines in my car with stainless steel lines. It's a modification from standard for sure, but no more contentious than replacing the worn/damaged lines with OEM lines. Where does the line between entirely OEM maintenance/replacement and non-stock / third party substitution become an issue of safety? The cack-handed installation of OEM parts may well be far more dangerous than expert installation of non-stock parts.

My car is modified on the following basis: stainless brake lines, distributor replaced with 123 Ignition, upgraded Bilstein shocks, non-stock rear springs, later model alloys and 'modern' tires, halogen headlights, non-stock fuel pump, and it's about to have the speedo and rev counter renovated, including converting the rev counter from RVI to RVC. So it's certainly not stock, but the scope for introducing additional safety risks over the replacement of any of those components with stock parts (which are no longer available in a number of cases) is pretty hard to identify.

whisky_galore

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/nct-backlog-may-leave-drivers-at-risk-of-penalty-points-651203.html

If they can't fix the existing set up without bringing classics into the system, think of the mayhem extra cars would create.

Sam Russell

corktina wrote: »

doesn't it follow that if a car has been upgraded "for safety", that someone needs to check those modcifications to ensure they are in fact safe?.

Insurance companies would be the obvious ones to have an interest in safety, but they are not prime movers in this. Obviously, it is not an issue.

All the statistics available suggest that cars over 30 years old are not involved in any significant way in road traffic accidents.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Sam Russell wrote: »

Insurance companies would be the obvious ones to have an interest in safety, but they are not prime movers in this. Obviously, it is not an issue.

All the statistics available suggest that cars over 30 years old are not involved in any significant way in road traffic accidents.

This is a point that has been mentioned often during this discussion - however does not seem to have been grasped/acknowledged by those in favor of such a move.

corktina

Isn't it the EU who are the prime movers?

I made the point the other day that if you viewed a random sample of pre 1980 cars for sale on Donedeal, you would find most of them were dangerous or illegal in some way. Never mind the well mantained cars of Club Members, the point is to get these cars checked and off the road if they aren't up to scratch.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

corktina wrote: »

Isn't it the EU who are the prime movers?

Yes it's as a result of an EU directive.

Means Of Escape

corktina wrote: »

Isn't it the EU who are the prime movers?

I made the point the other day that if you viewed a random sample of pre 1980 cars for sale on Donedeal, you would find most of them were dangerous or illegal in some way. Never mind the well mantained cars of Club Members, the point is to get these cars checked and off the road if they aren't up to scratch.

Getting them off the road for what purpose?
That they pose a danger to the public?
No evidence to support this statement.
Most cars that have been involved in serious collisions over the past year probably had a valid NCT so that would void the argument .

Driver behaviour rather than mechanical failure causes accidents.

whisky_galore

corktina wrote: »

Isn't it the EU who are the prime movers?

I made the point the other day that if you viewed a random sample of pre 1980 cars for sale on Donedeal, you would find most of them were dangerous or illegal in some way. Never mind the well mantained cars of Club Members, the point is to get these cars checked and off the road if they aren't up to scratch.

And you can tell if it's illegal with only a small pic to go on? And are they intended as up for breaking or 'restoration projects'?

whisky_galore

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Yes it's as a result of an EU directive.

They say 'jump' and we ask 'how high' ?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

whisky_galore wrote: »

They say 'jump' and we ask 'how high' ?

Pretty much.
Although a rolling 30 year exemption would be in keeping with the directive.

Sam Russell

corktina wrote: »

Isn't it the EU who are the prime movers?

I made the point the other day that if you viewed a random sample of pre 1980 cars for sale on Donedeal, you would find most of them were dangerous or illegal in some way. Never mind the well mantained cars of Club Members, the point is to get these cars checked and off the road if they aren't up to scratch.

1. It is an offence to drive a car that is not road worthy on a public road. The cars on DD are not indicative of the state of the general population of pre-1980 cars. Merely it shows the dreams of greedy people. Do any actually sell? Or are they the beginings of elephants?

2. 27% of 4 year old cars tested last year failed. That means that they were unroadworthy going to the test centre (and on the way home). How many 2 year-old cars would fail? 63% of cars 10 years and older failed the NCT. Annual testing should apply to ALL cars under 10 years old, since even 4 year old cars are failing. Annual testing would reduce the time between tests so that faults are caught early.

3. No statistics exist that suggest that road traffic accidents are caused by 'unsafe' cars in any significant way. The main causes centre on the driver and road conditions.

These figures would suggest that the test is too severe or not needed at all. I would think it is too severe and is intended to get older vehicles off the road and into the crusher.