2013 number plates to be changed to avoid ‘unlucky 13’

Smcgie · 24-08-2012 11:25AM

If anyone says we don't live in a nanny state - you're wrong

Defiler Of The Coffin · 24-08-2012 11:29AM

Smcgie wrote: »

If anyone says we don't live in a nanny state - you're wrong

More to do with Motor Industry lobbying than nanny state-ism I would say

Katunga · 24-08-2012 11:32AM

Would this not be the responsibility of the department of transport not the department of finance.

Will the still have it in 2014 eg 141/142 to keep the sales stable through out that year?

Larbre34 · 24-08-2012 11:35AM

13-DL-666. Id ferking love that rego.

People are gobsheens.

partyatmygaff · 24-08-2012 11:36AM

This doesn't have as much to do with superstition as much as it has to do with boosting new car sales around the middle of the year.

ManMade · 24-08-2012 11:37AM

Its more simi want to bring in another new reg for all those reg concious Celtic tiger housewives .Bet you if this came in next it might work so well we can keep it for 2014 and so on. Nothing really to do with what people want since when does the government gives us what we want? I'd prefer the uk system where you have the choice of a custom reg. Oh what would simi do then when keeping your car looks in good order instead of some nr on the reg.

ncmc · 24-08-2012 11:39AM

28064212 wrote: »

This:

was anecdotal.

Fair enough, my example was anecdotal. Maybe I am being naive, but I presume the SIMI are going off more than a few anecdotes!

What? So SIMI claim to have evidence that changing the system will be a good thing, but won't release that evidence until the changes are made? That's nonsense.

Sorry, I worded that badly, SIMI are not commenting on the proposed changes and the ongoing discussions until some changes are confirmed.

You missed my point. SIMI announcing "less people are going to buy next year" does not mean we should invest in changing the licence plate system, unless they've established that changing the system will actually make a difference
[I]
Again, maybe I am being naive, but I presume if they have managed to convince the government, then they must be pretty confident that their changes will have some positive impact [/I]

http://images.gemsites.com/skupeuser/images/5/file/SIMI%20Budget%20Proposals%202012%20Summary.pdf

So maybe it is naivety on my part, but why would the SIMI spend so much time and effort lobbying for this if they didn't think it would prevent car sales falling. I know research isn't guaranteed, and no one can say with absolute certainty that it will work. But they must think that there's a strong case for change.

Casillas · 24-08-2012 11:39AM

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

To avoid confusion & a lifeime of bad luck, I wonder will children born next year be registered as born in 20131/32 :eek:

What will happen when the real 20131 arrives - can vintage cars avoid the NCT?

hahah! But that would be car-azy!

AnonoBoy · 24-08-2012 11:44AM

Smcgie wrote: »

If anyone says we don't live in a nanny state - you're wrong

This is nothing to do with being a nanny state.

This is just f*cking stupid.

Oink · 24-08-2012 11:48AM

Marissa Bitter Gravel wrote: »

Being superstitious doesn't make someone a idiot. [...]

Why yes. Yes it does. Thanks for asking.

Marissa Bitter Gravel wrote: »

[...] You will find most people are a least a bit superstitious [...]

You are right. Everybody is a little dumb in their own way.

I, for one, accept that inherent dumbness. But I don't publicize the fact (except right now. dadgummit. oh the irony).

later12 · 24-08-2012 11:50AM

useless wrote: »

Hang on a second, the article in the Indo says "A government spokesman confirmed that the Department of Finance was actively considering the proposed change as part of a consultation process with the motor industry"

"Actively considering" doesn't mean it's going to happen... I would hope that the DoF and the DoEnvt between them realise this is a stupid idea.

My reading of that is that the Government are considering doing this every year; but that next year 13 will be avoided like the colour green, or driving without a Padre Pio medal.

ncmc · 24-08-2012 11:51AM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

This is nothing to do with being a nanny state.

This is just f*cking stupid.

I certainly don’t argue with you that superstition over the number 13 is daft, but lets say for arguments sake, the SIMI questioned 1000 people who would be due to change their cars next year (a lot of people change their cars every 2 years) and 250 of those people said they would seriously re-consider buying a car with the reg 13-D-XXXX or whatever, wouldn’t the SIMI be seriously negligent if they didn’t try and do something about it?

And stupid or not, I have come across more people than you would believe who have said they won’t or would have serious second thoughts about buying a car next year (I know, I know, 28064212, that is only anecdotal, but I do come into contact every day with people who are looking to buy new cars so I reckon my anecdotes are worth more than most

)

Also you have to remember, that a fall in new cars, causes a reduction in good used cars too, so all in all, it’s a total balls! :mad:

ejmaztec · 24-08-2012 11:51AM

The last four years haven't exactly been lucky and there isn't a 13 in any of them.

notnumber · 24-08-2012 11:55AM

13 is unlucky--2013 is'nt

24-08-2012 11:55AM

ncmc wrote: »

I certainly don’t argue with you that superstition over the number 13 is daft, but lets say for arguments sake, the SIMI questioned 1000 people who would be due to change their cars next year (a lot of people change their cars every 2 years) and 250 of those people said they would seriously re-consider buying a car with the reg 13-D-XXXX or whatever, wouldn’t the SIMI be seriously negligent if they didn’t try and do something about it?

They would be seriously negligent if they didn't follow it up by asking them would the reg 131-D-XXXX change their mind.

batistuta9 · 24-08-2012 11:56AM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This doesn't have as much to do with superstition as much as it has to do with boosting new car sales around the middle of the year.

how will this happen? seen a few people mention it

mitosis · 24-08-2012 11:56AM

Penn wrote: »

"My hotel doesn't have a 13th floor because of superstition, but people on the 14th floor, you know what floor you're really on!" - Mitch Hedberg

All Hail Penn's avatar!

Best news story this year.

24-08-2012 11:57AM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Being slightly superstitious is one thing.

But if someone doesn't want to buy a car because the number 13 is on the reg plate then they're an idiot.

To be honest in thinking about it a bit more I more or less agree with you on taking it to that extreme.

later12 · 24-08-2012 12:04PM

batistuta9 wrote: »

how will this happen? seen a few people mention it

If you feel like buying a car in the second half of the year, you're not discouraged by doing so just because your car will be considered a year old in a few months.

By doubling the registration interval, the idea is that you increase sales.

I'm a little skeptical about that.

Say for example, buying a car becomes unattractive in the 2nd half of the year because of the year's impending expiry. There are six months in which buying a car is an attractive proposition. (Jan-Jun)

Say now we make the registration period biannual; 2 x 6 monthly.

What happens here is that buying a new car becomes potentially unattractive in the second half of each six month period, due to the impending expiry of the new registration period.

So you still only end up with about 6 months of the year where buying a car is an attractive propositon: (Jan-Mar; Jul-Sept)

2 x 3 months = 6 months of concentrated car sales.

Or at least, that could be one theory.

ncmc · 24-08-2012 12:05PM

28064212 wrote: »

They would be seriously negligent if they didn't follow it up by asking them would the reg 131-D-XXXX change their mind.

Well, I presume they did

.

Again, anecdotely

people don't seem to mind the numbers 1 and 3 in their reg, it's just the number 13 on it's own.

I know, I know, people be crazy!

ManMade · 24-08-2012 12:10PM

batistuta9 wrote: »

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This doesn't have as much to do with superstition as much as it has to do with boosting new car sales around the middle of the year.

how will this happen? seen a few people mention it

Means there is a newer reg for another chunk of the year. Say you buy a car now it is new but in a january it will be considered a year old ad it has a 12-D reg. I'm I wrong in saying SIMI lobbied for the current system to make people conscious of the age of their car. Backfired now because less people care (06 golf is still a golf ect) and now when people buy a car it's at the start of the year as for resale it's considered as new as a car bought at any other month so car dealers are making a loss during the last half of the year.

charlemont · 24-08-2012 12:14PM

What a joke, As if we weren't a laughing stock as it is.

suicide_circus · 24-08-2012 12:15PM

This country just went full retard.

SEPT 23 1989 · 24-08-2012 12:16PM

Wait it till the worlds media get their hands on this

Fcuking laughing stock as usual:mad:

later12 · 24-08-2012 12:26PM

charlemont wrote: »

What a joke, As if we weren't a laughing stock as it is.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Wait it till the worlds media get their hands on this

Fcuking laughing stock as usual:mad:

Why are people so paranoid about being a "laughing stock"?

Lots of countries do things which, on the face of it, appear daft.

I doubt you guys take much time out of your day to gather around and chortle loudly with work colleagues or passers-by at silly old Greece, or Uzbekistan, or Alabania?

I don't think really think that Ireland occupies most people's attention to quite that degree.

If this story is true (and I'd be skeptical of the Indo's stated reason for the change, but you do have to take odd irrational behaviour into account) then it's just a bit of a light, fun story about human idiosyncrasies. Relax. I don't think it actually matters a great deal, do you?

galah · 24-08-2012 12:41PM

why not scrap the whole visible reg year thing, cut out all the 'keeping up with the Jones's' crap, stop the jealousy and just get on with it like other civilised countries do?

I never understood the reasoning behind having the date of registration on display in the first place...Just use random numbers, and your problems are solved. Then it also won't matter which half of the year you buy your car in...

Dave! · 24-08-2012 12:42PM

galah wrote: »

why not scrap the whole visible reg year thing, cut out all the 'keeping up with the Jones's' crap, stop the jealousy and just get on with it like other civilised countries do?

I never understood the reasoning behind having the date of registration on display in the first place...Just use random numbers, and your problems are solved.

Was just about to post that... Huzzah!

Larbre34 · 24-08-2012 12:44PM

Just thinking, this is a real boost for criminals.

Imagine turning up in a getaway car 132-LK-14251. Not a hope of the auld wan in the Post Office taking all that down before you were gone

Potentially 10 characters in a reg is nonsense. Other countries have rationalised their systems to a maximum of 7 characters for recognition purposes

And yes I did use LK on purpose

languagenerd · 24-08-2012 12:45PM

And to think we all laughed when Michael Healy-Rae suggested it... Hell, if we're taking suggestions from him now, the country's fecked!

I understand that people are superstitious. But how many of those people who said that they wouldn't buy a 13-reg car were actually planning on buying a new car anyway? I hope the first question on the survey asked "Are you currently planning on buying a new car?". I mean, I could answer saying "No, no, I'd never buy a car with a 13 on the reg!" but in reality, I don't actually have a driving license and I couldn't afford a new car if I did. I think if you were or weren't planning on buying a car next year, this won't affect your opinion in the slightest.

Also, how much money will this change cost? Don't tell me it's only a small change, because in Ireland, paperwork alone seems to cost millions...:(

Sulla Felix · 24-08-2012 12:49PM

blastman wrote: »

In principle, it's a good idea in that all your sales aren't concentrated into the first couple of months of the year. That's why the Britain introduced a two-plates-a-year system a while back. People here are (or were) too obsessed with the reg plate anyway.

Regarding superstitions, a lot of buildings have no 13th floor, and there is no row 13 in most aeroplanes, so we're still a pretty superstitious bunch!

There are. They're just not callled 13. If I were superstitious I wouldn't be banking on Death or the Fates to be dumb enough to fall for the old switcheroo.

2013 number plates to be changed to avoid ‘unlucky 13’

Comments