af_thefragile wrote: » Agree with this! NCT should depend on the condition of the car, not its age. A car that's over 10yrs old but very well looked after and has been thoroughly fixed will be in a better condition than a 5 or 6yr old car that has been driven thousands of miles or has been thrashed around everywhere and been looked after very poorly by the owner. Just because the car is older than 10yrs is no reason to be paying an extra 55eur to maintain it every year for what is a very basic check up.
yeppydeppy wrote: » How can a nut be the wrong way around? You'll have to explain this further?
Eeeyore wrote: » Explain to me why it is important that a little LED light on my Dashboard works or not if this is a safety Test and meant to determine if a Car is Road Worthy or not how many Road accidents have been the cause of a non working LED Light, The cost is not the issue here how about wasting my time it is just people having a slight bit of power and just deciding to fail on silly things, sure when I brought it back your man who did pass it seemed surprised it was failed on that so a bloody Jobsworth failed it if you ask me.
davet82 wrote: » I don't bother with nct's the guards couldn't give a shyte its only there if they pull somebody in they don't like or the car looks like a death trap
LordSutch wrote: » My diesel failed the NCT last year due to the emissions being slightly off, I also got a warning re one of my tyres (that may need replacing) before the next NCT, fair enough . . . . I got the emissions sorted, the car had passed its NCT and I drove home a happy driver. Looking in the rear view mirror as I drove home in the rain I smiled as I noticed that the rear wiper rubber blade was in tatters, literally the rubber had perished and was in tatters, but hey I had my NCT and the emissions were sorted
Yawns wrote: » Anything that helps to get the worst of the cars off the road.
Larbre34 wrote: » All the little loopholes are closing fast. Wont matter about the Guards pulling you in for no NCT, it'll be a case of if you don't have any of tax, insurance, or NCT you wont be able to apply for any other, ie no tax-no insurance-no NCT-no insurance-no tax.
kneemos wrote: » So fog lights are working proberly and people know when it's on,a malfunctioning bulb could mean a faulty circuit presumably.
flutterflye wrote: » I gave my car to my brother and he took it for nct there few weeks ago. It failed because the attachment where the wipers go into were the wrong model for that car. I had that car 5 years and it had 2 ncts - No one ever mentioned it before - Those attachment yolks weren't changed since I got the car like. And they worked perfectly too - Even your man in the nct place told my brother they worked fine, but he needed to get the correct make and model ones for that particular car.
anncoates wrote: » Not true. Or maybe it's the case down the country. I know two different people who had their cars taken off them there and then because their NCT was so out of date.
jimmy180sx wrote: » I had to read this twice also. Thought maybe someone was having a laugh!!
Play To Kill wrote: » I presume the tapered end of the wheel nut was facing inwards.
davet82 wrote: » you're friends must be little scumbags then
anncoates wrote: » They know the difference between your and you're, to be fair.
Kevin Irving wrote: » How far do you want to go with 'worst'? Anything without the best tyres available, anything without ABS, anything without a 5 star crash rating?
The most dangerous thing about any car is the driver, so there has to be some reasoning behind the cost and frequency of the testing regime.
davet82 wrote: » educated scum, lovely
Fratton Fred wrote: » Maybe that is why there are so many pricks driving around with their fog lights on?
anncoates wrote: » If you had to say that to either of their faces. you;d wet your pants. Now, run along. The grown-ups are talking.
Raggaroo wrote: » Driving without an up to date NCT will probably invalidate you insurance if you happen to be in a crash, insurance companies will look for any loophole to invalidate a claim.
inforfun wrote: » NCT centres here have no (financial) interest to fail your car other than maybe for a paid retest.
Grimreaper666 wrote: » If you think it's bad now just wait till the new wave of emission tightening measures come into play!! The next generation of cars on the way will have duel catalytic converters to add to the crap we already have to put up with! I am just soooo sick of all the rules and regulations here and the ones being imposed on us from the EU. The bottom line is all about control and taxes, comply sheeple and pay ye're taxes or we'll fine ye!!
Larbre34 wrote: » All the little loopholes are closing fast. Wont matter about the Guards pulling you in for no NCT, it'll be a case of if you don't have any of tax, insurance, or NCT you wont be able to apply for any other, ie no tax-no insurance-no NCT-no insurance-no tax. 'Off the road' declarations are gone as well, if you own the car, even if you're using it as a chicken coop, itll need tax on it boss. My major car based gripe is that my 8 year old Diesel with modern particulate filters which makes it clean and efficient even to todays standards would cost me €390 to tax if it were on a >2008 plate, but because I cant afford to change it for a newer car, costs me €673. Utter bullsh*t.
Wibbs wrote: » and it keeps the motor industry going too. You can see that with other nations and their testing. Take Japan. If you think our NCT is bad, jeeebus theirs is only mad Ted. One reason why Jap imports were usually in such good condition and was tempting for dodgy gits here(ie most of them) to "clock" the mileage. Plus in Japan, the older the car, the more you incrementally pay for the test, so it makes economic sense to keep updating your car which keeps Toyota San happy. IMH the emission stuff is a lot of ballsology, or mostly ballsology anyway. It makes eff all difference to the environment when ranged against all the other sources of pollution. Plus manufacturing a car is pretty damn heavy on the environment. IMHO it makes more "green" sense to keep an old car going for half a million miles than to buy a new car every three years.
Wibbs wrote: » IMH the emission stuff is a lot of ballsology, or mostly ballsology anyway. It makes eff all difference to the environment when ranged against all the other sources of pollution. Plus manufacturing a car is pretty damn heavy on the environment. IMHO it makes more "green" sense to keep an old car going for half a million miles than to buy a new car every three years.