NCT for bikes?

Rippy

I am not a fan of over-regulation and the way that Ireland is turning into a nanny state, but nobody can deny that since the NCT was introduced the general condition of cars on Irish roads has improved.
Is it not time now that bikes were tested?
We are told that the huge insurance premiums that we pay for our bikes is a reflection on high accident rates for Irish motorcyles in general,surely exempting bikes from any testing contributes to the number of dangerously unroadworthy machines in use.
A proper test,whether conducted by NCT testing stations or licenced garages(like the UK MOT) would be no problem for the majority of riders who keep their bikes in good order.
I wonder how many bike accidents in Ireland are caused by vehicle defects?

johnnyrotten

Its on the Way. I heard the DOE are planning to introduce it in the next 5 years

seamus

I would say very few bike accidents are actually caused primarily by the vehicle being in poor condition. Unlike a car, any serious issue usually causes the bike to be unrideable, or at least very hairy. Perhaps it's just me, but I would assume that most bikers simply would refuse to ride a bike that they weren't comfortable with (i.e. that doesn't function correctly). I'm sure plenty of bikers ride with insufficient brakes or tyres, or an indicator not working here, or a bulb missing there. These are relatively serious issues, but rarely the primary cause of an accident.

If anything, this test would be useful for improving the quality of vehicles available on the second-hand market. Even if you're buying from a dealer, you don't know what you're getting. Quality control is non-existent.

The grapevine is echoing with rumours of such a test being introduced, as johnnyrotten says.

Eye

tbh I doubt that would help, I'm no expert but I wouldn’t think that bike defects would account for many of the accidents on the roads, it's pretty much down to careless/wreckless driving by bike/car drivers.

I know a few people with bikes and although we may not be able to afford brand spanking new machines with all their ABS and other extras we take care of them better than most people treat their cars. Personally speaking my bike is my only form of transport, I simply cannot afford nor can I justify spending €3000+ on third party car insurance, which means I am even more conscious about the road worthiness of my machine. If I have a problem it needs to be sorted ASAP. As I have no other means of transport that means no way to work which in turn means no money which in turn leads to not being able to fix problems with the bike.

When you drive a bike you are very much aware of the dangers that lurk around every corner and every Toyota starlet driver who thinks he's Fernando Alonso. You know that if you bike is not kept in good working order it ain't safe. Add to that the fact that the roads in this country are horrendous for bikes you soon realise what a big deal it is between having a safe bike and becoming another statistic on the news.

That's just my 2c worth anyway. :-\

ridertraining

seamus wrote:

I would assume that most bikers simply would refuse to ride a bike that they weren't comfortable with (i.e. that doesn't function correctly). I'm sure plenty of bikers ride with insufficient brakes or tyres..

So which is it - refuse to ride, or ride with insufficient brakes or tyres?
If you accept that around 2/3rds of crashes involve a car, then tyres and brakes (and training ) are the principal means of avoiding them.

seamus

ridertraining wrote:

So which is it - refuse to ride, or ride with insufficient brakes or tyres?

There's a difference between "most" and "plenty"
You'll also agree there's a difference between a bike that just doesn't feel right (e.g. misaligned forks), and a bike with insufficient brakes and tyres - in the latter case a biker would be more likely to "risk it" because the bike is still mechanically sound.

saobh_ie

Well I would not hand my bike over to anybody but a garage I trust. If some crowd of government contractors want to touch my bike I’ll be standing in the garage with them. The fact is there are probably twenty people in business in this country that I’d trust with my bike, and at this point I only know two of them.

The cost in tooling up test centres country wide with equipment and trained personnel for a bike test would probably be better utilised brining in the CBT, or compulsory basic training. That way anyone who wants to go near a bike would get a minimum of instruction on what can kill you while riding a bike, including the bike itself.

I cannot deny that the condition of cars on the roads (wrapped around lampposts and in the ditches) has improved since the NCT was brought in but the safer roads we were told to expect when all the bangers were gone haven’t materialised.

Additionally somebody else mentioned that when something goes wrong on a bike you won’t be able to get out of the drive way, let along drive around for weeks, months or years with in bad shape. Parts would fall of and the machine would stop or you’d get dumped on your ass before you got a mile. If you didn’t get hit by a car first =D.

Hence, your average motorcyclist would take greater care of their machine than your average car driver, who is unlikely to die if their car suddenly dumps its engine oil into the road.

How many bike accidents are caused by mechanical failures, probably the same as the pre NCT figure for cars… 2% or was it 0.02%… I saw it somewhere before but it is such a small number that’s its laughable that so much money was spent on it. But then the government make more money on new cars and bikes than they do old ones… correct?

It would take the lemons out of the second hand market but it would also mean that you’d never see a bargain. The prices on second hand bikes would raise, I’ve already decided never to buy a new bike again (unless I come into a sizeable amount of money) and if second hand prices on bikes go up… I may as well get a car TBH.

Ridertraining said it above, the only thing keeping a motorcyclist upright and breathing is his or hers tires, brakes and knowledge. When I started off training pre ride checks were stressed, it was made clear that it was vitally import to have your bike in good shape.

Training for the car test… lessons, a few lessons, its not training by a long shot, consists of opening the bonnet, identifying a few parts and rumbling around the streets without hitting anything. When I was driving my own car before I got into biking I never checked the tires, oil, water anything… warning lights and wtf is that hissing sound were the only times I had any interest in the cars mechanics.

The bike I’m out with a digital pressure gauge every couple of weeks and looking at the tires and liquid levels every weekend. Tires get checked every day for two days after I had to take the bike somewhere I’d rather not have, like around the perimeter of a car crash… (I’ll be checking the tires every day all winter if the last five days are anything to go by).

Anyway, I’ve rambled on enough. Thanks for reading lol.

ridertraining

seamus wrote:

There's a difference between "most" and "plenty"
You'll also agree there's a difference between a bike that just doesn't feel right (e.g. misaligned forks), and a bike with insufficient brakes and tyres - in the latter case a biker would be more likely to "risk it" because the bike is still mechanically sound.

So is what you are saying that if there is some 'non-specific seat-of-the pants unease' they'll not risk it, but if there is a visible, demonstrable defect that even a Garda could spot, they will?
Arguably they are more 'at risk' in the latter case. I'd agree there's a difference between most and plenty, but would add that "plenty":p don't know the difference. Often they'll ask for advice on forums from people who know as much as they do themselves.:rolleyes:

I can remember a lad that turned up for a group training session with fork oil leaking so badly it'd pi55ed over his brake disc... he'd ridden to Dublin from Cork. :eek:

seamus

ridertraining wrote:

So is what you are saying that if there is some 'non-specific seat-of-the pants unease' they'll not risk it, but if there is a visible, demonstrable defect that even a Garda could spot, they will?

Exactly. Think of it this way - you hop on the bike without inspecting it first. I'd say most riders do this at some point. As you drive off, your balance is off, and when you pull the throttle, it doesn't accelerate. You *will* stop the bike, try and see what's wrong, and you won't drive it if you can't fix it. Tyre and brake wear are incremental. You continually adjust to having to pull the lever harder, and to cornering with less gusto. You don't hop on the bike one day and all of a sudden your brakes don't work as well as they did yesterday (and if that does happen, well, you'll hop off, see what's wrong....etc).

Arguably they are more 'at risk' in the latter case.

Completely agreed.

Now perhaps I'm wrong, and most motorcyclists give their bike a full once-over every day, or even once a week. But judging by the state of many (particularly courier) bikes I see in Dublin every day, I seriously doubt that.

My whole point is that the NCT isn't going to all of a sudden increase vehicle compliancy. Tyres and brakes which are OK at NCT time could be badly worn three months later. But they won't be tested again for 21 months. For example, vehicles with serious issues of impending engine failure and perhaps structural damage - which could be dangerous - will be caught and removed from the vehicle pool by the NCT, but bikes which have these issues are either unrideable or less likely to be ridden anyway, hence the "safety" aspect of the NCT is nullified.

Perhaps it's a tiny point

ridertraining

See your point and agree up to a point, and the point is:

seamus wrote:

... stop the bike, try and see what's wrong, and you won't drive it if you can't fix it...

I'd say at that point most people would think 'she'll be right' and carry on, slowly at first, then if nothing goes awry, at regular speeds, especially if they are heading home.
And there's a difference between 'running' and 'roadworthy'

But entirely agree with you here:

seamus wrote:

My whole point is that the NCT isn't going to all of a sudden increase vehicle compliancy. Tyres and brakes which are OK at NCT time could be badly worn three months later.

However, at least they are compliant for three months



Same view as you, slightly different perspective:cool: