Minister for Transport on Today FM

mike65

Anyone listening to his blustery nonsense?

smash

what's he talking about?

Johnny Bitte

Sounded like he was gonna pass out.
According to the magical ways of statistic's, older cars cause more accidents.

5 points for not having your car NCT'd.
Cars 10 years old or over need to be NCT'd every year.

Just called the center cause booking online is just not possible.
Message saying they were experiencing unprecedented call levels.

Carlow booked out for the next month so Portlaoise on the 1st of May.

Absurdum

Damaged your car because you hit a pothole? WELL IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT FOR NOT DRIVING INTO IT SLOWLY :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Max_Damage

steve06 wrote: »

what's he talking about?

Shíte most likely.

Atlantic Dawn

Hes a class 1 tool, he believes a car that passes the NCT is certified roadworthy, it is not and it says this on the certificate.

Absurdum

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Hes a class 1 tool, he believes a car that passes the NCT is certified roadworthy, it is not and it says this on the certificate.

he said something along the lines of driving without an NCT is tantamount to attempted murder

he literally sounded like he was talking out of his arse, wonder wtf he was up to...

mike65

The audio will be online later so I'll link it.

ottostreet

He compared driving a car without NCT to 'attempted manslaughter' for driving a defective vehicle. Matt Cooper attempted to decry this by asking about how a loud exhaust could be classed as 'defective', and Dempsey was just saying 'if your car is roadworthy, it will have an NCT.'

Complete and utterly incompetent fool.

Max_Damage

What about all the people who drive cars 30+ years old, that doesn't require an NCT?

mike65

Shussssh!

Absurdum

Max_Damage wrote: »

What about all the people who drive cars 30+ years old, that doesn't require an NCT?

murderers, the lot of them

Atlantic Dawn

Max_Damage wrote: »

What about all the people who drive cars 30+ years old, that doesn't require an NCT?

Or all Garda cars and his own ministerial car which is also exempt (doubt he will ever be driven in one that's 4 years old though).

Leonard Hofstadter

Absurdum wrote: »

Damaged your car because you hit a pothole? WELL IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT FOR NOT DRIVING INTO IT SLOWLY :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Hillarious comment:D!

mike65

wmv audio file 5 mb Dempsey starts 3 mins in.

GTE

His answer to how drivers of how many cars without penalty points have been given points was very funny.

Eh. ahh ,ehh well err I dont have that kind of detail ehh on the top of my head ehh ahh errr,

bog master

Embarrassed by Dempsey, and to think he hails from my county. Looking for info on his quote, "47% of all crashes in 2007 involved cars 9 years or older"

Can he now state, what % of those cars involved in crashes did not have a NCT

Still cringeing here, WTF

GTE

And I wonder how many of the 47% of the cars 9 years or older were bought by people who have had recently passed their driving test/driving theory test and got them because they were cheap?

Driver error isn't a consideration any more?

alexmcred

Demsey is dead right in everything he said:rolleyes:

peasant

You have to give him some credit, he managed to mention the "difficult decisions " twice !

Biffo will be happy, going forward.

ottostreet

alexmcred wrote: »

Demsey is dead right in everything he said

how do you make that out? do you really feel that it is fair that a driver who fails the NCT on something like a loud exhaust, or high emissions, gets 5 penalty points, while the person who does 90mph down a country road gets 2 points?

tell me how you think the comparison of someone driving an un-NCT'ed car being akin to manslaughter is justified?

alexmcred

Because Dempsey said so:pac:. I was taking the piss but you'll have nigh on 20 to 25% of people believing his bull**** the sooner the lot of them are run out of Government the better

Mister men

Jesus just heard this now. He seems like he has'nt a clue what he's talking about.

drunkmonkey

bog master wrote: »

"47% of all crashes in 2007 involved cars 9 years or older"

That means that 53% of cars involved in crashes in 2007 were 9 years or younger. He's basically stating your statistically safer to be in a car 9 years or older than a car less than 9 years old.

ottostreet

alexmcred wrote: »

Because Dempsey said so:pac:. I was taking the piss but you'll have nigh on 20 to 25% of people believing his bull**** the sooner the lot of them are run out of Government the better

ah right sorry...didnt pick up on the sarcasm!

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That means that 53% of cars involved in crashes in 2007 were 9 years or younger. He's basically stating your statistically safer to be in a car 9 years or older than a car less than 9 years old.

lol...didn't spot that! the wonders of statistics eh? i think its to do with that out of 100% of the cars on our roads, far more than 47% of them will be less than nine years old (anyone have exact figures?). ill say the figure is 65-35 in favour of 9 years and younger (for this scenario), so out of that 35%, 47% of them were involved in crashes in 2007. however, inexperienced drivers are more likely to buy these older cars due to the prices of them, so....there doesn't seem to be any allowances made for the drivers, rather than what age the car was!

jimmyw

He sounded like he was terrified on that interview. Stuttering and trying to find the words to explain. I taught he was drunk or something:rolleyes:

kazul

Now now lads. He's a school teacher (like the majority of the dail) so he's automatically worthy of everybody's respect. Now be good and do what he says.
It makes me sick that a certain class of people have been running this republic since it was founded and they feel qualified to run the country.
Teachers can take as much (paid) time as they want to "play house" with OUR country and then go back to their pensionable jobs, plus TDs/Ministers pension.
What the f**k would he know about transport when he's chauffered around the place and never uses public transport.
OT but I've never seen a politician wear a bicycle helmet in one of their photo ops, I'd love to clip one of the fu**ers without their lid on. Imagine Nelson Muntz from Simpsons...

af_thefragile

bog master wrote: »

Embarrassed by Dempsey, and to think he hails from my county. Looking for info on his quote, "47% of all crashes in 2007 involved cars 9 years or older"

Can he now state, what % of those cars involved in crashes did not have a NCT

Still cringeing here, WTF

Does that not mean then that 53% of crashes involved cars newer than 9 years?

Then according to his logic newer cars are even more unsafe!!

mike65

He was making the point that cars 10 years or older would be relatively few in number so ergo they must be VERY DANGEROUS INDEED :eek:

However as I have not seen any stat of that nature I remain unmoved.

af_thefragile

mike65 wrote: »

He was making the point that cars 10 years or older would be relatively few in number so ergo they must be VERY DANGEROUS INDEED :eek:

However as I have not seen any stat of that nature I remain unmoved.

Did he not decide to take into account that most older cars are driven by new and less experienced drivers who can't afford to buy a newer car?
Also people tend to drive a new car more safely as they wouldn't wanna wreck a shiny new car they just bought!

If only we had a couple of Toyota stuck accelerator incidents here. It could make him think twice how much more safer new cars are to old ones.

I think older cars drive better cause there is less to go wrong in them and there is less "technology" between the driver and the machine.
Though in a crash, obviously modern cars are leaps and bounds safer than older cars.

All this bollocks looks like just another government propaganda/incentive to make people scrap their old cars in return for some dreary electric vehicles!

JHMEG

Don't forget: you lads from Meath voted him in... and if you didn't directly, someone you know did!

Darsad

What a Moron so by his reckoning only carless speeders who hit pot holes will do damage to a car . He should take a look at some of the craters in his own back yard no doubt he could see them from the air as he passes over in the air corp heli,s

teednab-el

he's a joke. I had to laugh at his comment when he said that people should drive slower on roads with potholes or something to that affect.

I hit a pothole there at the start of the year and I not only burst my tire, I bucked my alloy wheel and I was only doing 40kph on a road with a 80kph speed limit. Utter nonsense by Dempsey!

mike65

af_thefragile wrote: »

All this bollocks looks like just another government propaganda/incentive to make people scrap their old cars

This is clearly the case - the government still brings in 4 grand on average for every car bought on a scrappage deal.

drunkmonkey

af_thefragile wrote: »

Though in a crash, obviously modern cars are leaps and bounds safer than older cars.

I'll take my chances in a 1999 Panzerwagen againt any modern car.

Let's play a little game, you pick a new motor under 40,000 you'd like to have a head on crash with me in, i'm picking this 1999 M class worth under 4k, http://www.carzone.ie/search/Mercedes-Benz/M-Class/ML-320-3/201007196932044/advert?channel=CARS

What are you going to be driving in our crash test Mr New Car Man?:)

It may not be good for the environment but it sure is good for keeping people safe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNeGs_uVZTk

changes

This is turning into 'no country for the poor'

Its bad enough that only the well off can avail of cheap road tax (by driving 2008, 2009 or 2010 cars) and those who can't afford new cars must pay through the nose for road tax.

Now they want to make people driving 10 yr old cars pay twice as much NCT related costs as everyone else..... Why do we put up with this rubbish from our so called leaders.

af_thefragile

changes wrote: »

This is turning into 'no country for the poor'

Its bad enough that only the well off can avail of cheap road tax (by driving 2008, 2009 or 2010 cars) and those who can't afford new cars must pay through the nose for road tax.

Now they want to make people driving 10 yr old cars pay twice as much NCT related costs as everyone else..... Why do we put up with this rubbish from our so called leaders.

I recently bought a 99 car as it was cheap and all I could afford.
Then I had to pay around 250eur more to insure it cuz it was 10years and older and apparently that's bad somehow.
And now I've even got to factor in the costs of getting it NCTed every year!

So much for buying a cheap car...

af_thefragile

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'll take my chances in a 1999 Panzerwagen againt any modern car.

Let's play a little game, you pick a new motor under 40,000 you'd like to have a head on crash with me in, i'm picking this 1999 M class worth under 4k, http://www.carzone.ie/search/Mercedes-Benz/M-Class/ML-320-3/201007196932044/advert?channel=CARS

What are you going to be driving in our crash test Mr New Car Man?:)

It may not be good for the environment but it sure is good for keeping people safe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNeGs_uVZTk

This test Fifth Gear did shows how much safer a tiny little modern hatchback is than an old Volvo estate made out of girders!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I

Seth Brundle

teednab-el wrote: »

I hit a pothole there at the start of the year and I not only burst my tire, I bucked my alloy wheel and I was only doing 40kph on a road with a 80kph speed limit. Utter nonsense by Dempsey!

far far too fast. Keep to single digit speeds and the damage will be much less!

changes wrote: »

This is turning into 'no country for the poor'

Its actually been that way for a long long time!

af_thefragile wrote: »

I recently bought a 99 car as it was cheap and all I could afford.

Well according to Dempsey's logic, you are going to become a murderer! You have blood on your hands! I hope you are happy now!

teednab-el

kbannon wrote: »

far far too fast. Keep to single digit speeds and the damage will be much less!

40kph = 25 MPH

That is a very slow drive. Tractors can go as fast as that. Not my fault I did damage. First of all I didnt know the pothole was there, but i did know there were potholes on the road itself which explains why I was driving 25mph. It was up to the relevant body (i.e the county council) to have the pothole filled. The same pothole wasnt filled for weeks after my incident so it was probably there a while before I hit it also.

ottostreet

I drive a 92 BMW... im very much looking forward to NCT'ing that every year! prob won't be keeping it very long.

As for the ML series, one of my friends wrote off his ML270 into a field and he climbed out himself uninjured. was a 05 or 06...is that the same model as a 99, or is it updated? he said himself if he had been driving his old car (focus mk2) he would have been dead.

drunkmonkey

ottostreet wrote: »

I drive a 92 BMW... im very much looking forward to NCT'ing that every year! prob won't be keeping it very long.

As for the ML series, one of my friends wrote off his ML270 into a field and he climbed out himself uninjured. was a 05 or 06...is that the same model as a 99, or is it updated? he said himself if he had been driving his old car (focus mk2) he would have been dead.

It's a little updated but still a panzerwagen none the less, it's not built like a tank, it is a tank, I'm guessing that's not your mate who voted for the green party : )

pity to see the Beamer gonin to an early grave in a few years due to la la land policys, those cars could last for generations which is a lot more environmently friendly than building new ones.

When something works you don't throw it away or waste resources building a new one, that's the major thing the greens haven't figured out yet, hippys my ass!

St. Leibowitz

mike65 wrote: »

He was making the point that cars 10 years or older would be relatively few in number so ergo they must be VERY DANGEROUS INDEED :eek:

However as I have not seen any stat of that nature I remain unmoved.

I was absolutely shocked for him to use that statistic as a reason for bringing in legislation. It is a seriously flawed arguement, which any 13 year old would be able to destroy with a little thought. I don't have the facts, but I am almost certain that 100% of the cars involved in accidents in 2007 had tyres on the wheels. Using the ministers flawed use of statistics, we should remove tyres from cars, in order to make them safer. An absolutely ridiculus argument, but entirely valid if the minister puts forward his. The most dangerous aspect of his argument is the use he's putting it to ... to enact legislation !!!!!! It's like a Monty Python sketch. He should be moved to the Ministry of Silly Walks, but he'd probably fubar that up too.

However, it is interesting that in the same interview, he mentioned two new NCT centres opening, and more on the way, creating (was it 56) new jobs. That would seem to be a more likely reason for increasing the frequency of the NCT.

af_thefragile

Motorists always make easy targets to mint money from during times of financial troubles!!

Be it increased taxes or new legislations like the NCT thing.

ottostreet

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's a little updated but still a panzerwagen none the less, it's not built like a tank, it is a tank, I'm guessing that's not your mate who voted for the green party : )

pity to see the Beamer gonin to an early grave in a few years due to la la land policys, those cars could last for generations which is a lot more environmently friendly than building new ones.

When something works you don't throw it away or waste resources building a new one, that's the major thing the greens haven't figured out yet, hippys my ass!

ah it probably wont be going to an early grave at all. itll probably be kept in the family as it seems to be absolutely bulletproof and its in great nick. wish i could tax it on the newer rates rather than the old one though!

Seth Brundle

teednab-el wrote: »

40kph = 25 MPH

That is a very slow drive. Tractors can go as fast as that. Not my fault I did damage. First of all I didnt know the pothole was there, but i did know there were potholes on the road itself which explains why I was driving 25mph. It was up to the relevant body (i.e the county council) to have the pothole filled. The same pothole wasnt filled for weeks after my incident so it was probably there a while before I hit it also.

I should have included one of these in my post -->

smash

Lets start a group called 'motorists against morons' He'll be our first target - get your pitchforks!