Scrap the NCT

gizmo555

If testing cars older than four years makes any significant difference to road safety, why did the insurance companies never offer any discount for newer cars or apply any loading to older cars pre-NCT?

meoklmrk91

monkeypants wrote: »

Probably something to do with capitalism. Don't agree with it myself. The testers should just get a bag of onions to share, with a cooked chicken for the centre manager.

Nothing wrong with capatilism or the premise of the NCT just don't understand why cars over 10 years need an NCT every ****ing year and thats why I think it is a money racket.

corktina

in fairness, a whole year is a long time to leave a car without inspection, anything could go wrong or wear out in that time. Most countries have a one year test applicable from 2/3/4/ years old and rightly so.

monkeypants

I remember when it common enough to see cars with bonnets and boot lids held shut with string and seriously wobbling wheels. If the NCT has gotten rid of those, then I'm happy.

meoklmrk91

corktina wrote: »

in fairness, a whole year is a long time to leave a car without inspection, anything could go wrong or wear out in that time. Most countries have a one year test applicable from 2/3/4/ years old and rightly so.

If it wasn't so expensive then I wouldn't have an issue with it, I service and look after my car so that's not the issue, if it was say around €30 for the test I wouldn't mind. €55 is a lot of money and if it fails on something small then you have to shell out another €28, it's very expensive to do that yearly.

Bodhran

Karsini wrote: »

I noticed a massive drop in pre-87 cars when the NCT came in. I wouldn't agree that it should be scrapped, but some of the things they fail you on are ridiculous. The one which comes to mind is if you have a reg plate that doesn't have the county name in Irish on it.

Someone mentioned failing you on exhaust noise, well we're not the only ones. I just saw an episode of Wheeler Dealers last week where they were trying to get a kit car through its IVA test, and that had a limit of 100dB on exhaust noise. They scraped past it (99.8dB I believe).

The specification for number plates is prescribed in law. Therefore if your number plates do not comply with the law, your vehicle must fail. It's no different to having only one headlight when the law stipulates two.

BrensBenz

Instead of "yes it is /no it isn't" stuff, could we list the strange or stupid decisions or advice we've been given at NCT centres? Maybe this would help to identify and correct the weaknesses in the current NCT regime. For instance:

• "Your indicators are not yellow enough" - Longford;
• "Your wheel alignment is wrong". Immediately had an independent check done and was told that the alignment was so good that any adjustment would worsen it. Retested next day (with no adjustment) and passed. "Oh, you must have hit a pothole and corrected the error" - Longford;
• Your headlight alignment is off". The adjuster on the dash had been rammed past "0" by the NCT guy, leaving the lights too low. "The report is printed now so we must see a receipt for re-alignment" - Ballymun Northpoint;
  Etc.

Personally, I think the system is OK, although I would prefer if the result could be seen and discussed before the report is printed. It's those few, moronic NCT employees - perhaps badly trained or badly monitored - that give the NCT a bad name.

Bodhran

Bodhran wrote: »

The specification for number plates is prescribed in law. Therefore if your number plates do not comply with the law, your vehicle must fail. It's no different to having only one headlight when the law stipulates two.

It's completely different in fairness. One headlight is a safety issue whereas a county name on a number plate is not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the NCT is a bad thing. I don't think that Irish people can be trusted to maintain their own cars. I don't know how many times I've seen cars with one headlight out and the other on full beam to compensate.

Chris_Heilong

Id say do an NCT check every 3 years would be reasonable, Did a Guarda report recently not say that Death due to mechanical failure was less than 1%.

awec

This post has been deleted.

corktina

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Id say do an NCT check every 3 years would be reasonable, Did a Guarda report recently not say that Death due to mechanical failure was less than 1%.

it's not reasonable, it's a complete waste of time...might as well have no NCT as do that!

and as for the cost.... €55 to have your car throughly checked over is good value for money.

monkeypants

awec wrote: »

We hear all the time on here people moaning about how UK cars are better kept than cars in Ireland. Better servicing etc.

The UK does annual MOTs after 3 years, which undoubtedly plays a huge part in the standard of the cars over there.

So on one hand, people moan about how poorly kept cars are here, yet on the other moan that they have to NCT their car every other year and then every year after 10.

Baffling.

Not really. They expect it to happen by magic with no inconvenience and at no cost.

Bodhran

Karsini wrote: »

It's completely different in fairness. One headlight is a safety issue whereas a county name on a number plate is not.

Legally there is no difference. You're breaking the law in both scenarios. You couldn't have a situation whereby some breaches of the law were ignored in the NCT and others were not.

I know it can be a bit of an annoyance if your car fails because of indicators not being amber enough. But here again, if the law specifies amber lights for indicators then "off white" doesn't do. Actually I blame the car manufacturers for the problem with indicators. Instead of amber coloured bulbs, there should be white bulbs behind amber lens as was the case with most cars years ago. No danger of the colour of the amber lens deteriorating.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Hi op how is the campaign going?
Will you and the other person that liked your page be protesting outside the Dail soon?

dgt

This crock of a thread is still going?

Dr Turk Turkelton

dgt wrote: »

This crock of a thread is still going?

It passed its nct unlike the op's car!

2 stroke

corktina wrote: »

and as for the cost.... €55 to have your car throughly checked over is good value for money.

I check my car thoroughly for free every few weeks and before long journeys. The only surprise I ever got on a nct test was when my toyota brake pipes were "dangerously coroded". The pipes I removed have been lying in the rain for the last 2 years and still only have superficial rust.
A good reform of the nct would be reduce the cost if car passes test first time & introduce a penalty charge if car is presented in an obviously dangerous condition eg. bald tyres, no brakes, lights not working.

redhot

awec wrote: »

You failed your NCT in the past few days, didn't you?

Possibly not for the first time?

Absolutely not. You seem to be trying to stir it, but you are wrong

Checked into the troll rehab clinic yet?

The debate is whether these tests really do save lives, you all seem to think they do, however statistically, in countries where the equivalent of the NCT has been scrapped, the picture is somewhat different.

Maybe in Ireland, people are more likely to avoid servicing their cars, more risk takers

colm_mcm

You do know the differences between saving lives and preventing accidents?

flutered

are there not quite a few cars which have to be revamped before the test, then after the test, rebuilt again.

Cedrus

It's funny, when I Googled to find the British Columbia report it seems that the OP has quoted a 13 year old Australian "Submission to the Victorian Parliament Road Safety Committee, 19 April 2000", I still haven't figured out the current situation in BC.
I doubt the OP knows either.

corktina

flutered wrote: »

are there not quite a few cars which have to be revamped before the test, then after the test, rebuilt again.

no doubt there are, but there are equally many that stay legal ,due to the NCT being there,that otherwise would be deathtraps.

nct tester

slimjimmc wrote: »

So why does Section 46 (page 74) of the May 2012 state one of the reasons for failure as
Does that only apply to suspension components other than shock absorbers?



[Edit] Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you referring to the bit that says its a new requirement in 2012 (which I'd agree with you) or the bit that says the dust cover is a fail?[/edit]

only applies to anti roll bar links, which is stupid imo.

wonski

redhot wrote: »

Absolutely not. You seem to be trying to stir it, but you are wrong

Checked into the troll rehab clinic yet?

The debate is whether these tests really do save lives, you all seem to think they do, however statistically, in countries where the equivalent of the NCT has been scrapped, the picture is somewhat different.

Maybe in Ireland, people are more likely to avoid servicing their cars, more risk takers

What countries scrapped testing cars?

It BeeMee

redhot wrote: »

The debate is whether these tests really do save lives, you all seem to think they do, however statistically, in countries where the equivalent of the NCT has been scrapped, the picture is somewhat different.

Maybe you would like to provide the relevant statistics?

Even your OP says:

redhot wrote: »

The researchers were unable to detect any significant statistical relationship between the number of fatal accidents and the presence of vehicle inspection programs but noted that the results lacked statistical power making it difficult to discern real relationships."

corktina

If the NCT saves just ONE life , then it's worthwhile.

I just wish it was enforced more, after all the Gov know what cars are taxed and what have NCTs, it should be simple to send a Penalty to all those owners with taxed but not NCTd cars. (etc)
.

supra300

National Car Tax
its a pointless exercise they dont do any repairs so whats the need to visit them a good garage would fix faults they find there and then...

wonski

supra300 wrote: »

National Car Tax
its a pointless exercise they dont do any repairs so whats the need to visit them a good garage would fix faults they find there and then...

At least you have the choice where to fix it (or even fix it yourself).
In many countries test are done in garages, where they offer repair - people complain that they find faults to get some extra jobs. At least here it is independent body testing - up to you where you fix it. No system is perfect, but testing is a must these days, imagine amount of 100-200 euro scrap cars on the road if there was no nct.

nct tester

supra300 wrote: »

National Car Tax
its a pointless exercise they dont do any repairs so whats the need to visit them a good garage would fix faults they find there and then...

problem is , a lot of people dont even go to a garage anymore. a lot of people just drive it till its broke. in a lot of cases the one year nct is even more of a reason/excuse for people not to do any maintenance on their car from one year to the next. a car came in today (petrol) and the oil light was flickering, just said i'd dip it for the craic even tho its not our job to check oil on petrol cars, not a drop of oil on the dipstick, told the customer and he topped it up with a gallon he had in the boot. his theory was that its ok until the light comes on.

redhot

wonski wrote: »

What countries scrapped testing cars?

Wikipedia has a nice country listing, for quick ref regarding vehicle testing, not sure how accurate that info is, take a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection

"There is some controversy over whether periodically inspecting motor vehicles is a cost-effective way to improve road-traffic safety"

In BC, Canada, its commercial vehicle tests are compulsary, but not for private vehicles. In 2014 they will discontinue emissions testing: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/05/24/bc-air-care-changes.html

in Australia, in the state of Queensland, there is no legal requirement for a private vehicle's owner to have periodic vehicle inspections

wonski

redhot wrote: »

Wikipedia has a nice country listing, for quick ref regarding vehicle testing, not sure how accurate that info is, take a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection

"There is some controversy over whether periodically inspecting motor vehicles is a cost-effective way to improve road-traffic safety"

In BC, Canada, its commercial vehicle tests are compulsary, but not for private vehicles. In 2014 they will discontinue emissions testing: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/05/24/bc-air-care-changes.html

in Australia, in the state of Queensland, there is no legal requirement for a private vehicle's owner to have periodic vehicle inspections

So these countries are :
BC-Canada, Queensland-Australia, and China...

SeanW

corktina wrote: »

If the NCT saves just ONE life , then it's worthwhile.

With all due respect, that line is a crock of BS spouted by those big government statists advocating continuously more regulations and restrictions on peoples' day to day lives. "If X saves just ONE life, then it's worth it" regardless of what the cost, financially or otherwise of X.

It's the kind of rationale that could be used people like Iwannahurl or cyclopath2001 in their motorist bashing rants. For example, if we put a €4000/year "man driver" tax on young men drivers, that might drive a lot of boy racers off the roads, and be justified by "if it saves just ONE life." Heck why not ban cars altogether and wrap everyone up in cotton wool, after all, it might "save just ONE life" ...

it would be also be bat**** crazy. Kinda like annual NCT testing, or 6 monthly "warrant of fitness" rules in NZ (Whoops I shouldn't have said that, it might given the RSA ideas).

monkeypants

corktina wrote: »

If the NCT saves just ONE life , then it's worthwhile.

Really? Says who and why?

I'm for car testing. It's needed in this country and possibly more often, but that phrase just winds me up.

Dartz

monkeypants wrote: »

Really? Says who and why?

I'm for car testing. It's needed in this country and possibly more often, but that phrase just winds me up.

Depends on how much someone's worth really.

Somehow though, I doubt this'll be the case, considering how expensive death is.

Jayop

The worst thing about the NCT was the change to every one year for ten year old cars. Yet another tax on the poor. If I could afford a newer car I'd flipping buy one! Just like the way you get charged a lot more for 4 quarterly road tax payments, again if I could tax the thing for a year I would but I can't afford to so you charge me a premium.

SeanW

Jayop wrote: »

The worst thing about the NCT was the change to every one year for ten year old cars. Yet another tax on the poor. If I could afford a newer car I'd flipping buy one! Just like the way you get charged a lot more for 4 quarterly road tax payments, again if I could tax the thing for a year I would but I can't afford to so you charge me a premium.

Yeah, thats my main problem with the NCT - I see the recent changes as another regressive attack on poor people. That and the increase on the rates of car tax these last few years. In the space of ~3 years mine has gone from €614 to €710, almost 100 of an increase for nothing. Thank you Enda K. and crew.

monkeypants

Dartz wrote: »

Depends on how much someone's worth really.

Somehow though, I doubt this'll be the case, considering how expensive death is.

Ask an insurance company. From their perspective, dead is often cheaper than alive.

Jayop

monkeypants wrote: »

Ask an insurance company. From their perspective, dead is often cheaper than alive.

Regardless the point that was being made was a cheap and foolish one. Every life has a finite value and it's limited to being realistic within society. Having an NCT on a car is realistic and yes it probably has saved lives. Banning driving, alchohol, smoking, fun would all save loads of lives, but society wouldn't deem the banning to be worth the consequences otherwise we'd do it.

IMO the NCT is a necessary evil, that has taken a load of deathtraps off the road. That's a good thing as coming from the North, pre-NCT there were some heaps on the road. The big issue, as with speed traps for a lot of people is that it's been turned from a safety exercise into a money making venture. Constant fails for very minor/debatable problems and the change to annual testing for older cars has really turned people against something already unpopular. I was reading a report today that said almost half of all cars tested failed. Given the demographic of cars on the road and that Ireland has one of the newest fleets in Europe I think that figure shows how the test is being used.

whiteandlight

In fairness to the OP there is something strange in the current system. I and most of my family/friends now put the car in for the NCT before it goes for its annual service. This is because even preNCT tests seem to miss stuff that they will fail you on. It is actually now far more economical to send it for the NCT, then if it passes just get its usual service. If it doesn't get it serviced and the relevant faults fixed. The problem arises in those who won't get the service if it passes.

I don't know whether its inconsistency in the test or a tendency on the part of the garage to "find" extra work needed

Jayop

Absolutely. I was in the motor trade for years as a service adviser at main dealers and I always told people to forget about pre-ncts. Just check your lights and levels, don't go in with bald tyres as that could piss them off and hope for the best.

I had an experience 2-3 years ago with my old 99 focus where the tester thought the RHR wheel bearing could be gone. He called over two other testers and they had a conference about it. I shouted in to them that if you have to ask another guy was it gone then it's good enough for another year, but lo and behold they failed it. Brought it to the garage I worked at which was a main Ford dealer and the lads there said it was sound. I swapped the whole hub with one from a scrapper and passed it. That's the things that piss people off.

OldmanMondeo

Sure scrap the driving test as well. Most people forget the how to drive anyway so why bother.

I have not seen 1 point that would make me agree that the NCT should be scrapped. I agree it should be reviewed regularly and improved.

whiteandlight

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Sure scrap the driving test as well. Most people forget the how to drive anyway so why bother.

I have not seen 1 point that would make me agree that the NCT should be scrapped. I agree it should be reviewed regularly and improved.

I'm not suggesting it should be scrapped just pointing out that in its current form it is not working as one would expect a test to. Can you imagine if you were advised to sit the driving test before studying for it just to check if you passed?

ba_barabus

I'd happily scrap the NCT, and I imagine the RSA would support it's scrapping, once people in the country service their cars correctly and all mechanics perform servicing as it should be done.

As neither of these will happen I think it's safe to assume the NCT will stay. It never really effects me anyway but it's the cheapest independent safety test I can get

Jayop

IMO the RSA are a joke anyway and have been since they appointed that self righteous clown to be their main mouth piece.

cena

Maybe do somthing about the waiting list. Mother needs ntc and its march before she can get it done. She drives up to dublin a few times a month. Not sure if she can drive up now

Jayop

I could be wrong but AFAIK once you have the test booked you're covered.*


*this may be something which I have imagined!

ba_barabus

Jayop wrote: »

I could be wrong but AFAIK once you have the test booked you're covered.*

According to the lady on the booking line "you're fine for most Gardaí unless you meet one have a very bad day".

Car isn't been driven anyway as I'm whacked out on valium for an injured back. The test is on Sunday.

Regarding test dates: I've had no trouble booking dates once I don't wait for it to run out (current car excepted as it was bought without an NCT)

Jayop

That's the problem with Irish law. This thing of you being fine unless you meet a Guard that fell out of the wrong side of the bed is no use to anyone. 5 poxy points for not having an NCT so I'd rather not leave it to chance.

Also, re booking dates it's better to get it done early if possible, especially with older cars. Bear with me as this is complicated. lol

For example if your car was tested in March 2012 it's due March 2013. If you get it tested in Jan 2013 then you still get a cert up to March 2014, but you've only had 9 months driving inbetween the two tests rather than 12 so less chance of something going wrong.

Pottler

I don't really give a toss about the NCT, do away with it or keep it. I went for one once, they wouldn't take a cheque and I'd no cash or cards on me, so I left, untested. Never been back, never will.

Buy em tested, scrap em when it expires. Max budget €650. Or €55 a month. Less the scrap value. I'll stick to my method and ye can test ahead. Missus goes for hers alright, it's usually some utter guff they fail on, can't see the wheel nuts, number plate has wrong font, wrong sort of airfreshner fitted or some shyte.

Anyone with a passing mechanical familiarity knows you can stick on all the shiny parts you like and have the car tested and pass, then whip them off for the originals five minutes later. It guaranteess safety for the time it was up on the ramp, nothing more. It's just a money racket rubber stamping exercise IMO. And ye can quote the pope back at me, I will still hold that view. But then again, my idea of a car is somthing that stops my buttocks dragging along the tarmac when I go places, so maybe my view is irelevant.

Grolschevik

Jayop wrote: »

For example if your car was tested in March 2012 it's due March 2013. If you get it tested in Jan 2013 then you still get a cert up to March 2014, but you've only had 9 months driving inbetween the two tests rather than 12 so less chance of something going wrong.

If you stick it in a couple of months early and it fails, do they still make you get it retested within 28 days?

(That is, test due in March, early test in January fails, do you get till the March date to retest?)