New changes to the testing of vintage Cars/Trucks?

corktina

but it is provable I would imagine that cars are safer now we have the NCT and so by extension, so would classics be. It's not rocket science to see that items such as tyres get checked much more thoroughly now that a test is necessary than would previously been the case.

Sam Russell

corktina wrote: »

you only need to prevent one fatality to make it worthwhile.

How many holders of full licences never passed their test? They gave out full licences to those who had valid provisional licences some time ago. That has not been addressed. Also, those over a certain age, did not even have to take a driving test.

How many drivers have had their eyesight tested in the recent past? 45% of those tested in a car-park test failed the very basic of eyesight tests. I cannot remember the details - might have been an AA project.

Nearly all accidents are caused in some way by the driver of one or both vehicles involved. Vehicle faults that would have been detected in an NCT test do not appear in the statistics.

Historic vehicles do not go far or fast, nor do they go out in anything but ideal conditions. They are generally driven by competent drivers between 30 and 50 years of age, who are experienced drivers. The cars are nearly always a 'special' car that is not a daily driver, and is treated with respect.

Testing of these vehicles is in no way a priority for road safety. The RSA are doing what they can for teaching new drivers and testing them which I applaud. However, they should concentrate on those that have passed their test and those that never passed any test, judging by the appalling lack of skill demonstrated daily. Those low skilled drivers are plentiful on the roads, causing all sorts of mayhem.

Sam Russell

corktina wrote: »

but it is provable I would imagine that cars are safer now we have the NCT and so by extension, so would classics be. It's not rocket science to see that items such as tyres get checked much more thoroughly now that a test is necessary than would previously been the case.

Mainly for date code. Tyres must not be over 6 years old, no matter the condition.

I agree that for modern cars this is indeed correct, and testing will improve the stock of cars. This has been achieved by making the maintenance of cars over ten years old so high, that any work is uneconomic. No NCT - No sale. No sale - scrap. Plenty more where that came from.

However, for the vintage scene will be achieved by the scrapping of a high number of classics, and by the loss of interest by many who consider it a valid interest. There are only so many cars that survive thirty years, and within a few years of the NCT, a large number will be scrapped with no replacements. The biggest losers will be the charities.

ba_barabus

Sam Russell wrote: »

However, for the vintage scene will be achieved by the scrapping of a high number of classics, and by the loss of interest by many who consider it a valid interest. There are only so many cars that survive thirty years, and within a few years of the NCT, a large number will be scrapped with no replacements.

Surely that's because owners didn't maintain them correctly in the first place. A car doesn't just fail for no reason. And if owners can't maintain them sell them to someone who will.

And the biggest losers here aren't charities, it's the cars with owners who don't look after them correctly.

corktina

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mainly for date code. Tyres must not be over 6 years old, no matter the condition.

I agree that for modern cars this is indeed correct, and testing will improve the stock of cars. This has been achieved by making the maintenance of cars over ten years old so high, that any work is uneconomic. No NCT - No sale. No sale - scrap. Plenty more where that came from.

However, for the vintage scene will be achieved by the scrapping of a high number of classics, and by the loss of interest by many who consider it a valid interest. There are only so many cars that survive thirty years, and within a few years of the NCT, a large number will be scrapped with no replacements. The biggest losers will be the charities.

Tyres: date? that's just an advisory...do you really think that all they do is check the date?
No NCt = Scrap...imo that's how it should be.

oceanman

corktina wrote: »

Tyres: date? that's just an advisory...do you really think that all they do is check the date?
No NCt = Scrap...imo that's how it should be.

its just as well everyone doesn't share your opinion so....

Cleveland Hot Pocket

I think they should test "classic drivers" (drivers over 70) annually, and not classic cars.
Which one contibutes to more accidents, hmmmmm

Means Of Escape

corktina wrote: »

Tyres: date? that's just an advisory...do you really think that all they do is check the date?
No NCt = Scrap...imo that's how it should be


Most of the anorak brigade share your view .

Means Of Escape

The RSA will use the opinions of the minority who want the test to justify it coming in .
Same as the bs number plate system that made no sense.

There will never be an opportunity to reverse the bs post 1980 nct rule available ever again if this passes.

There is no statistical evidence to show that cars that have been NCTd (post 1980 )has made a whit of a difference regarding accidents in this category.
That is the basis of the RSA proposal and so should be categorically rejected for the farce it is.

corktina

Means Of Escape wrote: »

corktina wrote: »

Tyres: date? that's just an advisory...do you really think that all they do is check the date?
No NCt = Scrap...imo that's how it should be


Most of the anorak brigade share your view .

there's no need to resort to insults. If a classic wouldn't pass a basic safety check, it shouldn't be on the road, and everyday there are dozens on donedeal that wouldn't pass...

Sam Russell

corktina wrote: »

Means Of Escape wrote: »

there's no need to resort to insults. If a classic wouldn't pass a basic safety check, it shouldn't be on the road, and everyday there are dozens on donedeal that wouldn't pass...

But it is not a basic safety check. It is a full NCT test. A bsic safety test would be fine, but that is not on offer. It is intended to test the car to the specification that it was built to, not basic safety. It will include revving the guts out of the engine (which proves what safety aspect?) and shaking the suspension till it disintegrates, and poking a screw driver till it penetrates the bodywork. Testing brakes, lights, steering, and chassis for safety - OK. That is not on offer.

Cars on DoneDeal are not indicative of all (or even very many) classic cars. Many are obviously try-ons, and are 'spares or repairs' and are priced ridiculously by dreamers.

In the car club I belong to, car safety is taken very seriously, and cars are all well maintained, and are driven safely and regularly checked by the more knowlegeable members. I think most car clubs are the same.

I am in favour of a basic safety check, but not done by the NCT.

Sam Russell

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

I think they should test "classic drivers" (drivers over 70) annually, and not classic cars.
Which one contibutes to more accidents, hmmmmm

They do - well those over 80, and those over 70 get checked every 3 years. The test is a medical check, including eyesight. For someone who passed his test at 20, this will be the first time that his eyesight will be checked in 50 years (as far driving is concerned).

Edit: and also the first time his health will have been check for driving.

corktina

Sam Russell wrote: »

corktina wrote: »

But it is not a basic safety check. It is a full NCT test. A bsic safety test would be fine, but that is not on offer. It is intended to test the car to the specification that it was built to, not basic safety. It will include revving the guts out of the engine (which proves what safety aspect?) and shaking the suspension till it disintegrates, and poking a screw driver till it penetrates the bodywork. Testing brakes, lights, steering, and chassis for safety - OK. That is not on offer.

Cars on DoneDeal are not indicative of all (or even very many) classic cars. Many are obviously try-ons, and are 'spares or repairs' and are priced ridiculously by dreamers.

In the car club I belong to, car safety is taken very seriously, and cars are all well maintained, and are driven safely and regularly checked by the more knowlegeable members. I think most car clubs are the same.

I am in favour of a basic safety check, but not done by the NCT.

It's not anthing yet. It's only a consultation at this stage.

Whatever cars are on DD, they are still able to be used on the road with no NCt if pre 1980 and could be death traps.

Do you not realise how you are proving the case with your post? If a car falls apart during an NCT it might just as easily do that on the road and as for poking with a screwdriver...well, don't you think it's a good idea to find out if a car
is so rotten you can make a hole with a screwdriver?

corktina

Sam Russell wrote: »

They do - well those over 80, and those over 70 get checked every 3 years. The test is a medical check, including eyesight. For someone who passed his test at 20, this will be the first time that his eyesight will be checked in 50 years (as far driving is concerned).

Edit: and also the first time his health will have been check for driving.

that's nonsense. All you need is a letter from your GP. There is no medical or eyesight check

Means Of Escape

Sam Russell wrote: »

corktina wrote: »

But it is not a basic safety check. It is a full NCT test. A bsic safety test would be fine, but that is not on offer. It is intended to test the car to the specification that it was built to, not basic safety. It will include revving the guts out of the engine (which proves what safety aspect?) and shaking the suspension till it disintegrates, and poking a screw driver till it penetrates the bodywork. Testing brakes, lights, steering, and chassis for safety - OK. That is not on offer.

Cars on DoneDeal are not indicative of all (or even very many) classic cars. Many are obviously try-ons, and are 'spares or repairs' and are priced ridiculously by dreamers.

In the car club I belong to, car safety is taken very seriously, and cars are all well maintained, and are driven safely and regularly checked by the more knowlegeable members. I think most car clubs are the same.

I am in favour of a basic safety check, but not done by the NCT.

A safety check is not on the cards
It's an NCT or nothing whatever way one rolls the dice
There won't be any tailor made test ,you will get an allowance on the emissions but all the rest of the testing will be applied.
You will be hit with 3 points on your licence on your limited use of a car with no NCT
The RSA are no longer being funded by the government and get their funds from a slice of the NCT charge
More cars in the net more revenue
The NCT will not guarantee that your car will not develop a mechanical fault as you drive away after the cert is issued

You as a classic/ vintage owner are responsible for the maintenance of the car and if you crash like a modern car you will pay for it in your next premium
If you know anything about the car you drive you will know the basic mechanical trouble spots
You will know the feel of the car ie steering and have it addressed
As it stands there hasn't been a fatality callingin this division of cars or a major collision.
The insurance companies aren't looking for it, club members in general aren't seeking it , the gardai aren't demanding it only the RSA so why agree to it?
If you want total peace if mind then nct it off your own bat
A blanket compulsory nct for all vintage cars is unnecessary and there is no basis for it .
If you drive a NCTd car like a clown you will crash as you will with a non NCTd vintage car
Difference is vintage car owners don't and hence the non exsistent crash rates.

mattroche

Cortina, I beg to differ. I had my SECOND eyesight test last June in order to renew my driving licence, and it was quite stringent, as was the first one. I have been driving since 1958, and " touch wood", accident free!. The forms that one has to fill in are quite detailed, but of course, people can give false information. However, the eyesight test is a different matter, unless you get a careless doctor. My doctor told me 3 years ago, when I had my first test, which included all the classes, that he does not need to know if I am capable of driving a lorry or not, so long as I was medically fit to do so. I agree that there are some seniors on the road that perhaps should consider their position in relation to their driving, but then again at times that also applies to all ages.

corktina

mattroche wrote: »

Cortina, I beg to differ. I had my SECOND eyesight test last June in order to renew my driving licence, and it was quite stringent, as was the first one. I have been driving since 1958, and " touch wood", accident free!. The forms that one has to fill in are quite detailed, but of course, people can give false information. However, the eyesight test is a different matter, unless you get a careless doctor. My doctor told me 3 years ago, when I had my first test, which included all the classes, that he does not need to know if I am capable of driving a lorry or not, so long as I was medically fit to do so. I agree that there are some seniors on the road that perhaps should consider their position in relation to their driving, but then again at times that also applies to all ages.

maybe there has been a change, but then maybe the Lorry license is different.?

Sam Russell

corktina wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

It's not anthing yet. It's only a consultation at this stage.

Whatever cars are on DD, they are still able to be used on the road with no NCt if pre 1980 and could be death traps.

Do you not realise how you are proving the case with your post? If a car falls apart during an NCT it might just as easily do that on the road and as for poking with a screwdriver...well, don't you think it's a good idea to find out if a car
is so rotten you can make a hole with a screwdriver?

Have you read the consultation document? It says that the tests may need modification to the parts about glass, headlamp aim, tyre specification. Oil leaks in the transmission might have to be ignored because of 'vehicle's design characteristics'. Missing exterior mirrors.

As for DD cars, it is an offence to drive an unroadworthy car on the road. Always has been. The NCT is not proof a car is roadworthy, only that it passed the NCT test on a particular day, at a particular time.

Poking with a screw driver does not prove that the chassis is strong. A well bodged chassis will not give for a screwdriver, but will in a serious collision.

Sam Russell

corktina wrote: »

maybe there has been a change, but then maybe the Lorry license is different.?

If he has been driving since 1958, he has a FULL licence including lorries under 7.5 tonnes. The doctor has to certify he is medically fit, and doeas so in any way he thinka appropriate, but has to stand over such tests. He also certifies eyesight and does a full test on eyesight - he does not just tick a box. Furthermore, the form is not just

Driver John is fit - signed Dr. Bill MD. - It ask many detailed questions.

The area that the RSA should be concentrating on - eyesight, and testing driving skills of those that have a full licence without a test cert.

corktina

and your point is?

It's the cars on donedeal that are dangerous and are able to drive on the road with no testing at all which will force the NCT or a lesser test on all cars. It is in the interests of the "Community" to get these removed from the road.

Prodding with a screwdriver may well prove exactly the opposite! (that a car is not safe)

swarlb

I've read all the above posts and am more confused than ever, can some answer these questions with a simple yes or no answer...

Will all cars built between 1880 and 1980 have to pass an NCT ?
If they fail will they have to be scrapped ?

Means Of Escape

corktina wrote: »

and your point is?

It's the cars on donedeal that are dangerous and are able to drive on the road with no testing at all which will force the NCT or a lesser test on all cars. It is in the interests of the "Community" to get these removed from the road.

Prodding with a screwdriver may well prove exactly the opposite! (that a car is not safe)

Why remove them from the road?
Accident risk?
Danger to the community overall?
Any stats to validate this stance of yours?

corktina

swarlb wrote: »

I've read all the above posts and am more confused than ever, can some answer these questions with a simple yes or no answer...

Will all cars built between 1880 and 1980 have to pass an NCT ?
If they fail will they have to be scrapped ?

possibly (yes)

and (no) won't be allowed on the road until they pass if so

Sam Russell

swarlb wrote: »

I've read all the above posts and am more confused than ever, can some answer these questions with a simple yes or no answer...

Will all cars built between 1880 and 1980 have to pass an NCT ?
If they fail will they have to be scrapped ?

I think it is most likely that all cars built from 1880 to 1960 will be exempt.
From the document, 1960 to 1980 - NCT required, followed by scrapping.

If they fail, they are scrap, unless a very large effort is put in to keep them on the road. For most ordinary cars - that means scrap. An Austin Metro - probably not worth saving, yet an MG Midget - probably, an E type, deffo worth saving.

There are no accidents that an NCT would avert in this cohort of cars.

Means Of Escape

Of course one could argue that there are those who support the move as they have put a bucket load of cash and time into restoring a car that they hope will increase in value if "poorer" examples of the same model gets scrapped.
These are known as the "could you have brought something better to the show"bunch who look down on others cars that are not up to par.
Cars from Donedeal that have cosmetic issues for example
Those who flock to find fault.

swarlb

corktina wrote: »

possibly (yes)

and (no) won't be allowed on the road until they pass if so

Possibly !!!
Most, if not a vast percentage of 'modern' cars that fail the current NCT, are allowed leave the rest centre, until such time as they undergo whatever repairs are deemed suitable.
Why would there be different regime for 'classics' ?

corktina

he asked two questions and I gave two answers.....


possibly they will need a test
and
no they wont have to be scrapped if they fail.

Why twist my words?

swarlb

corktina wrote: »

he asked two questions and I gave two answers.....


possibly they will need a test
and
no they wont have to be scrapped if they fail.

Why twist my words?

I'm not twisting your words, because what is written above is not what you said in the post.
Anyway, regardless of all that, the correct answer is that nobody knows for certain what is going to happen.
Having a heated debate about 'muppets' ripping floors asunder with metal probes, revving engines till they explode, tearing suspension and brake systems asunder is pure conjecture.
If it happens, it happens, get on with it.
'Classic' cars owners do not deserve any more special treatment than anyone else.
If a car, any car has a 'rusty chassis', subframe, floor, insofar as there are 'holes' in the structure, then it should be fixed. You don't need a test to tell you that.
If a car is spewing multi-coloured smoke from its exhaust, or leaking fluids, then it should be fixed, you don't need a test to tell you that.
If a car has defective brakes, suspension, steering, tyres etc, then it should be fixed, you don't need a test to tell you that.
However, and this is the issue, if there is no test, to tell you what is wrong (or not wrong) with your car, chances are you'll ignore it, and not fix the problem, till it is a real problem.

corktina

swarlb wrote: »

I'm not twisting your words, because what is written above is not what you said in the post.
Anyway, regardless of all that, the correct answer is that nobody knows for certain what is going to happen.
Having a heated debate about 'muppets' ripping floors asunder with metal probes, revving engines till they explode, tearing suspension and brake systems asunder is pure conjecture.
If it happens, it happens, get on with it.
'Classic' cars owners do not deserve any more special treatment than anyone else.
If a car, any car has a 'rusty chassis', subframe, floor, insofar as there are 'holes' in the structure, then it should be fixed. You don't need a test to tell you that.
If a car is spewing multi-coloured smoke from its exhaust, or leaking fluids, then it should be fixed, you don't need a test to tell you that.
If a car has defective brakes, suspension, steering, tyres etc, then it should be fixed, you don't need a test to tell you that.
However, and this is the issue, if there is no test, to tell you what is wrong (or not wrong) with your car, chances are you'll ignore it, and not fix the problem, till it is a real problem.

yeah, it wasn't me said that stuff and, I agree , you need a test to deal with the guys who will ignore those problems.

Means Of Escape

corktina wrote: »

yeah, it wasn't me said that stuff and, I agree , you need a test to deal with the guys who will ignore those problems.

Break out the egg sandwiches and tartan coloured flask.