Government New Provisional Driving Licence Plan

antodeco

The testing system is a joke. I failed my first test because there was a kid standing in the middle of the road in front of me, and I stopped. Apparently Im meant to keep going, but slow down while beeping? I passed it the second time though. Didnt do anything different, just had no people standing in front of me.

Another riduclous thing in the system is that you have to pay for a theory test, each subsequent licence, and then the test. Surely this means, fail test = more money for a 3rd licence, and more money for resitting the test. This shows that it is mainly a money making scheme. Also, having such a long waiting time for a test means, provisional drive= higher insurance, which again means more money for the government (they do get a percentage of all insurance premiums).

i think if the government REALLY wanted to solve this issue, they couldve done a long time ago. Its funny how they plan these things when general elections will be coming up

unkel

Savman wrote:

If the measures currently in place are lacklustre then point the finger of blame towards govt. cos they set the rules, prov. drivers only follow them. If they bothered enforcing the rules, people like me would have to adhere and travel everywhere with full licensed driver etc etc but at the moment it's not a big deal so I can't say it worries me that much :rolleyes:

Absolutely! A point not made here very often unfortunately. People are calculating, it's in most people's nature. It's the role of the government to set the boundaries and enforce them. It is not the fault of the L-driver. Neither is it his / her fault they have to wait so ridiculously long for a test

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

Anyway, it has NEVER been shown that provo drivers cause (or are involved in) more accidents than the full licence holder, as the insurance companies do not give out this info

The insurance companies sure do give out the info that provisional drivers have an average annual claim that is higher than the same age, etc. person with a full license. Isn't the latter's premium lower?

mike65 wrote:

the fatality rate here is no worse then in Spain so I guess that backs up what Savman and other say about learners

That logic is a bit flawed, Mike. Did you take into account that the average speed in Spain is about 4 times that of the average speed in Ireland?

Stark

jamax wrote:

When you finally pass your practical test, you have your driving licence. But you are in the status of 'Learner driver' which means during the first year you must show a green L in your vehicle, can't drive more than 80km/h in motorways, have the lowest limits in alcohool allowed in blood. But this is REALLY enforced by the police, not like here where the gardai seem to don't care about the provisionals breaking their limitations.

In Ireland, provisional drivers are not allowed drive at all on the motorways. It may not be strictly enforced, but when you have draconian laws in a society, it's up to the law enforcement to make judgement calls.

Also, we're not allowed drive drunk after we pass our tests :rolleyes:

jamax wrote:

In Spain you have to pass first a Theory test which is far more difficult and complex than the one here. To do that you go to the driving school for some time until you feel like passing the test or, depending on your school, your teacher thinks you are prepared enough.

Once you have passed the theory test, you start to take driving lessons with an instructor from your driving school in a dual pedals car. When your instructor recomends or when you feel comfortable enough driving, you can try and go to the practical test.

What's the point in having an exceedingly complex theory test? It's driving a car, not "University challenge".

If you fail your practical test, you take more lessons and try the test again. (Here is the main failure in Ireland. In Spain you can take another test in 2 weeks time). Of course you can't drive on your own at this point.

The thing is, I really can't see how you could gain considerable driving skills by only doing lessons in an instructor's car. For practically everything in life, you need practice between sessions of tuition in my opinion.

swingking wrote:

I think a system whereby a driver can only drive on a provisional licence on their own if he/she proves that they are getting lessons.

That would make sense actually.

Seth Brundle

Bring in the German system of testing.
Also restrict drivers to a max 80kmph for their first year after passing the test like in Norn Iron!

Capt'n Midnight

swingking wrote:

If a provisional driving licence fails his test, he can't drive till he passes his test

Interesting idea, but how do people practice:rolleyes:

You can get your license renewed once you have applied for a test. You can then cancel or postpone the test.

You can't fail a test if you never do it


http://talk-ireland.com/article.php?sid=2295

According to Department figures released to Deputy Shortall, there are a total of 410,602 unqualified drivers on our roads at the moment. These include:

*29,044 on their 5th or more provisional licence
*31,455 on their 4th provisional licence
*39,676 on their 3rd provisional licence
*100,780 on their 2nd provisional licence
*209,647 on their 1st provisional licence
...
“The single biggest contributing factor is the fact that the number of driving tests carried out over recent years has been dropping. 16,000 fewer driving tests were conducted in 2005 compared to 2004 (137,350 as opposed to 153,983).

Less than 1 in 4 provisional drivers are allowed drive on their own, with odds like that guards should be doing license checks ?

Oh and as I posted over here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51263818&postcount=68 the number of driving tests per year is actually going down, so excuse me for being cynical about noises in the lead up to an election from the government that have ignored the carnage for almost all of the last two decades.

But as we've seen consistently road traffic laws are ignored if they aren't enforced.

Esel

swingking wrote:

..If a provisional driving licence fails his test, he can't drive till he passes his test...Interesting idea, but how do people practice:rolleyes:

Take driving lessons - they obviously need them if they failed!

Pherekydes

Stark wrote:

What's the point in having an exceedingly complex theory test? It's driving a car, not "University challenge".

The Spaniard said "more difficult and complex than here", and not "exceedingly complex".

The Spanish system sounds good. Something like it should be adopted here. I had no lessons, no theory test, no pre-test and still passed first time. It shouldn't be allowed!:eek:

As regards accident rates, Ireland's is lower than Spain's but nearly twice that of our nearest neighbour, whose Road Traffic Laws we tend to copy.

If it was up to me..

* Out source the the driver test
* Purge the current driver testers who are living in the 1960s with regards to work practices, working hours and over unionisation (along with half the civil service I might add)
* Retests every 5 or so years
* Ban new + inexperienced drvers from driving at peak death times ( fri night, sat night)
* Fail means fail for provisional drivers

jhegarty

ronoc wrote:

* Retests every 5 or so years

that would cause choas... one silly mistake on your 5 year retest and you loose your job that requires a car....

Seth Brundle

jhegarty wrote:

that would cause choas... one silly mistake on your 5 year retest and you loose your job that requires a car....

Why not just do a re-test?
Also, would you rather have numpties who can't drive on the road purely to keep them in work?

miju

Big Nelly wrote:

My view on this is, they should change the law so that if someone is caught on a provisional license without a ful license driver they should automatically be banned from having any license for up to a year. End of story. Might get some of these provisional drivers off the road and improve road safety.

sorry nelly but to be blunt get yer head out of yer arse, there's just as many dangerous / stupid fully licensed drivers out there as provisional holders you only have to hop onto the M50 for 1 minute to see it

jhegarty

kbannon wrote:

Why not just do a re-test?
Also, would you rather have numpties who can't drive on the road purely to keep them in work?

anyone can fail a test , someone runs out on the road in front of you... you fail , no matter how your react....then you are off the road for a year waiting for a re-test ?

Big Nelly

miju wrote:

sorry nelly but to be blunt get yer head out of yer arse, there's just as many dangerous / stupid fully licensed drivers out there as provisional holders you only have to hop onto the M50 for 1 minute to see it

Did I say there wasn't, but its against the law and until the road laws are started to be implemented seriously then people will continue to flout them!

miju

unkel wrote:

The insurance companies sure do give out the info that provisional drivers have an average annual claim that is higher than the same age, etc. person with a full license. Isn't the latter's premium lower?

any linkies to that gem cos I'd sure like to see where they do

miju

Big Nelly wrote:

Did I say there wasn't, but its against the law and until the road laws are started to be implemented seriously then people will continue to flout them!

no but you did say that taking provisionals off the road should sort out road safety

prospect

Lads you have to start somewhere.

Also, if you fail your test, (as simple as it is), you should not be on the road, and it is quite right to ban these drivers.

Big Nelly

miju wrote:

no but you did say that taking provisionals off the road should sort out road safety

Yeah it will cut down on the number of people buying a car and then heading straight out onto the road without a clue how to drive

MrPudding

So many comments I would like to address but I don't have time to do the quote stuff so I will try to address as much as I can.

With regards to provos being more or less likely to have accidents. Do insurance companies charge more money to insure a provisional driver? If they do why? Could it be that they find provo drivers are more likely to be involved in accident?

TBH I find it crazy that provo drivers are allowed to drive unaccompanied. I would like to see that little gem stopped but I am a realist and recognise that it cannot be done given the current state of the testing system. What I find more crazy is that there are people on this board saying that if a person sits a test of competency and fails that test he or she should still be allowed to drive. Are you guys serious?

In another post someone said that the test was rubbish and all you have to do is "act" like a good driver for 20 minutes. Well folks nearly 50% of the people taking driving tests in this country can't even pretend to be good drivers for 20 minutes. Does that not scare any of you?

Savman, you are one of the many brilliant and safe drivers that for one reason or another have not sat a test. I do not know you and I will not judge you. I will take you at you word that you are a good driver I will go further and say that you may well have a valid reason for not having sat a test. I will go even further and say that taking you off the road may be unfair as you might be a good driver. The problm is, is it the same for the other 400K provo drivers on our roads? Can you say that they are all safe?

You see this is the problem. There has to be a way for us to decide who is fit to drive and who isn't. Now, I agree that the current test might not be the best method but it is all we have. We should not let people onto our roads willy nilly. Some people on provisional licenses may be fantastic drivers, they may be very safe and considerate. The problem is how do we separate them form the provo drivers that aren't? Any suggestions?

Several people have mentioned that they feel full license holders are more dangerous and more like to be involved in accidents. I have a couple of thing to say about that. First of all, that is a subjective opinion and whilst I have heard it a number of times I have yet to see any evidence to back it up. In fact the evidence points to the contrary, the insurance companies charge provos more not full license holders. I fully except that there may be more incidents involving full license holders. In fact I fully expect there to be more. There are more full license holder on the road and therefore statistically they are more likely to be involved. But I think if you had access to the data you would find that provos, whilst involved in less incidents overall, would be more statistically more like to be involved. Finally, I also accept that there are full license holders that are not good drivers. Or perhaps they could act for 20 minutes or perhaps they got their license in their cornflakes box from Mr Haughey. Perhaps over the years they have simply gotten lazy.

Having passed a test is not a 100% guarentee of a drivers skill but it is something and it is much better than nothing.

MrP

b3t4

I've read these three pages and to be honest I'm quite shocked that the following has not been mentioned.

Ok, so everyone here is like get lessons, get lessons, get lessons but ANYONE with a full license can set themselves up as a driving instructor.

If I was to start anywhere with this whole thing I'd sort out the situation with driving instructors. People want to take lessons and people will take lessons but if the person teaching them isn't the best then it's going to make a bad situation worse. Also parents are extremely keen to have their kids take lessons.

From www.racsom.ie

"In order to bring Ireland more into line with its European partners the Irish Government has committed itself to establishing a national register of instructors.

Originally 1st January 2002 was set as the date for the implementation of a register. However currently it still not been implemented.

Legislation is currently in the Oireachtas and will hopefully result in a resolution to the issue."

A.

Kimbot

One point I would like to make about this!! Don't all test centres have their Fail rate that they have to fail in anyway??

I sat 2 tests in the last while!!
First test I done the tester was looking out the passenger side window for the entire test, gave me a late command to take a right turn and marked me for it, told me to park my car on front of a gateway (to which I refused becuase the rules of a road state you can't be blocking a gateway) to do my 3 point turn!! Was pure arrogant when I was asked questions, when I asked him to repeat any command he sighed then repeated!!

On my second test all the fails were a carbon copy of my first test (2 right turns and one left was marked under the progress header) and I done all my right turns correct ( I can't drive through cars now can I??) and yet I failed!! Also in my second test about 12-15 car lenghts a head of me in an industrial estate a man opened his jeep door and stepped out onto the road!! When I was approx 8 car lenghts away the man was off the road and his door closed and my sheet got marked as failure to react to hazzard ( now how did I fail to react to something that was not there??)
The testers are not up to the standard in this country and another thing, when you fail why is it against their rules to tell you where you failed?? Because if they were to list it then they would be caught out!!

Jumpy

jhegarty wrote:

anyone can fail a test , someone runs out on the road in front of you... you fail , no matter how your react....then you are off the road for a year waiting for a re-test ?

*stunned*

The driving instructors are trained to take this into account. If you react badly then you are not meant to be on the road. If you react correctly in a safe manner then that will be taken into account.

MrPudding

jonny24ie wrote:

One point I would like to make about this!! Don't all test centres have their Fail rate that they have to fail in anyway??

I sat 2 tests in the last while!!
First test I done the tester was looking out the passenger side window for the entire test, gave me a late command to take a right turn and marked me for it, told me to park my car on front of a gateway (to which I refused becuase the rules of a road state you can't be blocking a gateway) to do my 3 point turn!! Was pure arrogant when I was asked questions, when I asked him to repeat any command he sighed then repeated!!

On my second test all the fails were a carbon copy of my first test (2 right turns and one left was marked under the progress header) and I done all my right turns correct ( I can't drive through cars now can I??) and yet I failed!! Also in my second test about 12-15 car lenghts a head of me in an industrial estate a man opened his jeep door and stepped out onto the road!! When I was approx 8 car lenghts away the man was off the road and his door closed and my sheet got marked as failure to react to hazzard ( now how did I fail to react to something that was not there??)
The testers are not up to the standard in this country and another thing, when you fail why is it against their rules to tell you where you failed?? Because if they were to list it then they would be caught out!!

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, like I gave savman. I will assume that you are being 100% accurate in you description of you tests. I will allow that you are a perfect or at least very good driver and you failed the test due to victimisation or some other reason not related to your actual driving still. But what it still comes down to is this, even if the above is true it is still likely that most of the people who have failed are not liek you and are infact bad drivers that should not be on the road? Do you see the problem here?
No one is saying the testing system is perfect. It needs work, a lot of work but it is currently the only thing we have.

I want you all to try something for me. I need to to have a really open mind. i need you to forget your personal circumstances. Forget that you are a provisional driver and that you need you car. Forget that maybe you have tried the test and failed even though you *know* you are a great driver. Forget all that. Imagine you are an alien that has arrived from an advanced civilisation and you are checking out driving in Ireland. Now. How do you think you would react when told that if a driver fails a test of competancy he can still drive his car unacompanied and there is no action taken?

When you sit down and think about this completly subjectively can you not see how fcuking stupid it is to let people who have failed a test of competancy continue as if nothing happened?

What are we supposed to do? Should we have a pre-test test? That way we can devide the provos that can drive fromt he provos that can't drive? Wait a minute, that won't work, that is just like having a test. Wow, this is really hard. How to we separate the provos that can drive from those that can't without a test? Should we just have interviews or something?

I am seeing alot of whining from provo drivers that have either been unable or can't be arsed trying to pass a 20minute acting session in order to get a full license but no suggestions as to what can be done. Overhauling the entire driving training and testing system is not going to happen overnight. Lets face it, another couple of thousand people will be killed on our road before there are any real changes.

Taking people that fail a test of competancy off the road is an easy way to make a start and it should make a difference.

MrP

Kimbot

MrPudding wrote:

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, like I gave savman. I will assume that you are being 100% accurate in you description of you tests. I will allow that you are a perfect or at least very good driver and you failed the test due to victimisation or some other reason not related to your actual driving still. But what it still comes down to is this, even if the above is true it is still likely that most of the people who have failed are not liek you and are infact bad drivers that should not be on the road? Do you see the problem here?

I agree with you on alot of your points!! Anyone that knows me will all say that yes in the past I was one of those menaces on the road!! I wasn't all that bad but I have learned alot! I have a complaint in with the Dept of Transport about the first test, the gave me the second test a few days later!! Also when the tester arrived oout to my car for my first test he look at the alloys on my car and just laughed!!
I am a very capable driver and I have never had an accident apart from some fool running into the back of me!!
I abide by the rules of the road and stick to the speed limit/never overtake dangerously or anything like that! It took me 2 years to get my test and I failed! I was like a wreck resitting it and I failed again!! I know of one person that actually saw "Fail" on the clipboard beside her name before she even left the test centre!!
I am shocked by the amount of bad drivers on the roads and I always encourage safe driving because at the end of the day I have to use the roads and my son is in cars on these roads and I wouldn't want anything to happen to him!
I agree 100% that a major overhaul is in order!! I also believe that people shouldn't be given a provisional Lisence unless that have sat a certain number of lessons with a driving school etc.
The people that were "handed" there lisences years ago without sitting a test should have to sit one now and I believe that even after your 10 year lisence is up then you have to resit the exam because you can gain bad habbits in those 10 years!! People will full lisences can be cocky because they have passed their tests and know they don't have to resit one and I know a number of people that don't care if Gardai stop them because they will get off lighter because they hold a full lisence which is a joke as far as I am concerned!!

Pigeon Reaper

No driver is ever perfect. In fact very few are even good. Drivers on Irish roads are adequate to poor. I have absolutely no problem with someone who drives but admits that they are a bad driver and make mistakes. At least this person knows their limits. If someone fails their test and jumps back into the car to drive what does this say about the persons mentality?

For those who wish to know I've been driving a number of years. I failed my first test but passed second time around. All in all I've had about 40 hours tution over the years in both cars and on motorbikes. Some of this tution was done after getting the full licence from RoSPA gold standard instructors. These instructors aren't any better at handling the car than most people but they do know their limits and try to plan ahead for all eventualitys. I have never been in a car crash but have been knocked off the bike twice. In both cases the other driver was legally at fault by running a stop sign and by overtaking on a blind bend with continous white line. In both these cases the extra instruction reduced the severity of the incidents. It is possible that had my own driving and road positioning been better they could have been avoided completely. Most accidents I've witnessed over the years have been completely avoidable by any drivers involved.

Why am I saying all of this? No driver is perfect. The current proposal makes sense. If a provisional driver(I'm not saying learner as we should all be learning while driving everyday) fails the test those with sense should admit that they need an instructor with them to point out how they can improve and therefore they won't drive by themselves. Those who do not need further tution despite failing a basic test shouldn't be on the road as they're a danger to themselves and others.

New_Departure06

Even if all of those involved in traffic accidents were Provisional License holders (unlikely) that is still a miniscule % of the 410,000 Provisional License holders. As one of those who is both a holder and a motorcyclist, I bitterly resent how we are scapegoated by some commentators as if we are to blame for society's traffic ills. I have never had an accident.

I have sat the test about 3 times. The first time I asked the tester could he explain to me exactly where I was supposed to have made one of the mistakes he had marked down for me and he wouldn't give me a straight answer, indicating he wasn't allowed. As a result, I thought that the "misleading" X mark meant I was being accused of lying. A short row then ensued as a result. I have since discovered that it actually meant that my driving or use of indicators was misleading other traffic. But why couldn't he have told me this? I fail to understand why testers are restricted (apparently) in being able to explain actual mistakes.

My second attempt came within a hairs breadth of passing. You fail if you get 4 grade 2 errors of the same category or 1 grade 3 error. I failed because in one category, I just failed exactly 4 errors. Disappointed, I nonetheless applied again. After around 1 year, I sat my third test. I had carefully practiced to avoid the said mistakes. Looking at the score-sheet I had avoided the old mistakes, but still failed because of one grade 3 error related to yielding right of way. I asked the tester where exactly this happened (politely), but it was like trying to get blood out of a stone. He turned out to be the same tester I had the little row with some years before.

If the system is to be reformed, the first thing they should do is remove the absurd rules preventing the tester for getting into nitty-gritty about why you failed including specifics as to where you made the mistake. If you don't truly understand the mistakes beyond vague classifications then you cannot possibly learn from them. I also object to the warnings of being taken off the road for failing a test. I think it should depend on the extent of the mistakes made, and their relevance to safety.

I understand the government are saying they want to reduce the waiting times to 6 weeks or so before they take provisional license holders who fail their tests off the road. I wonder is this feasible, and would it not be better to replace the one-session tests with a series of tests over a period of time? I think that judging someone's performance on one day is not necessarily an adequate assessment of their driving ability in general.

peterwilson

Big Nelly wrote:

Did I say there wasn't, but its against the law and until the road laws are started to be implemented seriously then people will continue to flout them!

Is it?

Kimbot

New_Departure06 wrote:

If the system is to be reformed, the first thing they should do is remove the absurd rules preventing the tester for getting into nitty-gritty about why you failed including specifics as to where you made the mistake. If you don't truly understand the mistakes beyond vague classifications then you cannot possibly learn from them. I also object to the warnings of being taken off the road for failing a test. I think it should depend on the extent of the mistakes made, and their relevance to safety.

I understand the government are saying they want to reduce the waiting times to 6 weeks or so before they take provisional license holders who fail their tests off the road. I wonder is this feasible, and would it not be better to replace the one-session tests with a series of tests over a period of time? I think that judging someone's performance on one day is not necessarily an adequate assessment of their driving ability in general.

I agree with you 100% mate, when you ask them where you went wrong they tell you to get a qualified instrutor and they will tell you where you went wrong!! Now how is the instructor suppose to know that when he wasn't there???

GreeBo

If its crazy to expect to be able to drive after you have failed a test, surely its also crazy to expect to be able to drive before you have taken a test?

Cerdito

MrPudding wrote:

With regards to provos being more or less likely to have accidents. Do insurance companies charge more money to insure a provisional driver? If they do why? Could it be that they find provo drivers are more likely to be involved in accident?

Interesting article from the Irish Times that might shed some light on this. Partly quoted due to premium access needed to view it. (Learner drivers rarely prosecuted for driving alone - David Labanyi - Wed March 8th 2006)

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motoring/2006/0308/3702807059MOT08_P1LEAD.html

To determine the rate of insurance claims from provisonal drivers, six leading motor insurers were asked to provide data on the frequency of claims from these motorists compared with fully licensed drivers.


Of the companies contacted, Axa said its provisional drivers were twice as likely to claim as experienced drivers; FBD said its experience was that provisional drivers were 80 per cent more likely to claim; Allianz had a 65 per cent higher claims rate, and Eagle Star said provisional drivers were 25 per cent more likely to have a serious claim.


Hibernian said provisonal motorists are 30 per cent more likely to have a claim. All figures are pro rata and based on 2005. The insurers were unable to provide an explanation for the different claim rates. Quinn Direct declined to provide any figures.


Paul O'Mahony, head of corporate affairs at Axa, said claims from provisional drivers were more expensive: "The younger the driver, the more severe the crash tends to be. A young driver's claim might end up being €2 million or €3 million based on the fact that there might be a lot of people in the car. Older drivers might claim about €20,000 on a personal injury basis."

jhegarty

Jumpy wrote:

f you react correctly in a safe manner then that will be taken into account.

where did you do your test ?

In Ireland you are only marked for faults , there is no credit for good driving.