19 yo dies 5 days after getting his so called licence

imeddyhobbs

The front page of the star today reported that a 19 year old died in a car crash 5 days after getting his luckybag driving licence(provisional licence)
This is a prime example of why people with provisional licences should not be on our roads,sickening!

MrSinn

I knew that kid,i agree with what you said.THEY like to keep blaming speed and drink but THEY never blame the themselfs for the stupid laws that THEY wont change

snickerpuss

Provisonal license drivers get blamed for all sorts. I realise its an issue and no they shouldn't be on the roads, but i'd say in most accidents its drivers with licenses involved no?
The bad drivers i know are the ones who've been driving years.

sharonlarkin

Provisional holders get blamed for nearly every accident on the roads. Did anyone stop to consider that boy and girl racers speeding, taxi drivers who stop in the middle of the road and force someone to break quickly and never basically do whatever they want on the roads, people with no L plates (full Licenced Holders) not indicating. All these are factors.

I am a provisional holder, never had an accident, never close to one, but the way others view the L plate on a car means they can pull out in front of you. Its happened to me more than once.

And what about the drink drivers (something I can't abide), They are never hard enough on them in court, (if by chance they get caught, then again that would take more police presence)

And then there are the old men in their big fast cars that think they have to prove their speed to every other car on the road.

And then there are the foreigners who are so used to driving on the opposite side of the road, that they are doing it here too. I've seen it.....

I feel sorry for the family that lost their son, but we don't know who was to blame. Just because he had a provisional didn't make him a bad driver.

And what about muppets using their phones while driving, (I thought that was against the law).

There are a lot of reasons our roads are very unsafe, fatchance seen a garda when someone is making an illegal turn, or on their phone. The penalty points mean nothing to people.

DON'T BLAME EVERY ACCIDENT ON A PROVISIONAL LICENCE HOLDER !!!!!:mad:

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Noelie

Anyone think car related issues should be outsourced away from the Garda?
A private company would do a much beeter job at catching Drink Drivers than the Garda are able to do.

sharonlarkin

I totally agree with the previous post that the anything to do with driving should be taken away from the Gardai, Brilliant Idea, Its a shame the government wouldn't listen

heggie

what about the bloody shambles our roads are? potholes everywhere, piss poor materials used, shabby 'patching' and also, with the weather and the amount of building sites around the slippy surfaces.

imeddyhobbs

I think most of you are missing the point,if you dont have a full licence then you should not be allowed to drive,my original point was to highlight this.

sharonlarkin

Provisional or Full Licences don't matter, its the DRIVERS that cause the accidents, not their status. It's their ability to drive well, to be observant. How careful and awareful they are. I am a provisional holder and I have been told that I drive better than some Full licenced people I know.

MrSinn

why dont they let pilots fly without being fully qualified?

flogen

What is it lately with threads here descending into Transport discussions?

Be gone with you! (sorry Victor/Hobart)

A Dub in Glasgo

sharonlarkin wrote:

Provisional or Full Licences don't matter, its the DRIVERS that cause the accidents, not their status. It's their ability to drive well, to be observant. How careful and awareful they are. I am a provisional holder and I have been told that I drive better than some Full licenced people I know.

Seems reasonable to me that a driver should be qualified before they are let loose on the roads on their own.

Capt'n Midnight

A car is a lethal weapon. If you want to kill someone use a car.

You aren't allowed to go on a building site without having done a safe pass course, and even then you aren't allowed to use dangerous equipment without extra training.

Most drivers think they are better than average - IIRC it's something like 80% who think that. This means that many are wrong. And considering the state of our average driver this is really scary. In every other OECD country it's not your opinion that matters it's that of the tester.

Until the govt actually do something about the driving test backlog, people with no training or skills will be allowed to attempt to guide a metal box around our roads.

As for the testers and unions and all that. They agreed to a productivity deal already where they had to do 83% of the possible number of tests. The average rate,which is falling year by year is only 2/3rd of the 83%. This together with a fail rate of nearly half means that there is abundant work out there. If they can't do the job, target is 3 weeks waiting list but 400,000 in the queue means 300 weeks is a realistic timescale at current rates, then why can't more testers be hired ???

The test fee doesn't cover the test. The shortfall is a few million a year, it could be measured in hours of NRA budget. To clear the entire backlog would cost less than has been wasted on eVoting machines.

One simple way to reduce the backlog would be to do a deal with the authorities in NI so they could do tests for us. They would have to agree and the tests would have to be the UK test so it's all legal and stuff , but you get an EU license so not a biggie.

Danno

Why cant people stick to doing the respective limit on the roads?

Amount of idiots driving at 65kmph in a 100kmph zone is outragous.

Why can't people just fcuking drive in this country?
Too many assholes on the road causing displeasure for everyone else around them. Get these fcuks off the road so we can all drive on.

Victor

Danno wrote:

Amount of idiots driving at 65kmph in a 100kmph zone is outragous.

Its a limit, not a target.

zippo22

Danno wrote:

Why cant people stick to doing the respective limit on the roads?

Amount of idiots driving at 65kmph in a 100kmph zone is outragous.

....

???.

colm_mcm

Doesn't the law require first provisional holders to have a licensed driver with them?

Dar

The main issue in Ireland is the low standard of driving, partially because of the large number of provisional license holders.

The long term solution to this is to make the test harder and place a strong emphasis the penalty points system to root out bad drivers who are already on the road with licences.

Unfortunatly any earnest attempt to increase the standard of Irish driving is being blocked by the huge backlog in driving tests. Hiring more testers or outsourcing tests to the north seems to be the obvious solution, but of course the unions will raise bloody hell at anything which endangers their job security.

the_syco

colm_mcm wrote:

Doesn't the law require first provisional holders to have a licensed driver with them?

Yup.

Love to know how many lessons the dead kid had gotten, if any, was he speeding, did he have friends in the car, and was he drinking beforehand.

Most think its their right, not privilage to drive. That they are great because they play some playstation game all the time. That they won't crash, as only stupid people crash...

Also, can't wait till 2008. The deal has been signed, and the union has passed it. There will be a private company coming in to "help" get rid of the excess people, and bring down the wait time to 7 or 8 weeks. They said "by 2007", so that means by 2008*, the problem should be sorted.


*give or take 20 years.

SeanW

It's a bit rich complaining about provisional license holders.

Status means nothing. Obeying the laws, being careful and not acting the pr1ck is what keeps people alive.

Frank OJ

I agree with Sean(post above). Narrow mided people

corktina

Danno wrote:

Why cant people stick to doing the respective limit on the roads?

Amount of idiots driving at 65kmph in a 100kmph zone is outragous.

Why can't people just fcuking drive in this country?
Too many assholes on the road causing displeasure for everyone else around them. Get these fcuks off the road so we can all drive on.

it's this post that is outrageous......not everyone is capable of driving at 100 k...other drivers need to remember that.....

futuredeath

MrSinn wrote:

why dont they let pilots fly without being fully qualified?

thats completely different.

until they sort out the waiting time on aquiring a full license then provisional license drivers will be on the road, the law states someone with a full license should be in the car so sont go around blaming the law on this one.

Lemming

imeddyhobbs wrote:

I think most of you are missing the point,if you dont have a full licence then you should not be allowed to drive,my original point was to highlight this.

Ummmm ..... and just how exactly do you propose that people learn to drive? :rolleyes:

Bit of a problem there eh? If you aren't allowed on the road then you aren't driving ...... which means no passing your driving license which means no drivers on the roads. Hmmmm ... actually you may be on to something there. if there were no drivers, there'd be no deaths from driving

/me claps uber-fuX0r1ng slowly



I'm learning to drive, and the amount of poor driving I've witnessed by licensed drivers is astounding. The amount of aggressive driving I've seen because I have an "L on the car is even more astounding. Tailgating, speeding, overtaking on blind bends whilst speeding in built up urban areas (yes this actually happened ....), and generally impatient, inconsiderately rude w@nkers, both male and female most of whom would have been over 30 (appearance-wise at least). The problem isn't learner drivers per-se, it's bad driving standards in general coupled with a lack of Garda ability to police the roads. People know that they can 99% of the time get away with whatever it is they're doing, so they do it repeatedly.

civdef

why dont they let pilots fly without being fully qualified?

Eh, they do - pilots typically go solo after around 15-20 hours, on a student pilot licence.

bringitdown

civdef wrote:

Eh, they do - pilots typically go solo after around 15-20 hours, on a student pilot licence.

But I assume with an instructor present?

Anyways I learnt to drive with a provisional and after a couple of months with mom in the car I was allowed to drive solo. Which I knew and know is illegal. I think the vast majority of people learn this way, top up with a lesson or 3 to iron out any bad habits and then take the test.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm split on the whole provisional thing it makes sense that you should not be allowed drive unaccompanied but hey that is a little hypocritical of me.

Anyway regardless of who you are if you speed well you can get yourself killed.

BuffyBot

Amount of idiots driving at 65kmph in a 100kmph zone is outragous.

100kmph is a limit, not a target.

luckat

I'm not sure, but I *think* that people with a provisional licence can drive alone if it's their second provisional, or something?

Of course the driving laws are a hames.

There should be a re-test every 10 years - or even when you bring the car in for an NCT, for that matter. (The driving test also changes; I failed mine for *not* putting the handbrake on at red lights; I talked to someone who'd just passed his last week and he was taught that if you're at the front of the queue at traffic lights you should sit there with one foot on the brake and the other on the clutch. Eeek!)

And drink driving - this business of how many units is crackers. People are simple souls, who obey simple laws. Make it *no alcohol if you want to drive* and the drink driving instances would drop, because it would be simple. Or at least, they'd drop if the law were enforced; we're very good at *making* laws in this country, enforcing them is another matter.

Töpher

From what I've seen, people on provisionals are often safer than some of their counterparts with full licences. Its rare to see someone in an L-plated car try an insane manouver like overtaking traffic moving at 100kph on a single lane road around a bend... Similarly L-plated drivers seem to be much more conscious of simple things like indicators. Of course there are exceptions, just my opinion.

Misty Moon

luckat wrote:

I'm not sure, but I *think* that people with a provisional licence can drive alone if it's their second provisional, or something? .

I thought that as well but vaguely remembering people talking about this having changed a couple of years ago. Since I'd already passed my test I didn't bother myself about looking into it.

There should be a re-test every 10 years - or even when you bring the car in for an NCT, for that matter.

Agree in principle with this idea - only thing is the current system can't even handle the testing it has to do so major overhaul would be needed.

(The driving test also changes; I failed mine for *not* putting the handbrake on at red lights; I talked to someone who'd just passed his last week and he was taught that if you're at the front of the queue at traffic lights you should sit there with one foot on the brake and the other on the clutch. Eeek!)

I used to stress about this issue before my test because I'd been told different things by different instructors. Ended up emailing someone (cannot remember who now - think it was from the test website set up by the Department of the Environment, are they the ones responsible for driver testing?) and got a reply that either is acceptable and you need to use your own judgement as to which is safest in any given situation.

And drink driving - this business of how many units is crackers. People are simple souls, who obey simple laws. Make it *no alcohol if you want to drive* and the drink driving instances would drop, because it would be simple. Or at least, they'd drop if the law were enforced; we're very good at *making* laws in this country, enforcing them is another matter.

Also agree re zero tolerance on drink driving - any drink should equal no driving. I know myself I can drink a bottle of wine without feeling particularly tipsy but that on (admittedly rare) occassions one glass of wine or champagne can have me giggling away and/or feeling very sleepy.

But as always the problem is not with the laws we have - it's the lack of enforcement. And to some extent the lack of respect for them. It'd be nice if people would keep laws just because they're the laws and not just because they might get caught.

Blub2k4

Lemming wrote:

Ummmm ..... and just how exactly do you propose that people learn to drive? :rolleyes:

Bit of a problem there eh? If you aren't allowed on the road then you aren't driving ...... which means no passing your driving license which means no drivers on the roads. Hmmmm ... actually you may be on to something there. if there were no drivers, there'd be no deaths from driving

/me claps uber-fuX0r1ng slowly



I'm learning to drive, and the amount of poor driving I've witnessed by licensed drivers is astounding. The amount of aggressive driving I've seen because I have an "L on the car is even more astounding. Tailgating, speeding, overtaking on blind bends whilst speeding in built up urban areas (yes this actually happened ....), and generally impatient, inconsiderately rude w@nkers, both male and female most of whom would have been over 30 (appearance-wise at least). The problem isn't learner drivers per-se, it's bad driving standards in general coupled with a lack of Garda ability to police the roads. People know that they can 99% of the time get away with whatever it is they're doing, so they do it repeatedly.

Despite your sarcasm and the implication that you have worked something out that was beyond the brain power of the previous poster other countries manage fine without allowing untested people onto the road, with the only check being the local copper vouching for your address.

I wouldn't allow any unqualified drivers onto the roads, my father is old enough not to have done a test, I'd retest him tomorrow, he knows how the car goes forward but in my eyes is a danger on the roads, I've told him as much too.
Attitude here means that everyone allows for crap driving.
Example: this morning coming in in the work bus crossing the Navan Road at the McDonalds to get down the backway through finglas to Blanch, some muppet is sitting right across the junction completely blocking the lane of traffic coming from town ignorant cow, as a copper I'd have tried to have her license removed, but here you see coppers ignoring it.

Provisionals just lead to a general degradation of driving standards and this has lead to a generally poor standard of driving, couple that with licenses awarded in amnesties, my father only had his HGV class removed from his license when he went to renew, remember he did NO TEST at all.

MrPudding

sharonlarkin wrote:

I am a provisional holder and I have been told that I drive better than some Full licenced people I know.

Congratulations! What would you prefer, a medal or a full driving license?

Regardless of how good a driver you or anyone else thinks you are would you be willing to bet you life that every other provisional driver is as good as you?

Can you accept that not all provisional drivers may not be able to drive properly?

Lets set aside the provisional drivers that don’t have full licenses because they either can't be bothered applying, remember, the number of people waiting for a driving test is less than half of the number of people on provisional licenses.

Let's concentrate instead on that section of the provisional drivers driving alone on our roads everyday that have actually FAILED the driving test. They have sat a test of competency and failed it. In the driving examiners opinion they are not able to control a car in a safe manner. Yet, they are out htere everyday.

Is that not insane? Someone on another thread said that the test was bullsh1t, it wasn't a real test. All you have to do is act like a good driver for 20 minutes. Well folks, 53% of people sitting their driving test in this country can't even pretend to be a good driver for 20 minutes. Then we have people coming onto this board and try to justify allowing them to continue to drive on our roads. Do you people not see how fcuking stupid this is?

Don't give me that "I need my car" sh1t. If you need you car get some fcuking lessons from a proper instructor and pass your test instead of driving on you own for 10 years, ballsing up your test and then complaining that the waiting list is too long.

Another thing. Why are the insurance premiums for provisional drivers more than for those holding a full license?

MrP

Rev Hellfire

As far as I'm aware you can drive alone on your second provisional license (not so sure on the third which I think cann't be driven on alone) but with certain restrictions.

With respect to the deaths on the roads I suspect that has more to do with the age of the drivers, quite simply young male drivers are a danger to themselves and others, which is why they rightly are crippled with such high insurance.

Hobart

The problem is not with provisional licence holders at all. The problem is with the correct application of the law. How many times have posters here seen examples of bad driving? I see at least 1 every morning driving into work. How many times have I seen an L plate holder pulled up on a motorway? Never. How many times have I seen a check-point outside a public house at midnight? Never. How many times have I seen spped checks on dangerous bends or the correct positioning of speed cameras? None.

I don't blame the guards. they *appear* to be doing their best with their lot. We need more of them, though. We also need changes in policy and implementation. Until then, the carnage will continue.

Rev Hellfire

MrPudding wrote:

Another thing. Why are the insurance premiums for provisional drivers more than for those holding a full license?

You'll find that age plays a bigger part in this. For the more gray haired of us with families etc, the difference in quotes between a provisional and full license is not that much.

positron

Victor wrote:

Its a limit, not a target.

Exactly! Ever since I got two points on my license (just as I came into a 80kph zone from a 120kph, I was doing about 7kpm above the limit - my fault, I learned my lesson), I try to stay below the limit (like 48 on a 50 area etc) and the amount of cars driving up too close behind me and giving me looks as if I should be off the road for their highness, is just unbelievable! Once a dude overtook me on the wrong side, only to nearly crash into a car parked a few meters ahead! All this for me sticking to 2 km less than the limit!

All cars should have a black box that would relay this sort of stuff about the car and other cars around it, to some kind of special authority and they should have a laser gun in space with which they can take out the offenders within seconds!!

Same with the speed cameras – set them all up with laser beams – new moto “you speed, we kill”!

end of rant!!

JimmySmith

Got the low down on this from a friend who was at the scene.
The guy and his mate were racing and clipped each other - lost control and he ended up dead.

Both drivers were on provisionals.

As for the prov vs full lisence thing.
A full holder has proof that they have passed a driving test. This proof should be required before anyone gets on the road. There should be schools where learners learn and are not let on to the road until they pass a test.

Refresher Test should be repeated every 5 years for EVERYONE and if you fail you dont get to drive at all until you pass.

I know ... i know ... they dont have the facilities. Well they should get them and do this. Until then issue no more provisionals and let the existing ones expire without being allowed to be renewed after lets say twice the waiting time for a test.
This leaves no excuses for not doing a test at all. You dont do it and pass it you dont drive.

popebenny16

I have driven on average around 20,000 miles on the roads per year over the last eight years. The things i have seen have led me to buy a car with the best euro-ncap rating and to be mindful that no matter how good a driver you are you have to be on the lookout for idiots at all times.

Just because you are a provisonal driver it dosnt mean you are a bad driver, same goes that if you have a full licence it dosnt mean you are a good driver either. The vast amount of cases in the Courts relating to driving are with people who have full licences and have had them for years.

Yes, the speed limit is not a target, a lot of people seem to forget that. As an excerise if you live in a rural area with the 80kph limit, go home tonight and stick to it, where it is safe to do so, and see how many people will pass you out. Most of them will.

Try the two second rule. See how annoyed the guy behind you will get and overtake you to get into that gap. It happens.

If you get stuck behind a 50 kph driver or somesuch, even on a 100kph road, wait untill it is safe and then overtake. There is no point in getting mad. Think about this: You will save at the most 30 seconds of driving time by opvertaking them early and taking a chance, it's not worth it. As the saying goes its better to be late in this world than early in the next.

MrPudding

Rev Hellfire wrote:

You'll find that age plays a bigger part in this.

The premium comes down at least 10% I have been told. I agree that age will come into it in certain cases but if a driver passes his test and his premium drop 10%+ even though he is the same age I do not think you can argue that full license holder premiums are not lower.

MrP

Lemming

Hobart wrote:

The problem is not with provisional licence holders at all. The problem is with the correct application of the law. How many times have posters here seen examples of bad driving? I see at least 1 every morning driving into work. How many times have I seen an L plate holder pulled up on a motorway? Never. How many times have I seen a check-point outside a public house at midnight? Never. How many times have I seen spped checks on dangerous bends or the correct positioning of speed cameras? None.

I don't blame the guards. they *appear* to be doing their best with their lot. We need more of them, though. We also need changes in policy and implementation. Until then, the carnage will continue.

Nail. Hammer. Head. minus the sarcasm my initial post had.

MrPudding

popebenny16 wrote:

Just because you are a provisonal driver it dosnt mean you are a bad driver, same goes that if you have a full licence it dosnt mean you are a good driver either.

Agreed, in some cases this is true. Would you not agree however that if you have failed a test of competency you are, most likely, not a good driver?

popebenny16 wrote:

The vast amount of cases in the Courts relating to driving are with people who have full licences and have had them for years.

Is that perhaps because the vast amount of people driving on the roads hold full licences? I would expect there to be more full license holder in court because there are more of them, that just seems sensible.

I think, however, provisional drivers are more likely to be involved in incidents although the number of incidents will be less in total.

MrP

JimmySmith

MrPudding wrote:

Agreed, in some cases this is true. Would you not agree however that if you have failed a test of competency you are, most likely, not a good driver?
MrP

I agree completely. At least a person who has passed the test has proved that they know the rules of the road and were an adequate driver at some point. A provisional holder has proved nothing apart from tha, if they failed a test they are crap drivers. They have never proved that they are a good driver ever.

popebenny16

Originally Posted by MrPudding
Agreed, in some cases this is true. Would you not agree however that if you have failed a test of competency you are, most likely, not a good driver?
MrP

Totaly, the entire testing system is a joke and if you fail you shouldnt be allowed to drive.

How do you learn to drive then/ Your provisoinal licence is not a right, and it should be tailored so that you can only drive in the company of a fully qualified instructer, not your daddy/mammy or your mate.

Is that perhaps because the vast amount of people driving on the roads hold full licences? I would expect there to be more full license holder in court because there are more of them, that just seems sensible.

Straingely enough, it isnt an exact proportional replica. There is an under-respresentation of Provisional licence holders in the courts vis-a-vis full licence holders.

Lemming

Blub2k4 wrote:

Despite your sarcasm and the implication that you have worked something out that was beyond the brain power of the previous poster other countries manage fine without allowing untested people onto the road, with the only check being the local copper vouching for your address.

I wouldn't allow any unqualified drivers onto the roads, my father is old enough not to have done a test, I'd retest him tomorrow, he knows how the car goes forward but in my eyes is a danger on the roads, I've told him as much too.

So the issue here isn't learner drivers at all? Well geeh wizz .... I never!!! :-o

Saying "learner drivers shouldn't be allowed on the roads" is the statement I'd expect from someone worth of knuckledragging idiocy. It is _not_ the same as learner drivers not being allowed on the roads without supervision. Big, big, BIG difference. Did I mention that there was a big difference between the two statements? Now you might start to get an idea of where my sarcasm was coming from.

As for your father. My father is in the same boat. And shouldn't be on the roads without a qualified license. For that, the government should be screamed at repeatedly to do something. Same as any younger person today who simply gets in a car and drives without holding a license of _any_ sort.

These statements of "never", "get off the road", etc are f*cking idiotic Blub. They truly are. I'd expect better arguments from monkeys. Hell, at least those arguments would be entertaining! As I've pointed out above, there is a world of difference between the two statements of "shouldn't be allowed." and "shouldnt' be allowed without ... "

Attitude here means that everyone allows for crap driving.
Example: this morning coming in in the work bus crossing the Navan Road at the McDonalds to get down the backway through finglas to Blanch, some muppet is sitting right across the junction completely blocking the lane of traffic coming from town ignorant cow, as a copper I'd have tried to have her license removed, but here you see coppers ignoring it.

Ah .. a bad driver. What license-status did she have? As for pulling her license, that's also a knee-jerk reaction. Perhaps penalty points by all means, but that attitude that you're displaying is also not a solution, as much as that you claim the woman possesed.

Provisionals just lead to a general degradation of driving standards and this has lead to a generally poor standard of driving, couple that with licenses awarded in amnesties, my father only had his HGV class removed from his license when he went to renew, remember he did NO TEST at all.

No, what has led to a general degradation of driving standards is lack of enforcement of road law. People get away with things, and continue to do so and believe they will in future, so they keep at it. Just as there are provisional holders out there who continue to drive without supervision, there are many more people who do plain dangerous things and who hold full licenses. I see it every single day on the motorways (getting a lift .. not driving since that would be illegal)

MrPudding

Lemming wrote:

No, what has led to a general degradation of driving standards is lack of enforcement of road law.

Is one of the laws not being enforced not that drivers on a first provisional should not be driving on their own?

MrP

Rev Hellfire

MrPudding wrote:

The premium comes down at least 10% I have been told. I agree that age will come into it in certain cases but if a driver passes his test and his premium drop 10%+ even though he is the same age I do not think you can argue that full license holder premiums are not lower.

MrP

Ohh I totally agree that the insurance will be cheaper, but since we are linking risk with insurance rates. The point is that to insurance companies the danger comes not so much from having a provisional driver (which naturally will be higher) but rather age/sex.

I'd certainly agree that provisional drivers are more likely to have minor accidents like rolling back, misjudgements etc than an experienced driver. But for example if a learner stalls at junction and the driver behind was expecting to have quick take-off and hits his behind, well who’s at fault ?
I would argue that when it comes to serious accidents like the one referred to in the original post, the primary cause is the age of the driver and their attitude.
Naturally if they had a full license they may be a better driver, but I suspect they would not be any less aggressive in their driving and risk taking. This view seems to be shared by the main insurers as well.

Maybe the age limit should be raised to 30

Lemming

MrPudding wrote:

Is one of the laws not being enforced not that drivers on a first provisional should not be driving on their own?

MrP

Yes MrP, you're absolutely spot on there, and I agree - being a provisional license holder myself - that many people with these licences are driving without supervision and shouldn't be. But, like everyone else they see a lack of road law enforcement and just do what they want to.

MrPudding

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'd certainly agree that provisional drivers are more likely to have minor accidents like rolling back, misjudgements etc than an experienced driver. But for example if a learner stalls at junction and the driver behind was expecting to have quick take-off and hits his behind, well who’s at fault ?

If you have a person who has not had any lessons and never read the rules of the road I think we are risking a little more than rolling back at lights.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I would argue that when it comes to serious accidents like the one referred to in the original post, the primary cause is the age of the driver and their attitude.

I don't agree. If you do not actually know how to do something then your age or attitude will pale into insignificance. I will allow that age and attitude, which are in themselves probably closely related, may contribute they are not the primary danger.

An example perhaps. Lets say I get a job in a hospital. I am 33 years old and consider myself to be reasonably mature. I also believe I have a good attitude. So into the operating theatre I go to do my first apendectomy (not even sure if I can spell it.) Now, I really want to do it properly. I really wnat to save the person and not cause them any harm. I think you will agree this is the correct attitude. Does that mean I will be able to carry out the procedure? No, of course it doesn't. Whilst I an old enough and have the right attitude I simply do not have the skills required to carry out the task. I will most like fail.

Why is it different for driving? Perhaps the provos are young and perhaps some of them have a bad attitude but at the end of the day a lot of them simply do not have th skills they need in order to operate a cars safely.

Having a qualifed experienced and sensible drive accompanying a provo driver can help to mitigate the attitude problem. A driver is less likely to get into a race if there is a driving instructor or a relative sitting in the passenger seat.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Naturally if they had a full license they may be a better driver, but I suspect they would not be any less aggressive in their driving and risk taking. This view seems to be shared by the main insurers as well.

I actually don't think that having a full license automatically makes someone a better driver. I happen to believe the test is bullsh1t myself. This is what scares me even more. The test is crap but there is still more than half of the people sitting it fail it.

I am not sure I agree with your last statement. Is it not the case that the main insurers give a reduction when you pass you test?

This isn't a congatualtions gift. It is because the actuaries has done their sums and worked out a full license holder is less likely to be involved in an incident.

MrP

Gurgle

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I would argue that when it comes to serious accidents like the one referred to in the original post, the primary cause is the age of the driver and their attitude.

My feeling* on the subject of fatal accidents is they generally come into 3 categories:

- Young drivers messing,(racing, speeding, expecting the car to stick to wet muddy tar like its superglue etc)
- Trucks and lorries on roads built for donkeys
- Middle-aged drivers who think they own the road

*as in the feeling you get when you hear 300+ news reports per year for a decade or so.

ambro25

Lemming wrote:

I'm learning to drive, and the amount of poor driving I've witnessed by licensed drivers is astounding. The amount of aggressive driving I've seen because I have an "L on the car is even more astounding. Tailgating, speeding, overtaking on blind bends whilst speeding in built up urban areas (yes this actually happened ....), and generally impatient, inconsiderately rude w@nkers, both male and female most of whom would have been over 30

Did it ever occur to you that all of the above (and some more) is regularly encountered by experienced drivers with no L plates on a dialy basis also?

Lemming wrote:

(appearance-wise at least)[/i]. The problem isn't learner drivers per-se, it's bad driving standards in general

"Learner" means just that: not that you are a bad driver (that would be a driver who endangers others), but that you lack experience, which is required over time to eventually provide a good driver, like it or not. Anyone who has today been driving for some years or more had to go through it - can't get any truer than this.

But this directly impacts "standards" which are discussed, because there is no formal requirements with regard to tuition - it is not 'standardized', e.g. every learner driver receives basic 'standardized' tuition (learning 'checkpoints' dispensed by each and every driving school according to a national cursus) about specific bits about driving: parking, town driving, motorway driving, overtaking, etc, etc.

The provisional system strikes me for several reasons, not the least of which is that anyone is free to pick up bad habits along the way, from day one - when people 'issued' from this system themselves become the tutors (the licensed drivers accompanying the learners), the problems becomes increasingly compounded.