19 yo dies 5 days after getting his so called licence

r3nu4l

Where are the stats from the CSO or Gardaí to show that drivers with a provisional license are involved in more accidents?

Interestingly, where are the stats to show that provisional license holders are the cause of the accidents?

On another note, I got my first provisional at 17 and for various reasons it expired without me ever driving a car, not once!!

So I got my shiny new second provisional and guess what? I was legally entitled to drive on my own...how stupid is that? I didn't take advantage of this wonderful legal loophole :rolleyes:

I got my lessons, sat my test and passed first time round. The guy beside me failed his test, i.e. not qualified to drive on the roads, and was allowed to drive himself home. This is wrong!

A year ago, I put my L-plates back up, just to see what effect it would have on perceptions from other drivers...interesting.

Some drivers at roundabouts did their best to pull into the lane beside me so that they could take off ahead of me and pull into my lane, assuming that I would be nervous at the roundabout and take my time entering. Then they started beeping and fist-waving when we both entered at the same time and they couldn't get into the proper lane.:rolleyes:

Some drivers acted in a considerate manner but I found more tailgaters acting aggressively behind me, even when there was room to overtake, so I guess some people just like to bully any car that has an L-plate on it. :rolleyes:

MrPudding

r3nu4l wrote:

Where are the stats from the CSO or Gardaí to show that drivers with a provisional license are involved in more accidents?

Interestingly, where are the stats to show that provisional license holders are the cause of the accidents?

Even more interestingly I am not sure if the figures are available form the CSO or the gardai. As far as I know the only persons collecting this info are the insurance companies.

r3nu4l wrote:

On another note, I got my first provisional at 17 and for various reasons it expired without me ever driving a car, not once!!

So I got my shiny new second provisional and guess what? I was legally entitled to drive on my own...how stupid is that? I didn't take advantage of this wonderful legal loophole :rolleyes:

No just stupid, insane and also criminally negligent.

r3nu4l wrote:

I got my lessons, sat my test and passed first time round. The guy beside me failed his test, i.e. not qualified to drive on the roads, and was allowed to drive himself home. This is wrong!

I know, when I heard about this when I moved down here I thought the guy telling me was having me on. It just makes no sense.

r3nu4l wrote:

A year ago, I put my L-plates back up, just to see what effect it would have on perceptions from other drivers...interesting.

Some drivers at roundabouts did their best to pull into the lane beside me so that they could take off ahead of me and pull into my lane, assuming that I would be nervous at the roundabout and take my time entering. Then they started beeping and fist-waving when we both entered at the same time and they couldn't get into the proper lane.:rolleyes:

Some drivers acted in a considerate manner but I found more tailgaters acting aggressively behind me, even when there was room to overtake, so I guess some people just like to bully any car that has an L-plate on it. :rolleyes:

There seems to be a attitude here by a lot of drivers that their time is more important than everyone elses. This can be seen in a number of areas. People using bus lanes to skip queues, people using right turn only lanes to go straight and jump queues etc. There is also an attitude towards provos which I think has its roots in the same attitude.

TBH I see pleny of aggressive tailgating of full license holders and I believe that aggressive driver probably would not discriminate in how they aggress.

MrP

brian_ire

MrPudding wrote:

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.

First off some of the ignorance shown in this thread is ridiculous. To obtain a provisional driving lesson you must pass a driving theory test, therefore All provisional drivers are aware of the rules of the road. Secondly and you may just have been using exaggeration to prove a point, but if you haven't had any lessons your gonna find it a struggle to drive a car in the first place.

Going back to the original post, i think most of you have missed the boat on this one. As terrible as it is that another person died on our roads, they did not die because they were a provisional driver, they died because they were speeding.

Just because you have established to a tester that you can drive a car at a competent level for 20mins, does not mean you will drive at this level for the remainder of your life.

If we do want to move in a positive direction, how about we start teaching kids in secondary school, about the rules of the road and even then in 5th/6th year have instructors come into schools to do lessons with them. Just a thought.

Back to the whole "take the provisional drivers off the road" argument. I haven't seen one point valid enough to quote. We have already established that all provisional drivers are aware of the rules of the road, if they obey the speed limits and so do fully licensed drivers then the only fatalities on our roads will be extraordinary accidents.

Of course somebody might clip into the back of you, we are humans, we make mistakes but this is not nearly a valid enough reason to want to take all provisional license holders off the road.

One final point, one of my parents has a full license, she failed her original test but then was given a full license because of the back log. How many other drivers are there out there that have not past a driving competency test yet have a full license... the answer is in the thousands

r3nu4l

brian_ire wrote:

Secondly and you may just have been using exaggeration to prove a point, but if you haven't had any lessons your gonna find it a struggle to drive a car in the first place.

You have a point, but I used to share a house with a girl who did exactly this! Bought a Fiesta and within a week had crashed into a lampost and the front windowsill of the house we lived in! Crazy!

brian_ire wrote:

Just because you have established to a tester that you can drive a car at a competent level for 20mins, does not mean you will drive at this level for the remainder of your life.

Very true, ont he way home from my test I caught myself doing thirty-five in a thirty zone!

brian_ire wrote:

If we do want to move in a positive direction, how about we start teaching kids in secondary school, about the rules of the road and even then in 5th/6th year have instructors come into schools to do lessons with them. Just a thought.

Unfortunately, taxpayers would probably have to fund this and then there would be merry hell! Some school transition years do offer driving lessons but not everyone can afford this. Good idea though.

brian_ire wrote:

Back to the whole "take the provisional drivers off the road" argument. I haven't seen one point valid enough to quote. We have already established that all provisional drivers are aware of the rules of the road, if they obey the speed limits and so do fully licensed drivers then the only fatalities on our roads will be extraordinary accidents.

Agreed in principal but there really should be enforcement of the law over unaccompanied drivers, or some way to prove that you have at least taken lessons (not that taking a set number of lessons gives everyone the same level of confidence and competence - it doesn't!)

brian_ire wrote:

One final point, one of my parents has a full license, she failed her original test but then was given a full license because of the back log. How many other drivers are there out there that have not past a driving competency test yet have a full license... the answer is in the thousands

Yes, but the EU will not allow this to happen again and rightly so! That problem will resolve itself as the population ages but we need to get a hold of law enforcement and driver education here because until then people are just going to drive aggressively eveywhere.

MrPudding

brian_ire wrote:

First off some of the ignorance shown in this thread is ridiculous. To obtain a provisional driving lesson you must pass a driving theory test, therefore All provisional drivers are aware of the rules of the road.

Does that include people that have been driving on a provo license for over a decade? When did the theory test requirement come in?

brian_ire wrote:

Secondly and you may just have been using exaggeration to prove a point, but if you haven't had any lessons your gonna find it a struggle to drive a car in the first place.

It is not rocket science. Most people will have been watching people drive for years and will have a reasonable idea as to the actual mechanics of it. The point remains a person can drive a car with little or no tuition and head out onto the open roads.

Are you denying that this is the case?

brian_ire wrote:

Going back to the original post, i think most of you have missed the boat on this one. As terrible as it is that another person died on our roads, they did not die because they were a provisional driver, they died because they were speeding.

If you want to be accurate about it he actually died of a lack of oxygen to his brain. The fact that he was a provisioal driver, like his sppeding was a factor in the incident that led to his death.

brian_ire wrote:

Just because you have established to a tester that you can drive a car at a competent level for 20mins, does not mean you will drive at this level for the remainder of your life.

Agreed. So what is your big plan? I agree that the test is not worth much but it is all we currently have. There has to be a way to differentiate between driver that have some skill and drivers that don't.

brian_ire wrote:

If we do want to move in a positive direction, how about we start teaching kids in secondary school, about the rules of the road and even then in 5th/6th year have instructors come into schools to do lessons with them. Just a thought.

I agree with this 100%. As well as giving people the practical skill they need to actually drive the car we need to change peoples attitude. This cannot be done 1 hour per week regardless of how good the instructor is. Teaching kids how to behave when they get behind the week will be key.

But here is the thing, that will not happen overnight, sh1t, it might not ever happen. Either way we need something in order to decide who should be allowed to drive on their own and who shouldn't. All we have is the provo system and a test. We need to use what we have until we get what we need.

brian_ire wrote:

Back to the whole "take the provisional drivers off the road" argument. I haven't seen one point valid enough to quote.

I don't think I myself have explicity called for provo drivers to be taken off the road. Personally I don't think learners should be. Learning to drive under supervision on public road is an inportant part of the overal learning process. I don't think it would be pratical or possible to remove this, though I do feel it should be under supervision.

Allow me to give you a what I feel is a valid reason to remove *some* provo drivers off the road: They have taken and subsequently FAILED a test of COMPETENCY. They have been deemed NOT COMPETENT to drive a car on public roads.

If you do not think that is a valid reason for someone not to be on the road then there isn't really much point in continuing this.

brian_ire wrote:

We have already established that all provisional drivers are aware of the rules of the road,

Well, you think you have, I don't hapen to agree. Besides, the theory test isn't exactly hard to do is it? What is it, 30 questions? How many points in the rules of the road?

brian_ire wrote:

if they obey the speed limits and so do fully licensed drivers then the only fatalities on our roads will be extraordinary accidents.

So obeying the speed limits is the key is it? So it's OK to do 120KPH on the motorway in thick fog with visibility of 3 metres. I am obeying the speed limit, what could possibly go wrong?

Inappropriate speed is undoubtedly a factor but it is not the holy grail of road safety.

brian_ire wrote:

Of course somebody might clip into the back of you, we are humans, we make mistakes but this is not nearly a valid enough reason to want to take all provisional license holders off the road.

Again, I don't want to take them all off. I am happy for them to be there as long as they are under competent supervision.

brian_ire wrote:

One final point, one of my parents has a full license, she failed her original test but then was given a full license because of the back log. How many other drivers are there out there that have not past a driving competency test yet have a full license... the answer is in the thousands

I think it is over 10000. Don't even start me on this. It is shameful that a bunch of people got licensed to drive something as potentially dangerous as a car simply to score political points. Criminal.

But at the end of the day putting on your best whiney voice and crying "but, but some of the full license drivers are bad too!" is a poor arguement. It does not excuse or validate allowing people with little or no experience or those that have failed a test to drive unsupervised on our roads.

MrP

layke

I have 5 years road experience on Provo, my friend has 6 months, yet has a full license.

Who is the better driver?

Secondly, I would like to point out in Aus, you get your lessons, then after passing a test you get a provisional for 2 years and then after that you get your full license.

-a good system?

also I have a final question, I see the majority of accidents happening around the countryside these days or maybe perhaps it's on par with Dublin. Is this not due the ****e conditions of our roads to the west? How many times have you been down the country only to narrowly avoid some farmer speedin past you on a road that was poorly built for one car?

Alun

layke wrote:

I have 5 years road experience on Provo, my friend has 6 months, yet has a full license.

Who is the better driver?

I have absolutely no idea, and nor do any of the other drivers on the roads, that's the point. Just because you've been driving around for 5 years (probably unaccompanied, I assume?) doesn't automatically make you a better driver than he is, in fact seeing as he's obviously applied himself properly to the task at hand rather than faffing around for a whole 5 years without managing to pass what is a pretty basic test, maybe he's the better driver after all?

r3nu4l

layke wrote:

I
Who is the better driver?

I've never seen either of you drive but my future brother-in-law recently passed his test after six years driving and three attempts at the test!

He was woeful and has only copped on in the last six months! Speeding, modding his car with all sorts of crap, typical boy racer, wheelspins, agressive tailgating, jumping the traffic lights, to be first away, 2.0L engine he couldn't control properly...the list goes on and on.

So if you're like that then your mate is probably a better driver, if you're not like that, then good for you

The Australian system you talk about sounds okay but I'm sure the Australians will list lods ofthings they find wrong with their system :shrugs:

brian_ire

MrPudding wrote:

Does that include people that have been driving on a provisional license for over a decade? When did the theory test requirement come in?

The theory test has been in place for 5 years, so yes you are correct that those still on a provisional in excess of that did not have to do it. Maybe this is an issue as well, as in the length that a driver can obtain a provisional for. Personally i think 10yrs is way too long.

MrPudding wrote:

It is not rocket science. Most people will have been watching people drive for years and will have a reasonable idea as to the actual mechanics of it. The point remains a person can drive a car with little or no tuition and head out onto the open roads.

Are you denying that this is the case?

Nope I'm not denying this but people must take responsibility for themselves and other users of the road. If your getting into a car, unsupervised, with no prior training, well then your an idiot. You can try and legislate this, but unfortunately there will always be idiots and I don't have any magical answer that will solve this issue.

MrPudding wrote:

If you want to be accurate about it he actually died of a lack of oxygen to his brain. The fact that he was a provisional driver, like his speeding was a factor in the incident that led to his death.

You know the point I am trying to make, irrespective of whether he was a provisional or fully licensed driver, this still would have happened because he was acting irresponsibly. (I am not fully aware of this particular incident but making my comments based on what has been said in this thread)

MrPudding wrote:

So obeying the speed limits is the key is it? So it's OK to do 120KPH on the motorway in thick fog with visibility of 3 metres. I am obeying the speed limit, what could possibly go wrong?

Again you know the point I was trying to make, by speed limit I mean an appropriate speed, I apologise that i did not make specific reference to this but you know, a bit of common sense here and there!


Over all I think its a very complex issue, as I completely understand the points raised, but with the system that is in place, it is not viable to take provisional drivers off the road as the waiting time for a test is too long.

I think the solution is a happy medium, between supervised driving, shorter test times, and a higher quality of instruction given by driving teachers.

dowlingm

In Ontario there is also a graduated system - G1 is like the provisional: MUST be accompanied, ZERO blood alcohol, no M-way driving and restrictions on the number of under 19s in the car. G2 - unaccompanied, ZERO blood alcohol. G - full licence. You have to pass a G1 and G2 test and one year has to go by between G1 and G2 I think.

Lemming

ambro25 wrote:

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?

My point was not that its poor little "L" drivers getting a horrible time from the big mean nasty full license holders. My point was that a) I've seen on the whole, far worse driving from people who would appear to be _full_ license holders (I will point out the assumption here about "L" plates, or lack of them on a car) and b) the attitude of people towards "L" plates as soon as they see them, which has been commented on by more than myself.

That full license holders can drive so badly means that everybody on the roads is having to deal with them, not just Learner/Provisional/men-in-the-moon

"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.

I mixed the word "learner" with "provisional". Not mutually inclusive, but often synonimous with each other. My bad for not making that clear. That you lack experience is not the real problem. That you lack experience and are prepared to try and do something stupid is, where learner/prov. drivers are concerned. For example, I know I would not be familiar enough with the finer points of maneuvering, or driving a car at high speed and still remaining in control. So I don't speed or do something "dumb". Some people do. Some people continue to do it after they've gotten their full license. Experience is undoubtedly an important component in what will hopefully make a good driver, but my dad is an experienced driver. He's also a terrible driver. Care to rationalise that one? Attitude towards driving & one's decision-making skills are the real issue to be looked at, not experience.

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.

There is a standard. it's called the driving test. You pass it or you don't. If you think that's too black or white, then I'd suggest you take it up with the government since they deem that if you pass a 15/20 min test you are therefore a 100% perfectly safe and law-abiding driver .....

So, by default, all those schools don't need to standardise. Their success or failure rates will determine that for them when they start losing money from people going elsewhere.

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.

Erm .... tutors are licensed drivers too you know. What's your point? The only way to remove this particular non-entity of an issue is to eliminate all human tution from the equation.

But on note of what you're saying, peope learning to drive should attend a certain duration of recognised tuition instead of just learning from their mum/dad/big-brother etc.

Gurgle

Lemming wrote:

But on note of what you're saying, peope learning to drive should attend a certain duration of recognised tuition instead of just learning from their mum/dad/big-brother etc.

Bull tbh!

My wife had lessons with 3 different gob****es before I taught her to drive.

Once you know the rules of the road and you know what the various sticks, levers and pedals are for the only thing that will make you a better driver is practise.

Maybe this kid shouldn't have been out driving on his own 5 days after he got his provisional?

Maybe he was a perfectly good driver and made a bad decision?

It wasn't the license that killed him, or the law, or the road.

It was that voice in his head that we all had at 19, saying 'it'll never happen to me'.

galah

the old provisional discussion...love it...

People should not be allowed on the road without proper training, including theory, and practical stuff, which ALSO includes basic car maintenance (it's unreal how many broken brake lights/indicators/exhaust pipe hanging down etcetc I see on the roads - sometimes I think it's almost a standard to have only one set of lights working at any one time...). And the amount of crap drivers on the road and outright dangerous driving manoeuvres still baffles me, provisonal or full licence doesn't matter...

In Germany, you'll have to take a certain number of theory lessons, then pass a theory test, then you need a certain number of practical lessons (I think it's 12 two-hour lessons or so) - including night driving, motorways, country roads, parking and city driving. After you passed the practical test, you're on probation for 2 years (I think that means zero blood alcohol, and immediate implications when disobeying traffic rules).

So people are better "skilled" from the start, and you can assume that everyone who's out on the road has had the same driver education. No guessing whether the idiot in front of you has a full licence and is just stupid, or has a provisional but took the L-plates off, and all that..

Secondly, in Germany and many other countries, roads are simply better policed, and the rules of the road enforced. As someone mentioned here before: People do all this crazy driving and breaking the law because they can - noone there to enforce it...And if it's enforced, the punishment is not all that severe, lots of people get off due to technicalities...

Driver's need to be afraid of law enforcement, and be scared into doing the right thing (fear of getting caught!) - that's the only way to reduce all these unnecessary deaths on the roads!

And about the speed "limits" - I really wonder which drunk came up with these "limits" - some of the roads are simply not suited for speeds of more than 60 k - it seems they just looked at a map, and handed out limits just according to road number/status, not according to actual road conditions...It's simply crazy to have a 100 kmh limit on a bendy, hilly road, especially when it's raining (Connemara springs to mind) - but some people still think they can handle it and try to speed, overtake, tailgate, you name it...I think the government should review all the speed limits, and adjust them to actual road conditions...

I could go on and on...

Gurgle

galah wrote:

In Germany, you'll have to take a certain number of theory lessons, then pass a theory test, then you need a certain number of practical lessons (I think it's 12 two-hour lessons or so) - including night driving, motorways, country roads, parking and city driving.

In Germany, theres an alternative.
Its called public transport.

galah

maybe in the big cities, but certainly not in the country and smaller towns!

civdef

It wasn't the license that killed him, or the law, or the road.

It was that voice in his head that we all had at 19, saying 'it'll never happen to me'.

Given that the investigation is still ongoing and that there was more than one vehicle involved isn't it a bit early to be speculating on the cause?

Misty Moon

Also, in Germany IIRC if you fail your test three times you must attend a psychological examination to determine whether you're fit to be allowed try and drive any more. You get more points if you speed, park incorrectly etc. when on your probation period as well.

France has a similar system where you sit your theory, then have certain number of hours in school car with instructor before doing test. Once you pass the test you get a restricted licence for two years and only get a full licence if you don't have any traffic violations during that period. Driving on motorway is allowed but different (i.e. lower) speed limits apply.

Again, as I did my test a few years ago I haven't kept up to date with all developments. However I believe that all instructors must be registered with the DIR (Driving Instructor Register) since 2005.

Update: just checked and it seems unclear whether or not it's now a statutory obligation to be registered with DIR. See http://www.dir.ie/ and http://www.dir.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=69

But still, this only deals with paid driving instructors and does not address the issue of people learning from family/friends.

Gurgle

civdef wrote:

Given that the investigation is still ongoing and that there was more than one vehicle involved isn't it a bit early to be speculating on the cause?

Absolutely, I was commenting on the basis of:

JimmySmith wrote:

The guy and his mate were racing and clipped each other - lost control and he ended up dead.

being accurate.
I haven't seen this in the news or a link to it in this thread.

Litcagral

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

For those drivers who are middle-aged and above, there is no real difference in the cost of insurance regardless of whether the have a full or provisional licence. Anyone who has held a provisional licence in category B prior to 12th August 1985 is exempted for the accompanied qualified driver rule. This combined with the negligible difference in insurance cost means that, for many of them, there is no incentive to pass the test. Most of these people have no interest in cars and the importance or significance of having a full licence means nothing to them. I know several people in work who fall into this category.

In fairness to provisional licence holders, there are thousands of people driving around the country with "full" licences who never sat a driving test because they applied before the introduction of the test in the 1960s or got one in the 1979 amnesty.

My mother has a full driving licence and has never driven a car. :eek:

Re: People who consider themselves to be good drivers. I have a full, clean and unrestricted licence in all 13 categories but I don't consider myself to be a good driver. It's a constant learning process. Each day I think that it is I who could be killed today.

tinkerbell

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.

That is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous statement I have read in all my life. So, you can't drive then if you don't have a full license? How are you expected to sit a test if you can't practice? I agree with what Lemming said, everyone in this country seems to blame L drivers for every reason under the sun - in essence, people use L drivers as scape goats for everything that happens on our roads in this country.

The scariest people on our roads are middle-aged men driving their big flashy cars! The amount of these drivers who have scared the hell out of me is just ridiculous. I could nearly write a thesis on it at this stage. No signalling, no adherence to speed limits, in fact - if you even OMG do the actual speed limit, they drive right up yo ass to try and pressure you to break the limit (and no, I will not drive faster just they are in a hurry, idiotic muppets), overtaking at bends, the list goes on and on.

It appears to me that drivers who have their license have worse habits than L drivers. They don't have to sit a test again, so off they go, learn bad habits and stick to them. And the way people treat L drivers as well is just ridiculous.

As for the original post - that accident is just another accident to point the blame to L drivers and put them off our roads. It's not fair on L drivers - how can someone say that they are all bad? It doesn't matter what license you have, you could get a provisional license holder that is better than a full license person. Only difference is one has sat a 20 minute test. That accident involving the two - they were both provisional?

Yes they both should have had proper lessons before they went off and started driving around. I had about 25 hours of lessons with ISM and even then I was unsure of myself because driving is such a huge responsibility. That 25 hours of driving cost me over €1K but it was money well spent. I passed the test and I'm a good driver. People here should be forced to take lessons once they get the provisional.

imeddyhobbs

tinkerbell wrote:

The scariest people on our roads are middle-aged men driving their big flashy cars! The amount of these drivers who have scared the hell out of me is just ridiculous.

you might find that these middle aged men dont have proper licences either,a lot of them got them in the amnesty in the 70's so they are just like you and dont know how to behave on the road

tinkerbell

imeddyhobbs wrote:

you might find that these middle aged men dont have proper licences either,a lot of them got them in the amnesty in the 70's so they are just like you and dont know how to behave on the road

Excuse me? What do you mean they are "just like you and don't know how to behave on the road?"

I'm a damn good driver. And for your information, I know exactly how to behave on the road.

Maybe it would be an idea to re-test all those people who just got handed licenses in the 70s, that might solve some of this country's road problems.

bushy...

Not the happiest subject to bring up and not even hinting that it was the case this time but surely some single car/solid object crashes are suicide ?

snickerpuss

I don't know if i could learn to drive solely from a few hour lessons every so often and then take a test. The driving with someone with a license works if you're young and can get your parents to do it but if you're 50 and learning to drive who do you get to go around with you?
Also some secondary schools give driving lessons, my old one does.

MrSinn

tinkerbell wrote:

That is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous statement I have read in all my life.

And maybe you should get out more often

Lemming

MrSinn wrote:

And maybe you should get out more often

No Mr.Sinn, she's quite,. quite right. As I've already pointed out, amid heavy sarcasm I'll admit, there is a world of difference between the two statements:

"Provisional/Learner/insert-term-of-choice drivers should not be allowed on the roads."

and

"Provisional/Learner/insert-term-of-choice drivers should not be allowed on the roads without supervision/etc"

The difference being a '.' at the end of the first one denoting a final statement. It's pure flupping idiocy and I'd expect a better argument from a monkey.

So which is it to be? But as has been pointed out time and time again ad nausuem ad-f*cking-finitum, an "L" plate = scapegoat for every problem ion the road, ranging from the idiot driving at 120mph in fog conditions to the preson who threw a crisp-bag out their car door, to the weather.

So, I think it's perhaps yourself whom you should be applying your own dismissive statement to.

MrSinn

Lemming wrote:

No Mr.Sinn, she's quite,. quite right. As I've already pointed out, amid heavy sarcasm I'll admit, there is a world of difference between the two statements:

"Provisional/Learner/insert-term-of-choice drivers should not be allowed on the roads."

and

"Provisional/Learner/insert-term-of-choice drivers should not be allowed on the roads without supervision/etc"

The difference being a '.' at the end of the first one denoting a final statement. It's pure flupping idiocy and I'd expect a better argument from a monkey.

So which is it to be? But as has been pointed out time and time again ad nausuem ad-f*cking-finitum, an "L" plate = scapegoat for every problem ion the road, ranging from the idiot driving at 120mph in fog conditions to the preson who threw a crisp-bag out their car door, to the weather.

So, I think it's perhaps yourself whom you should be applying your own dismissive statement to.

have you ever heard of Nimchinsky?noam chomsky's pet creation,now that was a clever monkey,im just giving some substance to your sig;)

A Dub in Glasgo

It is very simple...

People who have not passed a driving test should not be driving on public roads without supervision from a qualified driver

The law should be enforced and the ludicruous 2nd Provisional clause closed down.

ambro25

Lemming wrote:

That you lack experience is not the real problem.

Sorry to have to disagree with you, but...
20k miles a year for 15 years is bags of experience.
2k miles in your first 2 or 3 months of provo isn't.
That is a real problem because...

Lemming wrote:

That you lack experience and are prepared to try and do something stupid is, where learner/prov. drivers are concerned.

... experience is what teaches you what is stupid and what isn't (besides the obvious considerations of what is legal and what isn't).

Lemming wrote:

Experience is undoubtedly an important component in what will hopefully make a good driver, but my dad is an experienced driver. He's also a terrible driver. Care to rationalise that one?

I can't - I don't know your Dad, and I have never seen him or you drive. I only have your word for it, and I'm not being funny or anything, but it'd be nice to have his as well (sorry, really, but I am kinda like that - I always like to hear both sides). For what it's worth, I used to think I could out-drive my Dad any day too... at least for a few months still after I got my license - then I grew up

Lemming wrote:

Erm .... tutors are licensed drivers too you know. What's your point? The only way to remove this particular non-entity of an issue is to eliminate all human tution from the equation.

Actually quite the reverse - to add more! (i.e. add human tuition into the equation)

My point was much more eloquently put across by galah, actually:

galah wrote:

People should not be allowed on the road without proper training, including theory, and practical stuff, which also includes basic car maintenance <snip> to take a certain number of theory lessons, then pass a theory test, then you need a certain number of practical lessons including night driving, motorways, country roads, parking and city driving. <snip>

So people are better "skilled" from the start, and you can assume that everyone who's out on the road has had the same driver education. No guessing whether the idiot in front of you has a full licence and is just stupid, or has a provisional but took the L-plates off, and all that..

Kindly re-read my earlier post in light of this.

MrSinn

provisional licence drivers and "L" drivers are the same thing

jimmycrackcorm

the guy would have died even if he had a full license. The driving test is no replacement for experience and the loss of youthful exuberance.

Hotblack Desiato

snickerpuss wrote:

The driving with someone with a license works if you're young and can get your parents to do it but if you're 50 and learning to drive who do you get to go around with you?

Your instructor. That's what my mam did for 2 years until she passed her test. She never drove until she was widowed at age 58. In any other civilised country this would not be at all out of the ordinary.

snickerpuss

So you feel that after a few hour lessons you should be able to pass your test?
I don't think it has a spot on driving with someone else, doesn't really work for older people imo.
Not everyone could afford to employ someone to drive around with them for 2 years.

Hotblack Desiato

snickerpuss wrote:

So you feel that after a few hour lessons you should be able to pass your test?

Are you claiming I said that? I certainly did not.

I don't think it has a spot on driving with someone else, doesn't really work for older people imo.

I can't make sense of this sentence.

Not everyone could afford to employ someone to drive around with them for 2 years.

Not everyone can afford insurance either, does that make it ok to drive without it?

My mother was always accompanied on her first provisional, she took a couple of paid lessons a week but went out practicing with my uncle (not only an excellent driver but also a very patient teacher!) another few times a week. Just because people can get away with ignoring the law doesn't make it ok, it's there for a reason, and IMHO the ridiculous 2nd provisional exemption should be abolished.
Also I wish there was some way of preventing "dog licence" holders from renewing their full licence until they pass a test...

Capt'n Midnight

snickerpuss wrote:

So you feel that after a few hour lessons you should be able to pass your test?
I don't think it has a spot on driving with someone else, doesn't really work for older people imo.
Not everyone could afford to employ someone to drive around with them for 2 years.

The average person should be able to learn to drive with about 30 hours of tuition.

You should be able to do it in a month, not in an ideal world though.
Only in most of the developed world.

Two months tops - and that would probably include a re-test if you failed the first time.

Does anyone have a link to the original story , didn't the car burst in to flames , and istn't that fairly rare ?

Victor

Chillax folks!

Einst&#252 wrote: »

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...

Such people don't carry L-plates, even if they are required.

Hobart wrote:

How many times have I seen sp[e]ed checks on dangerous bends or the correct positioning of speed cameras? None.

Operating manned speed checks on bends is dangerous. You will invariably catch the same people whether you operate the speed check on a safe or dangerous road.

popebenny16 wrote:

As the saying goes its better to be late in this world than early in the next.

Amen.