Somebody please shoot Martin Cullen!

cormie

Well this is one law I wont be abiding:mad: nearly 22, full license, passed Ignition advanced driving course, both provisional and full courses. No penalty points, no claims and I don't drink. I drive mostly at night too. And what defines night? Once winter kicks in, will people not be allowed drive home past 5.30 when it gets dark?

So I wouldn't be allowed to drive in this curfew, but to use an example, a 25 and one day old person, who did their theory test 16 months ago and is now on their 2nd provisional but has only been driving one month, and within that month has managed to make a claim and get 6 penalty points, who is a regular drinker, is more entitled to drive than somebody in my position.

There's obviously something wrong with that.

fdisk

Of course my comments are generalisations, and Cullens new law will be a generalisation - do you think they should go around the country and interview everyone under 25 and then draw up a list of everyone it should apply to? We were all able to handle a few drinks when we were 17 - yet the law saws it's illegal for everyone under 18. These laws have to apply to everyone under 25 in the hope that it will save a few lives - it's unfortunate for you if you are a sensible driver but still young enough to fall into the age category of the most deaths on our roads.

Stark

Rediculous. Why is it that age discrimination is fine once it's against the young and gender discrimination is fine once it's against males?

dlofnep

colm_mcm wrote:

I think provisional drivers should be curfewed.

Do you know how long it takes to get a full license? Why should anyone be curfewed.. Last I checked, this isn't a communist police state. Curfews on driving is a stupid idea. It's just a way for him to save face and act as if he's actively doing something for road safety.

My car, my petrol, my insurance, my tax - I'll drive my car whenever I want - Irregardless of whether I need it for work or not.

peasant

I got my driving licence 23 years ago.
Before I was even allowed to sit the theoretical test, I had to attend a set amount of lessons where we were taught about the rules of the road, basic physics of driving a car, basic technical knowledge about the workings of a car and educational videos of what happens when things go wrong.
In other words ...I was being educated by a qualified instructor

Then, having passed the theoretical exam, I had to take a set amount of lessons in a dual control car with a qualified instructor. These involved town driving, country driving, driving at night and driving on the motorway. Only then was I allowed to take my driving test.

With only the minimum required lessons taken, the licence still cost me €600 (23 years ago!!). That alone (and the good quality training and education I received for that price) was enough for me not to act the mickey on the road afterwards, risking loosing my licence and having to go through the whole rigmarole again.
For one year afterwards, the whole licence was on "probation". X amount of minor offences or one big offence and they'd take it away from you and you had to start again.

And guess what, when later on I got my motorbike and truck licences, I had to go through the same procedures again, no freebies for teat already taken or anything like that.

That and actual safe roads is what's needed here.
Not curfews, not speed restrictions ar any other nonsense that Mr. Cullen may dream up.

prospect

Statistically:

Young male & inexperienced & immature drivers cause most serious/fatal accidents.
Most of these accidents happen at night & over the weekend evenings.

To increase the number of Gardai monitoring all the countries back roads during these expensive overtime hours would cost a packet.
So the obvious solution is to remove these high risk drivers from the roads at these high risk times.

The problem here is alot of people are weighing people lives against their convenience. You should not assume that once you hit 17 you are immediately entitled to use the roads whenever you want, unaccompanied. This is the biggest issue in Ireland. You should have to work hard to be allowed onto the roads, then more drivers might appreciate the privilege of being a driver, and act more courteously and with responsibility on the roads.

So if the options are to reduce the chances of me & my family being killed on the road, or boy racers being able to tear around impressing their mates at 1am in the morning, I know which I choose.

Vegeta

Stark wrote:

Rediculous. Why is it that age discrimination is fine once it's against the young and gender discrimination is fine once it's against males?

completely agree with you.

Its just Irelands/this governments way of dealing with problems. How about a few phone polls and ask the country how they feel.

They will soon find out that a lot of Irish people speed cos there is such a minute garda presence on the roads. I know they will say that people shouldn't speed for their own safety but the reality is we need to be forced to slow down. I have driven on the same stretch of national roadway (12.5 miles) twice a day for nearly a year and have not once seen the gardai checking for speed.

They can implement all the laws they want but until people feer being caught every time they break a driving law, the madness will continue

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

You should not assume that once you hit 17 you are immediately entitled to use the roads whenever you want, unaccompanied.
.

well according to the laws of Ireland if you pass your driving test at 17 then you are allowed to drive whenever you want unaccompanied. That person is assumed just as capable a driver as you are.

Ireland is not understaffed when it comes to the police/gardai.

Vegeta

peasant wrote:

I got my driving licence 23 years ago.
Before I was even allowed to sit the theoretical test, I had to attend a set amount of lessons where we were taught about the rules of the road, basic physics of driving a car, basic technical knowledge about the workings of a car and educational videos of what happens when things go wrong.
In other words ...I was being educated by a qualified instructor

Then, having passed the theoretical exam, I had to take a set amount of lessons in a dual control car with a qualified instructor. These involved town driving, country driving, driving at night and driving on the motorway. Only then was I allowed to take my driving test.

With only the minimum required lessons taken, the licence still cost me €600 (23 years ago!!). That alone (and the good quality training and education I received for that price) was enough for me not to act the mickey on the road afterwards, risking loosing my licence and having to go through the whole rigmarole again.
For one year afterwards, the whole licence was on "probation". X amount of minor offences or one big offence and they'd take it away from you and you had to start again.

And guess what, when later on I got my motorbike and truck licences, I had to go through the same procedures again, no freebies for teat already taken or anything like that.

That and actual safe roads is what's needed here.
Not curfews, not speed restrictions ar any other nonsense that Mr. Cullen may dream up.

Do you live in Ireland/ get your license in Ireland

peasant

Vegeta wrote:

Do you live in Ireland/ get your license in Ireland

I've been living here (Ireland) for the last nine years. The licences I got in Germany previous to that.

prospect

Vegeta wrote:

well according to the laws of Ireland if you pass your driving test at 17 then you are allowed to drive whenever you want unaccompanied. That person is assumed just as capable a driver as you are.

Ireland is not understaffed when it comes to the police/gardai.

I don't recall saying they dont.

I do think they should have a 12month new driver provision though.

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

You should not assume that once you hit 17 you are immediately entitled to use the roads whenever you want, unaccompanied.

You said it here,

if a 17 year old male or female pass their test they are legally entitled (just as much so as you or me) to use the roads whenever they want unaccompanied

My younger brother is a much better driver than me. Driving skill has nothing to do with age. It is experience that counts. So i took up driving at 22, my brother took up drivng at 17 (he is now 21) and as he has more experience than me I will happily admit he is a better* driver than me.

*better: I mean a mix of car control, safety and awareness

maidhc

prospect wrote:

Statistically:

Young male & inexperienced & immature drivers cause most serious/fatal accidents.
Most of these accidents happen at night & over the weekend evenings.

To increase the number of Gardai monitoring all the countries back roads during these expensive overtime hours would cost a packet.
So the obvious solution is to remove these high risk drivers from the roads at these high risk times.

Statistically:

Most road traffic accidents involve cars.

The obvious solution is to ban cars

(The reality is we need a proportionate response, and Cullen's proposal is disproportionate and as noted already constitutionally suspect unless it is based on experience rather than age. In my view an appropriate response would be to police the laws we already have.)

prospect

Vegeta wrote:

You said it here,

No I didn't. Read the post. It says 'immediately' So to spell this out for you, it means without taking lessons and without doing the test.

I can't stand people who do not read posts properly.


Driving is a privelage, and should be treated as such. Too many people believe it is a right they have, and this is the reason we have so many bad & inconsiderate drivers in this country.

Vegeta

maidhc wrote:

(The reality is we need a proportionate response, and Cullen's proposal is disproportionate and as noted already constitutionally suspect unless it is based on experience rather than age. In my view an appropriate response would be to police the laws we already have.)

again i agree here, it is serial legislation without enforcement also known as absolutely useless.

There is a similar thing going on with the Criminal Justice Bill. There are criminals using guns to kill people now so lets make it even harder to get a license for a legal firearm. Thats the same as saying that because people are taking/selling cocaine and heroin lets make it harder for a sick person to get a perscription for anti-biotics

fdisk

It's only discrimination if it's not true:). In the same way as the insurance companies can load a young male drivers insurance (because he represents a higher risk, as they are involved in more serious accidents), the government can institute a higher level of control on new/younger drivers. As I said before - laws have to be generic and can only take certain criteria into account (age being the most obvious in this instance). Also note that they have laws that restrict at th eother end of the scale - 60 to 67 years of age you can only get a 3 year licence, and over 67 you must have a medical cert for every licence renewal.
The only people that are going to object to a law like this are the guys aged 18-25 that it restricts. However, with age comes wisdom and these are the same people that would be in favour of just such a law when they are 10-15 years older, and reading every week about another coupe of kids getting killed. At the end of the day this legislation isn't about wanting to stop young people driving home from the clubs, but rather to try and save a few people who are too stupid to save themselves.

prospect

maidhc wrote:

Statistically:

Most road traffic accidents involve cars.

The obvious solution is to ban cars

:rolleyes: Very clever.

maidhc wrote:

(The reality is we need a proportionate response, and Cullen's proposal is disproportionate and as noted already constitutionally suspect unless it is based on experience rather than age. In my view an appropriate response would be to police the laws we already have.)

I agree here, but once again the Gardai need bigger numbers, and this should be dealt with now. But it takes time to recruit & train Gardai. Also, changing the driving test, and upgrading the standard of instruction & testing takes time.

This 'curfew' is a fairly immediate response, and one that could work imo. But other long term steps should be taken now to improve the road safety situation, we all know what these are:

1. Better enforcement
2. More, and better located speed traps
3. Better equipment for Gardai
4. Better road surfaces
5. More road & sign cleaning
6. More roads with cats-eyes on the center line and the edges
7. Improved licensing system, more & better compulsary training, more suitable test, to include motorway driving

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

No I didn't. Read the post. It says 'immediately' So to spell this out for you, it means without taking lessons and without doing the test.

I can't stand people who do not read posts properly.


Driving is a privelage, and should be treated as such. Too many people believe it is a right they have, and this is the reason we have so many bad & inconsiderate drivers in this country.

Well to start driving when you hit 17 you have to get your provisional license. Which doesn't happen "immeditely", there is about a week waiting list to do the test, not to mention sending your test results and pictures off to get the license itself. On top of getting a car, insurance and tax.

So it is impossible to start driving "immediately" when you turn 17 anyway, so don't tell me to read your posts. i read it and you are wrong.

So we'll say you turn 17 have your license in an optimistic 2 weeks, apply for your test immediately with a letter from an employer and pass your test all within 5 weeks of turning 17. Is that immediate enough for you

Driving is a right as long as you legally qualify to hold a license. You may think it a privelage but that is not the legal case

prospect

Vegeta wrote:

Well to start driving when you hit 17 you have to get your provisional license. Which doesn't happen "immeditely", there is about a week waiting list to do the test, not to mention sending your test results and pictures off to get the license itself. On top of getting a car, insurance and tax.

So it is impossible to start driving "immediately" when you turn 17 anyway, so don't tell me to read your posts. i read it and you are wrong.

So we'll say you turn 17 have your license in an optimistic 2 weeks, apply for your test immediately with a letter from an employer and pass your test all within 5 weeks of turning 17. Is that immediate enough for you

Driving is a right as long as you legally qualify to hold a license. You may think it a privelage but that is not the legal case

I am wrong am I?
How nice of you to point that out.

You really are clutching at straws here. My point (which is my own, and therefore CANNOT BE WRONG), which I think was quite clear is that, a 17 year old, who gets their provisional should not be allowed on the road whenever they see fit.
If it was up to me I would impose a curfew (amongst other actions) for all drivers under the age of 20, all provisional drivers, all drivers who hold their full license for under 12 months & for all drivers who are back on the road less than 12 months after a ban.
This kind of action will make people less likely to fuk around as they would appreciate the privelage they have earned.

But your brother is plainly the best driver in Ireland, so he should get an automatic exemption from all laws.

So that is my opinion, and you can argue it till you are blue in the face, or nit pick the finer details till you are blue in the face, but you didn;t read the post properly.

I have chosen now not to reply to any of your further posts.

Big Balls

fdisk wrote:

These laws have to apply to everyone under 25 in the hope that it will save a few lives - it's unfortunate for you if you are a sensible driver but still young enough to fall into the age category of the most deaths on our roads.

So someone who is 25 and has a provisional licence is a safer driver than me and less likely to cause an accident because I'm 24 and have a full licence 5 years and nearly 6 in NCB? Bolloc*s!!!!

And if this law had been in place when I purchased my last car I probably wouldn't have bought it (the main time I get to enjoy its performance is late at night) so that's the 30% VRT they made off it gone from their revenue intake.

Carb

prospect wrote:

Statistically:

Young male & inexperienced & immature drivers cause most serious/fatal accidents.
Most of these accidents happen at night & over the weekend evenings.

Does anyone actually have the statistics on the number of "young male drivers" killed this year. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong here, but people constantly on this forum refer to statistics, but never seem to seize the opportunity to win their argument, by presenting these statistics. And I mean independent statistics. Insurance companys happily announce that young male drivers are a higher risk when quoting 2.5/3k for insurance, but forget to mention that their biggest profits are from this age group also. A recent study in the UK showed that people over the age of 70 (not sure of exact age) were a higher risk than younger drivers. When this was put to the IIF here, they just said it was wrong, but couldn't quote any statistics/evidence as to why they didn't agree with it. RTE do a thing at the end of their news bulletin each month that lists the names and ages of all the people that were killed in the month. In April or May, there seemed to be more older people on the list than young people, but I wasn't counting, so I could be wrong.

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

I am wrong am I?
How nice of you to point that out.

You really are clutching at straws here. My point (which is my own, and therefore CANNOT BE WRONG), which I think was quite clear is that, a 17 year old, who gets their provisional should not be allowed on the road whenever they see fit.

But your brother is plainly the best driver in Ireland, so he should get an automatic exemption from all laws

I have chosen now not to reply to any of your further posts.

Ok if I make the point that 99% of women have 3 eyes, because its my own point I cant be wrong according to your logic. Wow

well 17 year old (or any age for that matter) 1st/3rd and subsequent provisional drivers are not allowed on the road on their own, they have to have a fully licensed driver with them until they get their second provisional or pass their test. Again how am i clutching at straws. I seem to know the law you don't

My brother is 21 not 17, he has been driving for 4 years and therefore has more experience than me, I never said he was a better driver than anyone else but myself. So what is your problem with saying experience is more important than age.

Fair enough don't respond, your silence speaks volumes of your loss in this debate

layke

I have to agree, Experience is FAR FAR FAR more important then age (and imo a pink peice of paper).

2 examples i'll give:

When 17 and starting to drive a friend of mine got his full license 6 weeks after starting, 6 WEEKS. 7 years later not one accident.

Another mates ex got her full license @ 23 after 6 months of driving, a week after getting her license she flipped the car going round a corner too fast.

IMO, i'd use that pink paper to wipe my arse because from what i've seen experience outways anything that a once off test can prove. Also, when your younger you have a better capacity to learn and thats a fact.

sneakyST

Its silly to try and put the blame on one section of the public when it comes to the state of the driving/ road situation.
Think about it:
whos fault is it for letting prov drivers on their own in the first place? who cares if its their second they still havent passed the test.
why has nobody mentioned that only recently have the testers allowed the government to bring more in to try and clear the backlog?
why can i drive through a checkpoint at 1am and the guards only check my tax and insurance without speaking to me to make sure that i havent been drinking?
why do the government charge VRT on saftey systems such as traction control?
Insurance companies charging young people stupid money so they cant get a new car and have to buy a junker which is most likely a death trap.
Crap roads
Crap driving test
Crap education.

Stark

fdisk wrote:

The only people that are going to object to a law like this are the guys aged 18-25 that it restricts

Ah, the Ad hominem circumstantial argument. Also happens to be a logical fallacy.

"The only ones complaining about this oppressive law are the oppressed".

Besides, I'm over the age affected by these proposals and I still think they're bull****. At the same time, I wouldn't think half as badly of them if it was a case that I'd be restricted for a year after passing my test because that's a totally different scenario to blanket age discrimination. (and ironically enough would affect me, whereas Cullen's proposals wouldn't).

maidhc

fdisk wrote:

The only people that are going to object to a law like this are the guys aged 18-25 that it restricts.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

andrew_ireland

prospect wrote:

I do think they should have a 12month new driver provision though.

I definately agree with this. I was only driving for 18months when I passed my test in September 05 and I think I was still a bit too inexperienced- driving on the motorway for the first time scared the sh1t outta me :eek:

What I found to be a bit stupid about the test was that it never tested dual carriageway, motorway, overtaking skills or night-driving. The blanket ban on motorists under 24 will be flaunted in the same manner as unaccompanied 'L' drivers so that's wasting more resources by stopping drivers to first ask if they're under 24. I'd have had no issue with having to display 'R' plates for the year after my test but I doubt I'd be too impressed if I had to stick them up now until Sept 06 to run out the last few months of my first full license year!

Alun

andrew_ireland wrote:

What I found to be a bit stupid about the test was that it never tested dual carriageway, motorway, overtaking skills or night-driving.

What I did, many years ago when I passed my test, on the suggestion of my driving instructor, was to take some additional lessons with him on precisely those topics. Can't remember how many I had, maybe 5 or 6, but they helped no end. He was also an instructor for the IAM, so knew his stuff. I'd imagine that anyone here who has just passed their test could probably arrange something similar. In addition to that, when I was taking lessons with him, some of the later lessons would be just ordinary driving on main roads and dual carriageways, not just stuff that was aimed at passing the test like 3-point-turn, reversing and the like.

fdisk

layke wrote:

I have to agree, Experience is FAR FAR FAR more important then age (and imo a pink peice of paper).
.

We all know that experience is more important, but you can't legislate for that! So what if someone is a great driver aged 17 and another person aged 40 is a crap driver - the law can't readily be applied in that fashion

Stark

fdisk wrote:

We all know that experience is more important, but you can't legislate for that!

Uhm yes you can! It's what they do in Britain when they restrict your licence for the first year after you get your licence. It's based on time your licence was held, not age.