Somebody please shoot Martin Cullen!

maidhc

Kaiser2000 wrote:

I took this to mean (in light of his subsequent point) that no situation is as black and white as this proposed curfew would have us believe. Reality is somewhere in between.

Precisely my point.

I don't think my driving has anything to do with anything, at the very least I will be over 24 if ever a curfew is introduced. Unless that is I do some seriously immature driving in a DeLorean with weird pipes bolted onto the side.

Stekelly wrote:

Generally, a lot of young people tend to be a bit immature, hence the restriction.

But equally inexperienced drivers tend to be inexperienced, and older drivers tend have reduced judgment and slower reflexes.

A curfew for drivers on a provisional + 1 year after getting a licence on "R" plates may be an inherently sensible idea. I am merely suggesting some random thing based on age as distinct from anything else is plain wrong.. There is no reason in logic why a <25 year old should need up to 9 years experience before being allowed drive at night while a 26 year old wouldn't need any.

_Kaiser_

maidhc wrote:

Precisely my point.

I don't think my driving has anything to do with anything, at the very least I will be over 24 if ever a curfew is introduced. Unless that is I do some seriously immature driving in a DeLorean with weird pipes bolted onto the side.

Hey I won't hear Doc Brown's Time Machine being bad-mouthed here

peasant

So, to sum it all up;

The governement can't be bothered to actually implement and inforce systems that actually EDUCATE drivers properly. Instead it prefers to sell them provisional licences and lets them pay fees for "driving tests" that have nothing to do with the driving reality on our roads.

And then the governement punishes the same drivers for their inexperience and lack of driving skills and restricts their newly acquired licences for use during certain hours only.

How on earth is that not a scam?
And how on earth can anybody possibly think this is a good idea?


That's like if you bought a mobile phone and then after you fill in all the forms and hand over your cash the provider tells you the only number you can call is your Mom because you're inexperienced and too young ...

Guy:Incognito

peasant wrote:

So, to sum it all up;

The governement can't be bothered to actually implement and inforce systems that actually EDUCATE drivers properly. Instead it prefers to sell them provisional licences and lets them pay fees for "driving tests" that have nothing to do with the driving reality on our roads.

How about: the government that started the whole ridiculous provisional license crap (I dont mean the party, it may well have been ff I dont know, I mean the actual politicians) made a mistake, and now the current politicians are trying to fix it?

mike65

Chaps keep it cool eh?

Mike.

peasant

Yes please ...fix it ...by all means.

But not at the wrong end. Provide proper standards of education first, THEN enforce the law and filter out the bad eggs.

A blanket ban on all drivers under a certain age is just cheap, populistic politics, not a "solution".

(And how many hard-ass, dangerous, overconfident racers exactly do you think are going to stick to this ban anyway? Exactly ...zero. Only the good and sensible little boys and girls who are hardly any danger anyway will obey that stupid curfew if it ever comes in)

snickerpuss

If people don't think that us under the age of 24 are able to drive at night then clearly you should ban me from driving at all times? At night does my under 24 brain go mad and i stop knowing how to drive?

Ban me from driving all the time or just assume i'm able to drive. Its a silly solution. If i'm a bad driver then surely i can also crash during the day.
I just don't get it.

Guy:Incognito

snickerpuss wrote:

If people don't think that us under the age of 24 are able to drive at night then clearly you should ban me from driving at all times? At night does my under 24 brain go mad and i stop knowing how to drive?

Ban me from driving all the time or just assume i'm able to drive. Its a silly solution. If i'm a bad driver then surely i can also crash during the day.
I just don't get it.

Well something is happening to people at night because thats when most are killed. (apparently)

colm_mcm

dlofnep wrote:

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.

As far as I remember, a provisional license is one that is given to someone who is learning to drive, part of this learning to drive is being accompanied by and under the supervison of someone with a current full driving licence.
Provisional licenses are for learning to drive. people treat them as they would a normal license, this is wrong.

If a disadvantage like this curfew prompted people who continiously renew provisional licenses instead of doing the test, then I reckon it's a good thing. fair enough the queues for driving tests need to be shortened, but a provisional is just a stepping stone to the real thing, and If a ban on night driving cuts down on deaths I'm all for it

maidhc

The Road Traffic Act 2006 changes the name of the provisional licence to "Learner Permit". Although purely speculation on my part I reckon this means they intend to curtail the scope of the licence into the future, but have not decided how to do it yet.

I also suspect that Cullen is used as a guinea pig/whipping boy to sound off nonsensical ideas to guage the public response, since there is hardly any notice taken any more when he gets humiliated by the rest of the cabinet.

Stark

Stekelly wrote:

Well something is happening to people at night because thats when most are killed. (apparently)

Vampires.

colm_mcm wrote:

As far as I remember, a provisional license is one that is given to someone who is learning to drive, part of this learning to drive is being accompanied by and under the supervison of someone with a current full driving licence.
Provisional licenses are for learning to drive. people treat them as they would a normal license, this is wrong.

If a disadvantage like this curfew prompted people who continiously renew provisional licenses instead of doing the test, then I reckon it's a good thing. fair enough the queues for driving tests need to be shortened, but a provisional is just a stepping stone to the real thing, and If a ban on night driving cuts down on deaths I'm all for it

Yeah, that's fair enough, restricting provisionals. No reason why someone needs to learn at night. The problem people have with Cullen's proposals is that he will be creating two types of "full" driving licence. One for under-24s, one for over-24s which is just rediculous. And to repeat myself again, before fdisk decides to repeat himself, they could have a situation where everyone is restricted for the first year that they hold their full licence.

colm_mcm

S'pose it'll never directly affect me, so I'm all for it!

Stark

Why do we even bother trying to discuss these things. I hope karma strikes you down some day when you need someone to vote on your behalf.

colm_mcm

Stark wrote:

Why do we even bother trying to discuss these things. I hope karma strikes you down some day when you need someone to vote on your behalf.

not quite sure I fully understand...

Stark

Considering these proposals have come soon before an election, it seems Cullen is hoping that there's enough people with chips on their shoulders regarding the 18-24 age group (who don't tend to vote in spectacular numbers) to vote him through for next term. Which is a lousy way to win an election.

The sad thing is of course that most people affected by this will probably be too apathetic to come out and vote against him in protest. I'm tempted to say they deserve what they get, but that's not fair to those who do vote but are in the minority. That's why we have constitutional protections to protect minority groups even if their numbers aren't strong to fight legislation targetting them. Something with maidhc detailed in an above post.

optiplexgx270

He’s saying when you start moaning about something he'll support it.

Have to say I think it’s a stupid idea. But I try to hear as little as possible from our fair Government (bunch of fools and no I don’t vote because I’m embarrassed by them ALL). Only politics I ever hear about are the odd bits I glance at on boards, I don’t watch the news sections involving the government because it usually angers me.

Edit: Sure go on so I don't vote but I'll vote tis fool out next time round.

Vegeta

Ideally I would like to get rid of the whole provisional/full license system altogether.

Like in Germany but probably a bit different you take a course which is a mixture of classes(with written exams) and practicals with tests at the end which include night driving, city driving, motorway/dual carriage way. There would be more lessons even after the tests are passed

If you pass all the tests your license is granted but on a probation period (looks identical to everyone elses license) for a year or 2 where if you pick up a certain number of penalty points back you go to resit your tests and classes.

It would be expensive yes (which is also a deterant for having to resit it) but it would be money well spent if it saved lives. At least drivers here would be better educated.

The expense would not be that much if you consider that, we pay a lot for lessons and each provisional license and on a provisional insurance is pretty rough so it would be worth it in the end

Stark

Might also be worth it if it means a reduction in insurance premiums. Whether the insurance companies pass on the savings to the customer is another thing...

MrPudding

Stekelly wrote:

Britain have R plates to limit speeds.

fdisk wrote:

Take the situation in Northern Ireland/UK - similar driver education/test scenario, but when you pass you test you must drive around on 'R' plates for 12 months, which means that, amongst other things, they are not allowed to overtake or exceed 45 MPH. (note that the UK has 6 daths a year per 10,000 cars, we have 11).

Stark wrote:

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.

"R" plate are only in Northern Ireland so you will have to come up with some other reason for the UK having less deaths than Ireland. How about, oh I don't know, they don't let provo drivers drive on there own with no supervision?

I get quite irritated when people say "but I need to drive cos I have to get to work." I appreciate that the wait here is long but hey, too bad. 400K provisional license holders and 125K actually waiting for a test. Almost 75% of provo license holders aren't even waiting for a test. Possibly they can't be arsed cos they are lazy or know they won't pass it or they have already tried it and failed.

Forgetting the wait time for a moment, how can it be sensible to allow untested and possibly untrained drivers on our roads without supervision?

The curfew is yet another kneejerk reaction from an incompetent government. Sort out driver training, get provies off the roads unless supervised, enforce the existing laws and watch the death rate fall.

MrP

Carb

MrPudding wrote:

"R" plate are only in Northern Ireland so you will have to come up with some other reason for the UK having less deaths than Ireland. How about, oh I don't know, they don't let provo drivers drive on there own with no supervision?

I don't agree with the provisional licence system, but I've yet to see any facts/statistics that show that provisional licence holders make up a disproportionate amount of our road deaths every year. Same for the young driver argument. A couple of posters here came out with the statement "young male drivers are statistically more likely to get killed" but couldn't produce these statistics. I'm not saying its correct or not, but I'd like to see the facts. I sometimes think that its a wee bit like the argument that the young people are turning into a nation of drunks, when studies showed that people in their 40/50s were drinking as much (I heard that a good while ago so I can't remeber the source). Easy knowing which is more politically correct.

I think the biggest problem with making any knee jerk actions to the provisional system is that a lot of people who are currently on provisionals, do so because they can/could get away with it. Therefore houses/jobs and general way of life are based on been able to use a car. Any change is going to cause pain for those involved, my mother been one such person. She'd have to give up her job, as she's vowed never to sit the test again. But it has to change, and at least for those turning 17/18, there will not be an expectency to be able to drive straight away, and they'll find other ways and means around it. As the saying goes "you don't miss what you never had".

prospect

download this document:
www.ifsra.ie/data/pub_files/Strategic.pdf

It is quite complex, but near the end they divide drivers into age, gender, license type and type of cover.
Provisional license holders make far more claims in all age groups up to the thirties. Thereafter the number of claims drop, but this can probably be explained by the fact that there is a much smaller percentage of 50yo provisional license holders.

Stark

Carb wrote:

She'd have to give up her job, as she's vowed never to sit the test again.

Out of curiosity, what happened in her last test that she came to this decision?

prospect

Carb wrote:

my mother been one such person. She'd have to give up her job, as she's vowed never to sit the test again.

No offense to you or your Mother,

But a driver who sits their test, and fails, should not be allowed on the road until they have done further training and passed the test.

I am not commenting on your Mothers specific case, but the test isn't exactly very difficult, so if you cannot pass it, you really are not fit to operate a vehicle on public roads.

Carb

Stark wrote:

Out of curiosity, what happened in her last test that she came to this decision?

Nerves mainly. She actually got so nervous that she practically quit eating and didn't sleep for the three nights before it. Then the test was on one of those days where nobody would want to do it ie Friday lunchtime, lashing rain, cars double parked, cars pulling out in front of her, school kids dashing cross the road. the only thing she said was "I even failed the three point turn and I haven't a clue what I did wrong". After attempting the test a couple of times and doing lessons before every test, which her instructor thought she would pass, she decided that was te end of it. I suppose, now heading towards sixty years old, she can't see the point in putting herself through the stress.

Carb

prospect wrote:

download this document:
www.ifsra.ie/data/pub_files/Strategic.pdf

It is quite complex, but near the end they divide drivers into age, gender, license type and type of cover.
Provisional license holders make far more claims in all age groups up to the thirties. Thereafter the number of claims drop, but this can probably be explained by the fact that there is a much smaller percentage of 50yo provisional license holders.

The document isn't really useful as it doesn't show the number of policy holders in a particualr segment. Its easy to look at any age group male or female and say that there were more provisional claims than full claims. But its pretty obvious when you look across at the premium income, that this is largely due to there been far more provisional holders, which is exactly the point you make about 50yo drivers above. All the reports shows is that insurance companies make the most money on young drivers, especially provisional licence holders.

prospect wrote:

No offense to you or your Mother,

But a driver who sits their test, and fails, should not be allowed on the road until they have done further training and passed the test.

I am not commenting on your Mothers specific case, but the test isn't exactly very difficult, so if you cannot pass it, you really are not fit to operate a vehicle on public roads.

Does that not fit into the point I made about not agreeing with the provisional system and those affected by any change to it will suffer a lot of inconvenience. Its not her fault that the systems allows her to it. As for the argument on not been fit to operate a vehicle on public roads for failing a test, I think thats more part of a discussion on the test itself, which I don't think measures whether any person is fit to operate a vehicle on a public road.

prospect

Carb wrote:

Does that not fit into the point I made about not agreeing with the provisional system and those affected by any change to it will suffer a lot of inconvenience. Its not her fault that the systems allows her to it. As for the argument on not been fit to operate a vehicle on public roads for failing a test, I think thats more part of a discussion on the test itself, which I don't think measures whether any person is fit to operate a vehicle on a public road.

Apologies, i misunderstood your point.

Carb

prospect wrote:

Apologies, i misunderstood your point.

I'm sure I'll get over it:D

Torak

colm_mcm wrote:

I think provisional drivers should be curfewed.

How about if they were only allowed to drive with a fully licensed driver with them teaching them to drive, but were not under any curfew (so that they can learn to drive adequately in all conditions)?

Big Balls

Torak wrote:

only allowed to drive with a fully licensed driver with them teaching them to drive, but were not under any curfew (so that they can learn to drive adequately in all conditions)?

That's exactly what we HAVE got.

Vegeta

Big Balls wrote:

That's exactly what we HAVE got.

I'd say he was being sarcastic