Somebody please shoot Martin Cullen!

MrPudding

Carb wrote:

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.

That is possibly because the gardai don't, apparently, collect the figures.

Carb wrote:

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 to would like to see hard facts but let me ask you this. Do you think a young male driver with no formal instruction on how to control a car driving on his own would be safer than someone formally trained? I am not asking about you or your mate who has never sat the test or had a lesson but is the best driver in the world. I am talking in general here.

Carb wrote:

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.

I agree, to an extent. I don't like this governments knee jerk tendencies, muppet thinks he can fly on mushroom, ban mushrooms.

That said, I do not think it is a knee jerk reaction to say if you fail a test of competency you should nto be driving on your own. That is just common sense.

Carb wrote:

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.

That is really her problem isn't it? The system is wrong and needs to be corrected. If you mother is taken off the road because she has decided she isn't going to sit a test which she has already failed then I am sorry but I will feel slightly safer on the road.

Carb wrote:

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".

Exactly, other countries manage it. Things can be fairly quick in the UK but how long does it take to get through the German system to the point where one can drive unaccompanied?

MrP

Carb

MrPudding wrote:

That is possibly because the gardai don't, apparently, collect the figures.

So how do people make their assertions that provisional licence holders on the road cause deaths. Surely they don't believe insurance companies, who are referred to every name under the sun on this forum when it comes to quotes.

I to would like to see hard facts but let me ask you this. Do you think a young male driver with no formal instruction on how to control a car driving on his own would be safer than someone formally trained? I am not asking about you or your mate who has never sat the test or had a lesson but is the best driver in the world. I am talking in general here.

Whether we like to believe it or not, the formal instuction in this country involves training you to drive around a town at 50km/h, do a three point turn and reverse around a corner. Then your tested on this and suddenly your're now an expert. I got formally trained to pass the test. I do not consider myself any safer/more dangerous than before I took my pre test lessons. I can safely say though that I learned nothing in my lessons about everyday driving ie driving at 100km/h, overtaking, roundabouts, motorways. I'd imagine most 40/50 year olds have had the same formal instruction.

That said, I do not think it is a knee jerk reaction to say if you fail a test of competency you should nto be driving on your own. That is just common sense.

Obviously if a proper licencing system was in place, people wouldn''t be using their cars in the way they are currently before the test, so actually not been able to drive after failing wouldn't be a big issue.

That is really her problem isn't it? The system is wrong and needs to be corrected. If you mother is taken off the road because she has decided she isn't going to sit a test which she has already failed then I am sorry but I will feel slightly safer on the road.

I've already addressed that point in my reply to prospect, although I don't care much for anyone's "that their problem attitude", no matter what the issue is. I'm glad you'll feel safer no matter how misguided your feelings are.

Exactly, other countries manage it. Things can be fairly quick in the UK but how long does it take to get through the German system to the point where one can drive unaccompanied?

Haven't a clue tbh.

peasant

MrPudding wrote:

Exactly, other countries manage it. Things can be fairly quick in the UK but how long does it take to get through the German system to the point where one can drive unaccompanied?

MrP

Takes a good few weeks / months depending on your availability for lessons / timing / how often you fail.

Most people start their lessons a few months before their 18th birthday, so they can take their test in good time and collect the licence on their birthday (18 is (still) the legal driving age).

BTW even during the test you're not driving unaccompanied. You're still driving in a dual control car with the instructor next to you and the tester in the back. Only the dual controls are fitted with a buzzer ...if the instructor has to interfere and the buzzer sounds ...you failed.

But legally speaking the instructor is the driver and responsible if there are any crashes ...so he WILL interfere if you're driving dangerously !

ninty9er

Ok. If this were to be implemented, we would have to start with putting people in cars at 15 doing their test at 15 as they can legally work, and often need to at 16 and will sometimes need to drive unaccompanied at night for this.

If 18 is (still) the legal driving age why can one pass thier driving test at 17,

Technically 16 is the legal driving age (look closely)

I resent that just because i'm 19 i shouldn';t drive after 12am.

Why don't the government ban over 35s from driving on bank holiday weekends if Drink Driving is their target. These people are statistically more likely to drink drive, which imo is much more sinister (as it is an act which requires previous thought) than a young fella killin HIMSELF in a ditch.

I got 13 driving lessons and WILL NOT be put off the roads now that I've passed my test when there are people out there on Full licences who NEVER PASSED A DRIVING TEST

And By the way. Rising numbers of deaths is an international phenomenon contrary to common belief in this country

Hotblack Desiato

At age 16 you can only legally ride a class M moped or A1 125cc bike.
The minimum age for cars is 17 and for bikes over 125cc, 18 (but unless your dad is a millionaire, it's more like 23)

BTW I'm over 35 (by two weeks) and abhor drink-drivers. It's the 50 and 60-somethings (IMH prejudiced O) who are the problem in that regard.

MrPudding

Carb wrote:

Whether we like to believe it or not, the formal instuction in this country involves training you to drive around a town at 50km/h, do a three point turn and reverse around a corner. Then your tested on this and suddenly your're now an expert. I got formally trained to pass the test. I do not consider myself any safer/more dangerous than before I took my pre test lessons. I can safely say though that I learned nothing in my lessons about everyday driving ie driving at 100km/h, overtaking, roundabouts, motorways. I'd imagine most 40/50 year olds have had the same formal instruction.

Great post. Now how about you answer the question.

MrPudding wrote:

Do you think a young male driver with no formal instruction on how to control a car driving on his own would be safer than someone formally trained?

We are talking about a person that has never been told how to approach or take a roundabout. Someone who has not been told anything about lane discipline. If you learned nothing about these things in your lessons then your instructor was obviously sh1t.

Regardless of how bad the training and testing system is in this country a driver who has either had some formal instruction or, is accompanied by a *responsible & capable* full license holder has to be safer than a driver who has received no instruction. I don't think anyone could reasonably believe otherwise.

Perhaps it might sound silly but with regard to the number of accidents I do believe the insurance companies. What benefit would they have from not telling the truth regarding accidents? If it was actually the case that older drivers caused the most accidents then older drivers would pay more, it simply would not make sense for them to lie about it.

Passing your driving test results in a reduction on you insurance premium. You simply would not get that reduction if there were not some actuarial reason for giving it.

ninty9er wrote:

Ok. If this were to be implemented, we would have to start with putting people in cars at 15 doing their test at 15 as they can legally work, and often need to at 16 and will sometimes need to drive unaccompanied at night for this.

You are joking right? Just because you can work does not entitle you to be able to drive. For it to be implemented what we actually need to do is act like a proper country. If only there was another country somewhere in the world where people started to work at 15 or 16. Then we could look at what they do. We would be able to see if they allowed people to drive at 15 simply because they worked at 15. You never know we might even discover that there is another solution like, getting a lift of your fcuking parents or getting a taxi.

MrP

Stark

MrPudding wrote:

Perhaps it might sound silly but with regard to the number of accidents I do believe the insurance companies. What benefit would they have from not telling the truth regarding accidents? If it was actually the case that older drivers caused the most accidents then older drivers would pay more, it simply would not make sense for them to lie about it.

Not that I think they're lying but if insurance companies originally suggested higher premiums for older drivers, they would have had far less chance of getting away with it.

Note how we don't charge older people more for private health insurance in this country.

maidhc

ninja900 wrote:

At age 16 you can only legally ride a class M moped or A1 125cc bike.

Or a 300hp Tractor.

MrPudding wrote:

We are talking about a person that has never been told how to approach or take a roundabout. Someone who has not been told anything about lane discipline. If you learned nothing about these things in your lessons then your instructor was obviously sh1t.

It doesn't make them less likely to get killed though. Certainly more likely to cause a shunt, but that is neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion.

Stark wrote:

Not that I think they're lying but if insurance companies originally suggested higher premiums for older drivers, they would have had far less chance of getting away with it.

Generally it is PC to discriminate against:
Males,
Young people, and
Motorists

Vegeta

Stark wrote:

Not that I think they're lying but if insurance companies originally suggested higher premiums for older drivers, they would have had far less chance of getting away with it.

Note how we don't charge older people more for private health insurance in this country.

Yeah the insurance companies just so happen to make most of their profit from young drivers aswell, in fairness there's hardly a load of 40 year olds getting insured for the first time.

I agree when Mr. P says that a formally educated driver is better than an untrained driver but to do this correctly (like the German example being given) I think we need to completely re-vamp the current system

Carb

MrPudding wrote:

Great post. Now how about you answer the question.


We are talking about a person that has never been told how to approach or take a roundabout. Someone who has not been told anything about lane discipline. If you learned nothing about these things in your lessons then your instructor was obviously sh1t.

The answer was alway going to depend on what you mean by "formal instruction on how to control a car". Outside of Dublin, most peolpe are not going to drive on dual carriageways, or proper roundabouts during their lessons. I didn't need formal instruction on how to switch from the left lane to the right lane when turning right at traffic lights, or which lane to be in approaching a roundabout (there was only one lane on the roundabout on my test route anyway) , as believe it or not, I didn't spend the past 20 years been a passenger in the car with my eyes closed. How many people were killed on roundabouts this year anyway? BTW, my instructer has a 96% pass rate. As I said, I was trained to pass the test, not to drive.

Do you think a 60 year old male driver with no formal instruction on how to control a car driving on his own would be safer than somebody formally trained? What formal training will stop the 40% of deaths that are caused by drink driving. All the formal training in the world is not going to stop speeding, or non-wearing of seatbelts.

MrPudding wrote:

Perhaps it might sound silly but with regard to the number of accidents I do believe the insurance companies. What benefit would they have from not telling the truth regarding accidents? If it was actually the case that older drivers caused the most accidents then older drivers would pay more, it simply would not make sense for them to lie about it.Passing your driving test results in a reduction on you insurance premium. You simply would not get that reduction if there were not some actuarial reason for giving it..

Actually you said road deaths, not accidents, would fall iif provisaional licence holders were off the road, but regardless, why do insurance companies makes thier most money on provisional licence holders? I've no doubt that they may be involved in more minor accidents, in the same way women are, and the odd idiot probably goes and gets themselves killed, but even insurance companies have failed to show any evidence that provisional licence holders are causing the carnage on our road.


In reply to nobody in particular, I watched some programme on RTE last night. 55 of of the 189 deats on the roads this year so far were under 25. Its a shame they didn't tell how many of these were male/female, passengers, pedestrians, provisional licence holders etc, but no matter what way the figures are split, there's still a disproporionate amount of under 25s killed on the roads.