80kmph Provisional rule - will you abide by it?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Lemming wrote:

Thanks for the advice. Might I suggest that you use your brain before you attempt to write white text on a black background. That way you may actually get something ON the lines that makes sense.

Oh, and I do keep my car between the lines thank you very much. But thanks for the suggestion. Much appreciated.

looking at your signature
you have dragged me down to your level and beat you with experience
well done.

Lemming

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

looking at your signature
you have dragged me down to your level and beat you with experience
well done.

Actually understanding the signature might help when you attempt a "witty" retort .....

Lorax

80kmph Provisional rule - will you abide by it?

No I will not.

Sam Vimes

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

erm no, i thought i was speaking in English. no need to translate it. unless of course you don't under stand what i am saying and as you did translate it i presume you don't

so let me simplify it for you.

"don't knock what is in place till you have a better solution"
in the old days people might say
"don't through out the baby with the bath water"



and trust me i don't think a medical doctor is qualified to treat you maybe a shrink.:D

you're being quite ignorant to me and others. i know exactly what you're saying. i am saying that you are wrong. forcing provisional drivers to drive below the limit will cause frustration and accidents. it is not the solution

there are a great many things that i don't have the solution to. i can still see that other "solutions" are wrong. for example:

someone says: "i want to make an inter-stellar space ship powered by farts"

i'm sure you have no idea how to build an inter-stellar space ship yet can still see that the above idea will not work. i don't actually have to have the solution to know that other suggestions are wrong


also, you said "don't knock what is in place till you have a better solution". the 80Km/h limit is not in place. i'm saying that it shouldn't be brought in. you are in fact the one "knocking what's in place" by saying bringing in this limit would help prevent accidents

Budd

All these rules are fine and dandy as long as a provisional liscence is only a e-4 month phase in someones driving life and less than 5% of motorists are on a provisional.

Sam Vimes

fatboypee wrote:

I'm confused by all this really. The answers are there and have been repeated ad-nauseum by soo many people, politicians and joe-soaps alike. In my humble opinion, the government knows what to do, but does not have the political balls to do it, the following is what SHOULD be done:

1. Automatically require ALL provisional drivers to undergo mandatory lessons by a suitably qualified and LISTED instructor prior to taking the Test. To be evidentiary at time of the test.

2. Immediately Close any licensing loop-holes that allow provisional license holders from taking to the the roads unacompained.

3. Set up a driving Test date when the provisional is first taken out/renewed with an option of deferring only ONCE.

they're all great ideas but with a waiting list of over a year they're all impractical. what has to be done is to eliminate the waiting list by giving them enough money to hire the required number of testers. then i'm all for driving accompanied because it would only be for a few weeks while learning

that's how it was supposed to be. a parent or whoever teaches you until you're confident and then you do your test. it was never intended to be done for a year straight. with the amount i use the car my mother would get fairly pissed off with having to go everywhere with me. especially when i drive to my girlfriends and spend the night. it could be awkward with her downstairs waiting to get back in the car and watch me drive home the next day

there, \m/_(>_<)_\m/, i came up with a better solution. instead of reducing limits for learners, make it so they only have a month or two to learn and then they have to pass their test or get off the road. am i now allowed call the reduced limit idea retarded?

ninty9er

Can I just say if it hasn't already been said --- Driving at 80 k/ph in a 100 zone is more dangerous than driving at 110 in the same area. (conditions permitting)

The only condidtions that would make 80 acceptable are hurricane or blizzard!!

Did anyone see Prime Time lastnight. I missed it but heard it good

Wossack

Breaking the law is safer then driving cautiously?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Lorax wrote:

No I will not.

here in lies the fundamental problem...
people not obeying the law

and i agree, with most people here. if the laws that are in place at present are obeyed, that would be the best solution of all and no need to bring in more

but by the looks of the poll, nobody will obey the rules of the road.
so what do we do.
just ignore the problem of non compliance of the speed limits.

sure ignore the problem and it will go away.

Irish solution to an Irish problem

Lemming

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

here in lies the fundamental problem...
people not obeying the law

and i agree, with most people here. if the laws that are in place at present are obeyed, that would be the best solution of all and no need to bring in more

but by the looks of the poll, nobody will obey the rules of the road.
so what do we do.
just ignore the problem of non compliance of the speed limits.

sure ignore the problem and it will go away.

Irish solution to an Irish problem

As equally Irish a solution as proposing _more_ rules that wont get enforced. People need a reason to feel compelled to obey the rules. Namely enforcement & education.

Or of course, you can play the scape-goat card and make it look like you're doing something when in fact you're doing nothing at all.

Sam Vimes

Wossack wrote:

Breaking the law is safer then driving cautiously?

if the law imposes different speed limits for different people, it is a dangerous law and disobeying it will be safer


it reminds me of something i heard that probably isn't true. there was talk of switching to driving on the right. someone suggested that it would cause confusion so a TD said that for the first few months it should only apply to taxis and buses

fatboypee

Commander Vimes wrote:

they're all great ideas but with a waiting list of over a year they're all impractical. what has to be done is to eliminate the waiting list by giving them enough money to hire the required number of testers. then i'm all for driving accompanied because it would only be for a few weeks while learning....

I wholly agree. My point is simply that if they chose, the government could wipe away the waiting list. If the imperative was important enough (seems death upon death on our roads clearly isn't enough of one :rolleyes: ), money is noe excuse, we have, this year, estimated, is it 3 billon (tipp spelling ) unallocated in the coffers that old fatboy cowan is gonna give back to us??

Use some of it where it is fkking well needed and where it will do most good rather than trying to ingratiate a government with an already jaded electorate...


So my points are all 100% valid, no excuses!!!

FB..

Stark

Commander Vines wrote:

it reminds me of something i heard that probably isn't true. there was talk of switching to driving on the right.

There are no plans whatsoever to switch to driving on the right. It's far too large an undertaking, we'd have to rip up half our junctions.

Commander Vines wrote:

so a TD said that for the first few months it should only apply to taxis and buses

I was going to say you were a total eejit for even half believing that, but then I remembered we had contra-flow bus lanes

Royale with Cheese

Commander Vimes wrote:

they're all great ideas but with a waiting list of over a year they're all impractical. what has to be done is to eliminate the waiting list by giving them enough money to hire the required number of testers. then i'm all for driving accompanied because it would only be for a few weeks while learning

Here's the problem. It's completely impractical to ask learners to drive accompanied, or adhere to ridiculous new speed limits while the bloody waiting list for a test is so long. Get the waiting list down and then start enforcing the laws in place.

Wait a year for your test, could be a perfectly competent driver but something goes wrong on the day (kids runs out in front of your car, can't find your licence etc.) and you're waiting another
year.

There should be a set amount of lessons everyone has to take, which include driving at night and on motorways. After say 20 lessons the driving school should say whether you're fit to drive or not. After that you should be allowed to drive unaccompanied or at whatever speed the rest of the traffic is going.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Lemming wrote:

People need a reason to feel compelled to obey the rules.

i would of thought DEATH in a car crash would of done that....

but i suppose some people need a bit more incitement to obey the speed limits

Macy

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

i would of thought DEATH in a car crash would of done that....

but i suppose some people need a bit more incitement to obey the speed limits

Well it's working isn't it? :rolleyes: The two introductions of penalty points, and the introduction of random breath testing show that drivers will comply if they think there's going to enforcement. That fact that these innitiative's haven't been followed up by action, and after a few weeks drivers realise they've fook all chance of being caught, particularly late at night, means that the fear factor has worn off - hence we're back were we are and will ultimately continue to be there until this changes.

Tellox

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

i would of thought DEATH in a car crash would of done that....

but i suppose some people need a bit more incitement to obey the speed limits

No, I just feel a little more incitement not to go playing chicken.

I love how the Irish think things will get better.
Bring in a new speed limit.

Instead of;
1) Making Driver's ed a mandatory school subject in say, Transition Year.
2) Forcing drivers to sit x amount of mandatory lessons before taking to the road, and y amount of lessons every z amount of months until they sit an ignition/full license exam
3) Fixing up the piss-poor back roads in this country, which have a speed limit of 100km/h, and allow for 1 car to fit on the road at a squeeze
4) Force a restriction on all car/bike engines to say, 1L / 125cc until the ignition/bikecare/full license exam is sat/x time has passed

And Im sure many many more half-decent alternatives are there.
There's no wonder about how theres so many deaths on Irish roads - we're all forced into being completly retarded drivers.

<edit> Oh,and lets point this little fact out.
The people that are dying on the roads are due to drinking, showing off to their mates, wearing no seat belts, not driving on a side of the road, doing twice the speed limit..

No amount of laws in place are going to save the lives those people are taking.
Its the safe, responsible drivers that are being restricted here.

No matter what speed we do, the likelyhood of somebody flying into the side of us doing 150 is unchanged.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Tellox wrote:

Instead of;
1) Making Driver's ed a mandatory school subject in say, Transition Year.
2) Forcing drivers to sit x amount of mandatory lessons before taking to the road, and y amount of lessons every z amount of months until they sit an ignition/full license exam
3) Fixing up the piss-poor back roads in this country, which have a speed limit of 100km/h, and allow for 1 car to fit on the road at a squeeze
4) Force a restriction on all car/bike engines to say, 1L / 125cc until the ignition/bikecare/full license exam is sat/x time has passed

if we cant comply with a simple speed limit, what in gods name makes you think we will comply with all your new rules

Tellox

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

if we cant comply with a simple speed limit, what in gods name makes you think we will comply with all your new rules

Well, the first, because most teens wouldnt be driving at that age, and would be excited to even be in a car. And if its mandatory, it'd probably increase the chances of people actually attending the class. Not saying it'd be a huge, massive change to our road safety, but a start.

The second, simply a stamp on the provo to say that they've sat their lessons. Fine/few days/weeks road ban for those who break that law. Wouldnt take a huge effect, Im guessing. But no more idiotic than a 80km/h speed limit

Thirdly, you'd want to be completly ****ing thick not to realise how dangerous some of the backroads are in this country

And finally, force all drivers to have their car checked after turning in log books. Personally, Im not a big fan of this rule, since once again,its restricting the good drivers. But some idiots on the road actually do take the time to get their car in legit fashion. If they physically cant break the speed limit by huge amounts, then at least its not only the safe drivers getting **** piled onto them. But once again, this would probably encourage car theft, for people who want to drive fast. So I'd agree, this point is very flawed.


At least with these rules, we wont have FULLY LICENSED drivers simply unable to handle speeds over 80kmph.

netwhizkid

Once again the young driver is to blame, Heck I invented Aids and Decided to invade Iraq too. What a bunch of Twa7s Fianna Fail are, we as young drivers get screwed up to our eyebrows by the government already. This is ridiculous, I obey the speed limit and driver at 100KM where it is possible to do so and even then I am overtaken like I was a granny in pushbike.

To be honest on some roads it is unsafe not to drive at 100KM. I regularly get artic lorries trying hard to run me off the road between Cork and Killarney and I'd be doing 100Kmh if not a little over it, driving slower on good road can cause more accidents than it stops.

I am hit with 5 taxes, Motor Tax, VRT (€1,106 to clear my BMW), Fuel Tax - the state gets more out of filling my tank, than Esso or the Arabs, Fortunately I don't live in an area where Road Tolls apply but If I was In Dublin or Fermoy Road Tolls would be another Drag on the already overburdened Wallet. The we give the wallet a Stroke with Motor Insurance, a lot of young people have to take out loans to be paid back over the year to try and afford Motor Insurance. Now this, What Next?? A tax on Wiper Blades??

My advice is sign on the Dole and give "Unemployed due to transportation costs" as a reason; If a few thousand of us did this they wouldn't be long taking notice.

I look forward with eagerness to "Using Reasonable force" against Fianna Fail Canvassers should they wander onto my property. -> Get the Hurley's Sean Óg

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

netwhizkid wrote:

Once again the young driver is to blame,

i don't think any body has mentioned "young" drivers, they are trying to target inexperienced drivers, young and old

Lemming

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

i don't think any body has mentioned "young" drivers, they are trying to target inexperienced drivers, young and old

Ah ah ah ...... that's not what's been said before .... the target was "Young" drivers. And as I pointed out, perhaps in another thread on this forum in the last couple of days, that there seems to be a subsconcious equation of "young" with "provisional" in most other drivers these days. Looking to blame someone that isn't themselves.

So why not blame Iraq, 9/11, global warming, Bertie's dodgy dealings, and the cost of a pint on this stereotype you're so eager to get in a dig against. Meanwhile I'll be driving along to the speed limit of 50km/h in a heavily urbanised ares and having some muppet overtake me on a blind corner at about 90km/h from three cars back *. But I'm to blame naturally .... I'm just a "f00kin' learner".



* I'm not making this up

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Lemming wrote:

that there seems to be a subsconcious equation of "young" with "provisional"

how could anybody make that connection.:D that just doesnt make sense:rolleyes:

maidhc

netwhizkid wrote:

I look forward with eagerness to "Using Reasonable force" against Fianna Fail Canvassers should they wander onto my property. -> Get the Hurley's Sean Óg

Such is the state of hurling in kerry that they need to call in the Cork lads.

Sam Vimes

netwhizkid wrote:

Once again the young driver is to blame, Heck I invented Aids and Decided to invade Iraq too. What a bunch of Twa7s Fianna Fail are, we as young drivers get screwed up to our eyebrows by the government already. This is ridiculous, I obey the speed limit and driver at 100KM where it is possible to do so and even then I am overtaken like I was a granny in pushbike.

to be fair, most accidents are caused by young drivers. its not that they're prejudiced or something. its not a conincidence that almost every time i hear of an accident, someone below 25 was driving one, if not both, of the cars

Sam Vimes

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

how could anybody make that connection.:D that just doesnt make sense:rolleyes:

i know two people in their 50's on provisionals

Our man in Havana

Commander Vimes wrote:

i know two people in their 50's on provisionals

I know one lady who has sat the test 29 times in 20 years! :eek:

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

so true,
i don't know one person under 25 on a provisional

Sam Vimes

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

so true,
i don't know one person under 25 on a provisional

weren't you the one being sarcastic at someone for saying people are wrong to associate young with provisional?

Lemming

Commander Vimes wrote:

weren't you the one being sarcastic at someone for saying people are wrong to associate young with provisional?

I was just thinking that Vimes ..... since it was me he was trying to be sarcastic too.