Changes to how we should learn to drive

Spud83

Does anyone else think it is a bit stupid in how we all learn to drive in Ireland? I mean you go and sit a theory test which you can pass easily with no work, and then you can go only go on the road with any fully licensed driver who may not be qualified to teach you how to drive therefore passing on there bad habits and then wait over a year for your proper test. What are you supposed to do in the mean time??? I just wanted to post my idea of how it should be and see what people think.

1. You should do theory test as you do now to get a learners permit.

2. You are required to do a certain amount of lessons (10-20 hours) with a licensed instructor. At the end of these lessons the instructor gives you an assessment where the must sign you off that you are sufficiently capable of driving. This would be privatised and not state run.

3. After completing your assessment you are then given a provisional licence. This entitles you to drive on all non major roads without a fully licensed while displaying your provisional plates once you have applied for your full test. If you have not applied for your full test then you are only entitled to drive with a licensed driver.

4. When you finally sit your full test there are two types of failures. If you incur the more serious fail you will have your provisional licence revoked and must go back to step 2 above. The less serious fail means you go back to step three above with the same conditions of applying to re-sit your full test.

I think this would accomplish a number of things. Firstly forcing people to use licensed driving instructors means people are being properly taught. Secondly allowing people to drive legally on there own without a licensed driver will encourage them to sit there full driving test, removing the culture we have of “Why bother apply for the test it takes too long to get tested anyway?”

bonkey

alanmurphy83 wrote:

2. You are required to do a certain amount of lessons (10-20 hours) with a licensed instructor. At the end of these lessons the instructor gives you an assessment where the must sign you off that you are sufficiently capable of driving. This would be privatised and not state run.

3. After completing your assessment you are then given a provisional licence. This entitles you to drive on all non major roads without a fully licensed while displaying your provisional plates once you have applied for your full test. If you have not applied for your full test then you are only entitled to drive with a licensed driver.

Couldn't disagree more.

Until you have passed your test, you should under no circumstances be allowed drive alone.

I also like the Swiss "addendum" to this, which is that the accompanying driver must be over 23 and have held a full license, accident- and incident-free for 3 years.

Certified / Licensed instruction should not be mandatory. However, in the case of an accident, a non-certified instructor should be disqualified from accompanying learners for 3 years (i.e. their license is noted for the accident).

4. When you finally sit your full test there are two types of failures.

As I disagree with your idea of "unaccompanied learner" in the fisrt place, I would argue that under my system, there is no "non-serious fail". If you fail, its because you show that you are not deemed sufficiently in control of you car to be allowed on the roads on your own.

I would, however, set a maximum of 3 test-attempts and 3 years before you have to restart the entire process from the theory forward. If you can't do it in 3 goes, or within 3 years, then there's a serious problem somewhere.

Firstly forcing people to use licensed driving instructors means people are being properly taught.

The driving test is supposed to ensure that you're being properly taught. If you're not, you shouldn't be able to pass it.

"Simple" things such as parallel parking should be on the test.

Secondly allowing people to drive legally on there own without a licensed driver will encourage them to sit there full driving test, removing the culture we have of “Why bother apply for the test it takes too long to get tested anyway?”

No. Clearing the backlog so that tests can be taken within 6 weeks of application is how you solve that problem.

Allowing unlicensed people to drive unaccompanied for any reason is just crazy. Its crazy that its allowed on a second provisional at the moment, and any "solution" which continues to allow it is equally crazy.

The solution is to no longer permit it, then to implement a law which will result in a withdrawal of the learner's permit for 3 years from anyone caught driving unaccompanied who is without a full license.

This can only work where the backlog for test-processing is cleared, but thats a necessity for any solution.

Additional steps are needed as well. I don't like the idea of a "probation license", but I think its probably necessary. For 2-3 years after you pass your test, you should be on probation. This should involve something like having a smaller points total which will cause you to lose your license, a 0-tolerance limit for alcohol, and perhaps other clauses. It should not, however, require you to obey different speed-limits to other drivers (as the French have).

Spud83

I agree with you that clearing the backlog and having test be sit within six weeks of applying is the best way forward.

However I do not believe that this attainable in this country at this moment and believe we need an introduction of a new system to clear the backlog. By the driving instructor having to sign you off after you have sat the required hours shows that you have sufficient control over your car. Secondly the idea of having two fails was that one fail is to indicate that you pose a danger on the roads, the second fail would be that you do not pose a serious danger on the road but require more control before being given full access to the road network.

I believe the reason there are so many people driving on provisional’s at the moment is due to the long wait on getting a full test. People need to drive and we need a system where it does not take over a year before you are entitled to do so.

bonkey

alanmurphy83 wrote:

However I do not believe that this attainable in this country at this moment and believe we need an introduction of a new system to clear the backlog.

The system isn't whats causing the backlog.

By the driving instructor having to sign you off after you have sat the required hours shows that you have sufficient control over your car.

No, it doesn't. It shows you've sat behind the wheel in the company of a driving instructor for a certain period of time.

Even if you proposing that driving instructors be banned from instructing if they sign off too many people who are subsequently found to be involved in accidents, you've no way of ensuring objectivity. Instructors on "one more and you're toast" will be far less likely to sign off people than instructors on "clean slate".

There is a reason that teaching and testing are kept seperate, and its a good one.

Secondly the idea of having two fails was that one fail is to indicate that you pose a danger on the roads, the second fail would be that you do not pose a serious danger on the road but require more control before being given full access to the road network.

You're repeating yourself, not clarifying what it is you mean.

I'm guessing that what you want to say is "not allowed on motorways without your test", and I'd also guess that its because you either were or are able to get by on a provisional without motorways, or because you're only on your first provisional and think you should be let drive (legally) on your own already.

The easiest driving in the world is to drive on a motorway (although getting on and off can be tricky).

The hardest is to drive through mid-to-heavy traffic in a town or residential area where there are traffic lights, pedestrians, frequent junctions, people parking, cyclists, and all the rest of it.

In other words, even if what you're saying were to be adopted, the only sensible way of doing it would be to say that learners weren't allowed inside areas with a speed limit below 60km/h, thus making it impossible for them to get from or to anywhere in the first place!!!

A no-test-permit makes no sense...again, nless you hold the instructor accountable for their learners' errors in judgement. If you do that, then at a guess, the instructors will refuse to sign people off and will appeal for a change to the system where there is a test which people can sit which will get them off the hook, and then they'll insist that people take that test.

In other words..."no test permits" won't work.

I believe the reason there are so many people driving on provisional’s at the moment is due to the long wait on getting a full test.

So reduce the wait. Clear the backlog.

Your solution is simply to make it legal to drive on your own, without a test for a more broad-ranging period of time than is currently allowed.

People need to drive and we need a system where it does not take over a year before you are entitled to do so.

People need a reason to sit and pass the test, and at the moment, cheaper insurance is about all there is. They are allowed drive on their own on L-plates . There seems to be SFA policing about whether thats done on only a second provisional. There seems to be SFA policing about L-plates on the motorway.

In short, there's no reason to need the test as you can pretty-much do what you like anyway. Thats what needs to change...and making it easier to drive on your own isn't going to improve that.

Police the existing laws, and watch the public scream to have the
backlog cleared.
Change the existing laws to make it completely illegal to drive on your own on L-plates (whether or not you are the on on a learner's license) and watch the public scream to have the backlog cleared.

Clear the backlog. Its the necessary first step.

Introduce a bill which says that in 3 years time, no-one on a provisional license can drive on their own. Even with a 15-month wait, that gives everyone on a provisional today enough time to sit the test twice at least. Implement alongside it even more increases in testing capability, and a set of changes to come about in 3 years time to radically overhaul the driving system.

Then in 3 years time, police the hell out of the roads.
- Anyone caught on a learner's permit without L-plates....serious fine plus lifetime ban.
- Anyone caught unattended on L-plates....serious fine, 3 year ban, restart from theory test.
- Anyone caught with a full license driving on L-plates...serious fine, plus points on their license.

Implement a proper testing system, only allow certified instructors to offer instruction, and treat offenders with 0 tolerance.

It could be done, if not in 3 years than in 5. But it won't be...

Jimoslimos

bonkey wrote:

Additional steps are needed as well. I don't like the idea of a "probation license", but I think its probably necessary. For 2-3 years after you pass your test, you should be on probation. This should involve something like having a smaller points total which will cause you to lose your license, a 0-tolerance limit for alcohol, and perhaps other clauses. It should not, however, require you to obey different speed-limits to other drivers (as the French have).

Totally disagree with this, my UK license has a probation period of two years - disqualification after 6 points, thats two speeding offences:eek: , currently have about a year left on this.

1) I don't believe that newly qualified drivers should be penalised twice as much for making the same mistakes as supposed "superior" drivers - if anything it should be the other way around.

2) The probation period just results in a delay of the inevitable, speeding and recklessness once the two years are up as opposed to immediately after passing.

3) It also doesn't take into account people who don't drive during the probation period

bonkey

Jimoslimos wrote:

Totally disagree with this, my UK license has a probation period of two years - disqualification after 6 points, thats two speeding offences:eek: , currently have about a year left on this.

Well, to be honest, I'm not a fan of the points system in the first place, but I can't see it being taken away.

1) I don't believe that newly qualified drivers should be penalised twice as much for making the same mistakes as supposed "superior" drivers

The probation period should be shorter than the "cycle" period for points.

If points expire in 3 years, then the probation period should be 1 year to 18-months. It should set a shorter timeframe and a higher periodicity.

So if an experienced driver is allowed 4 minor slips in 3 years (I don't know how the points system works), 2 in 1 year should disqualify a probie.

The Swiss, incidentally, doesn't work on points. Here, my probie period will be 3 years. If I have one "significant" incident in that time, it gets extended by a year. If I have a second, I lose my license and restart.

A significant incident, in this case, is speeding more than 5km over the posted limits, being responsible in any way for an accident, and so forth.

Incidentally, the reason (over here at least) its not more stringent on experienced drivers is because statistically there's some sort of "transition" after about 3-5 years of driving (depending on how much you drive) after which there is a significant statistical shift in the likelihood to cause an accident. Consequently, such people are given some leeway.

2) The probation period just results in a delay of the inevitable, speeding and recklessness once the two years are up as opposed to immediately after passing.

Is that speculation on your part, or are there statistics to show that its failed as a measure? I didn't think it had been around long enough for that?

I know that I've seen several documentaries about the changes before they were introduced which all stated that the worst time statistically for drivers (in the UK) were the 18 months after they passed their exams. This was because they were finally allowed to drive on their own, had the added "cockiness kick" of just having passed their test.

The logic behind the probie period was to limit this effect. If it can be shown that its ineffective, then I agree - get rid of it and try something else. However, if it shows a net improvement, then keep it. Until either can be shown, then I believe its fair to let it run for some years so that it can be properly evaluated.

3) It also doesn't take into account people who don't drive during the probation period

No system currently exists which can log what mileage a private driver does and does not do, so its a moot point. Your insurance will go down if you don't drive (and thus don't have an accident) too.

Statistically, 3-5 years is a significant transition point. Statistically, there is a significant correlation between time and experience.

Its the best benchmark we can use.

Jimoslimos

Is that speculation on your part, or are there statistics to show that its failed as a measure?

Part speculation, part current experience. I drive quite carefully now to avoid the two offences which would see my full licence revoked. If you removed the probation tomorrow and gave me the safety net of 6 extra points I know that my speed would creep up and I mightn't be as cautious as I am now.

Wishbone Ash

alanmurphy83 wrote:

the reason there are so many people driving on provisional’s at the moment is due to the long wait on getting a full test

Alan - that arguement is trotted out here regularly but it doesn't hold water. There are approx. 130,000 on waiting lists for driving tests in various categories but there are 430,000 drivers on provisional licences. What's the excuse for the other 300,000?

The simple fact is that most people on provisionals have no intention of appling for or passing a test!

I think that an application for a provisional licence in (category B anyway*) should be accompanied by an application for a driving test.

(* It may not be practical in other categories where the waiting time is merely a few weeks.)

bonkey wrote:

Introduce a bill which says that in 3 years time, no-one on a provisional license can drive on their own. Even with a 15-month wait, that gives everyone on a provisional today enough time to sit the test twice at least.

:eek: That is sure to scare the hell out of those significant numbers with the 12th August 1985 exemption!

(The exemption for A,A1,M and W would still have to apply. "Daddy, I'm going for a spin in me moped - are ye ready". )

Stark

Wishbone Ash wrote:

The simple fact is that most people on provisionals have no intention of appling for or passing a test!

I think that an application for a provisional licence in (category B anyway*) should be accompanied by an application for a driving test.

And then they won't show up for their tests, leaving the people who really want their tests waiting thrice as long.

The Muppet

Wishbone Ash wrote:

I think that an application for a provisional licence in (category B anyway*) should be accompanied by an application for a driving test.

How would learners be expected to learn in the time it takes to get a test? The waiting list for a test is around a year in Dublin but nothing like that in other parts of the country. Under the current system learners have to apply for a test after 2 years, I think that's about right.

The only thing I would change is the driving unaccompanied on a 2nd provisional rule. Then it's a matter of enforcing the current legislation rather than drafting new legislation and not enforcing it as we have a tendancy to do.

Wishbone Ash

The Muppet wrote:

Under the current system learners have to apply for a test after 2 years, I think that's about right

No they don't have to apply for a test after two years. A 2nd provisional license may be issued without undergoing a test. Therefore, a person may legally drive for 4 years without having even applied for a driving test.

The Muppet

Wishbone Ash wrote:

No they don't have to apply for a test after two years. A 2nd provisional license may be issued without undergoing a test. Therefore, a person may legally drive for 4 years without having even applied for a driving test.

I stand corrected on that point.

Capt'n Midnight

Wishbone Ash wrote:

No they don't have to apply for a test after two years. A 2nd provisional license may be issued without undergoing a test. Therefore, a person may legally drive for 4 years without having even applied for a driving test.

Lets not forget that they can then apply for a test and reschedule it twice, to get their next two provisional licenses.

Again no legal requirement to even attempt a test. And they can still drive home if they did one and failed it.

Capt'n Midnight

bonkey wrote:

I also like the Swiss "addendum" to this, which is that the accompanying driver must be over 23 and have held a full license, accident- and incident-free for 3 years.
...
It should not, however, require you to obey different speed-limits to other drivers (as the French have).

You don't need to go that far to get that system.
In the North you can only get lessons from a driver with 3 years full license, and driving instructors have to pass a test. Down here instructors don't even need a driving license !
In the north after passing your test you wear R plates and are on different speed limits for the first year.

In the south we have fluoride in the water in the north they don't, we have better teeth despite the better health system and cheaper dentists up there.

Oddly enough with better enforcement and more restrictions on learner they have safer roads. And it's not the better roads as the billions squandered by the NRA have shown. Our dismal safety record might possibly have something to do with the lack of any requirement for driver training or maybe it's something in the water...

Capt'n Midnight

The Muppet wrote:

How would learners be expected to learn in the time it takes to get a test? The waiting list for a test is around a year in Dublin but nothing like that in other parts of the country. Under the current system learners have to apply for a test after 2 years, I think that's about right.

The only thing I would change is the driving unaccompanied on a 2nd provisional rule. Then it's a matter of enforcing the current legislation rather than drafting new legislation and not enforcing it as we have a tendancy to do.

In Italy you have a MAXIMUM of 6 months of getting your provisional to pass both the Theory and Driving test. Otherwise you have to reapply and do the theory test again. In UK you can do a test in a few weeks.


NOTHING realistic has been done on this in the 80's or 90's. In the 70's the only thing they did was to give an amnesty and bypass the testing system altogether and they can't do that again because the EU won't let them. Recently they have started private tests, but since there is no legal requirement to do them I'm not sure they will have any effect on most of the 10% of the population that needs to be tested.

Perhaps increasing the cost of the driving test so people are less likely to cancel - lets say the cost would be €300 BUT you are guaranteed up to 3 re-tests within 6 weeks as part of the cost. This means the driving test is self financing AND there is no financial incentive to fail people. ( if you can't pass in 4 attempts ? - in Germany you would have to see a shrink if you couldn't pass in 3 )

Also I'd strengthen laws on driving tester bribes, any money or favours would result in prison sentences since peoples lives are at stake. Or is all that stuff urban myth ?

Wishbone Ash

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

In the North you can only get lessons from a driver with 3 years full license

And they must be over 21 years of age.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

In the south we have fluoride in the water in the north they don't, we have better teeth despite the better health system and cheaper dentists up there.

(Off topic) I beg to differ ther Capt'n. I think that teeth in NI are much better.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Oddly enough with better enforcement and more restrictions on learner they have safer roads

And ironically, during the 'troubles', more people in NI died in Road Traffic Accidents than from sectarian violence.

fozzle

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Perhaps increasing the cost of the driving test so people are less likely to cancel - lets say the cost would be €300 BUT you are guaranteed up to 3 re-tests within 6 weeks as part of the cost. This means the driving test is self financing

If a driving test cost 300euro I couldn't do it. That's a full weeks wages! And why should people who pass first time pay to cover other people's re tests?

Stark

A better option imo I think would be to make people pay a huge deposit. If you decide to not show up and not bother contacting the Department, then you forfeit your deposit. That way you only punish the no-shows, and not everyone.

bonkey

Stark wrote:

A better option imo I think would be to make people pay a huge deposit. If you decide to not show up and not bother contacting the Department, then you forfeit your deposit. That way you only punish the no-shows, and not everyone.

Pfft.

If you fail to show up, and fail to pre-inform them, then they should begin taking steps to have your license revoked. If, by the time this process is completed, you have not offered a satisfactory explanation and paid a fine, then your license is revoked, and you start from scratch.

Seriously..."no ****ing pity" is the way to go. If you want to be let drive on teh roads, the onus is on you to get there. THe system should accomodate those who are willing to show they can shoulder the responsibility. It should not put unreasonable burdens in their way (deposits, etc.) Those who shirk responsibility, however, should be treated as untrustworthy and be removed from the roads.

Capt'n Midnight

Wishbone Ash wrote:

And ironically, during the 'troubles', more people in NI died in Road Traffic Accidents than from sectarian violence.

about three times as many IIRC, then again more have died down here since penalty points came in than during the three decades of the troubles.

fozzle wrote:

If a driving test cost 300euro I couldn't do it. That's a full weeks wages! And why should people who pass first time pay to cover other people's re tests?

At present a driving test costs about the same as a driving lesson and I can't see how it can cover the real cost of the test, and you might have to wait until the following year to try again. With a guarantee of a quick re-test more people should pass the test within a short period. The cost is small compared to the cost of motoring. In other countries you have to do a specific number of lessons or through a driving school so compared to them it's not so much. If you can think of other options that would work please suggest away.