Driving: From Provisional License to Learning Permit (Merged)

However, anyone who applies for a licence from next Tuesday will be issued with a learner permit, obliging them to be accompanied by a driver who has had a full licence for at least two years.

That's how it should be anyway!

Wishbone Ash

Just to clarify, he's referring to 2nd licence holders in category B only. Those on a 2nd provisional licence in other categories are still required to be accompanied as normal (except A,M,& W).

Slutmonkey57b

Calina wrote: »

The fact that they are not good enough is not a good reason to argue against enforcing them. The problem under discussion here is unqualified drivers out on their own on the road. It is illegal and shouldn't be tolerated.
Governments pretend there are no problems. My primary solution is enforcing the legislation we have in the short term which would focus the minds of all those who speed because no one stops them, those who drive on their own because no one stops them.

Your solutions amount to avoiding the current major problem which is people blatantly ignoring the laws in place.

You're right, drivers, instructors, insurance companies and even the police did ignore this law for far too long, and it shouldn't be happening. The important question though is why did it happen? It happened for 3 simple reasons:

1) The waiting times for tests make it impossible for the concept of "temporarily driving while under supervision" to work. If the wait time for a test was 2 weeks, this would not be an issue and the provisional license system would work fine. Given that most people fail their first test (even in other countries), most people could get a provisional, practice, take lessons, and be onto a full licence within, say, 2-3 months, even if they had to retake the test. We never had that. The idea that a provisional driver would have to have supervision in the car with them for a year and a half is clearly unworkable. Either the learner would have to have their ma driving with them everywhere for 18 months, or they would just not drive anywhere until a few weeks before their test confirmation.

2) The police have never had a dedicated traffic unit. This means that traffic enforcement has fallen on the underfunded and more importantly undermanned beat cops. The police actually do have quite a bit of leeway in most situations as to whether they bring charges or just issue on the spot warnings for minor offences. The police, and the courts, know that to actually prosecute this law properly would cripple the courts system and take up most of the gardai's time. There simply aren't the resources available to criminalise these lawbreakers. As with most other minor offences, the police will choose in most cases to put the ****s up the offender and issue a warning, or go to court and recommend a quick fining for the few serious piss-taking offenders. That shouldn't happen but the freedom of the police to judge the situations they encounter is an important part of what makes the legal system work. There has to be common sense.

3) The government's greedy, lazy, incompetant attitude towards the country's infrastructure has meant that poor planning, lack of investment, and no public transport results in people having no choice but to drive everywhere. Irish people would probably be culturally inclined to drive anyway, but at present, most people who are not on the Luas, Dart, or one of the few 8-minute gap bus routes have to drive. Most people are left in one of the two scenarios:
i) They live in a rural area where the nearest bus or train is a 1 hour walk/cycle, goes on an infrequent timetable, and probably doesn't even leave the stop until after 9am anyway. So the government claims there is a public transport service, but in practice what there is is a public transport service that is only useful to OAPs and the unemployed.
ii) They live in a major urban area where the public trasport system is designed by a child with a crayon - Dublin Bus is a great system - but only if you live along one of the major arteries and are travelling from the southside or northside into the city centre and back again. If you want to go east-west, or god forbid northside-southside you are royally ****ed. You're looking at changing buses at least once, probably twice, and hoping that Bus A gets to Bus B's stop in time and neither of them get stuck in traffic, and even if things do go well, a 15-minute car journey is a 1-2hour bus nightmare (given that car journeys start when you leave the house as opposed to when you leave the house, get to the stop, and wait for the bus).

So you're right, they should be enforcing this law.
But first they should be fixing the problems that actually prevent people from complying with the law.

gurramok

DonJose wrote: »

How much was the fine?

From memory, it was either €60 or €80, not anywhere near €1000

easy guv'nor

My 2nd provisional expired last november and I'm planning on getting back on the road at the moment.

Can anyone tell me what my situation will be?

Learner permit?
3rd provisional (technically must be accompanied)?

Ciaran500

You'll be given a learners permit.

Wishbone Ash

easy guv'nor wrote: »

3rd provisional (technically must be accompanied)?

Legally!

chump

a bit of sense prevailed.

Pity they lacked the foresight to implement the policy this way from the get go.

Unless of course this was always the plan and they wanted to create a DISTRACTION.

chump

chump wrote: »

Unless of course this was always the plan and they wanted to create a DISTRACTION.

Quite a successful one by all accounts.

*looking for buried news*

easy guv'nor

how'd you know I'll be given a learners permit?

why not a 3rd provisional if the new regs aren't to be implemented until next june?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

easy guv'nor

thats strange, don't remember looking for any sympathy.

suppose only way to be sure is call motor tax office.

Calina

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

1) The waiting times for tests make it impossible for the concept of "temporarily driving while under supervision" to work. If the wait time for a test was 2 weeks, this would not be an issue and the provisional license system would work fine. Given that most people fail their first test (even in other countries), most people could get a provisional, practice, take lessons, and be onto a full licence within, say, 2-3 months, even if they had to retake the test. We never had that. The idea that a provisional driver would have to have supervision in the car with them for a year and a half is clearly unworkable. Either the learner would have to have their ma driving with them everywhere for 18 months, or they would just not drive anywhere until a few weeks before their test confirmation.

I don't buy this one as I had to wait 11 months for my driving test at the time and did not drive unaccompanied during that time. It is only unworkable because people are selfish and mefein and ignore the law as it inconveniences them. As a result I'm of the opinion that given the situation, people knew how it worked and broke the law anyway. I mean, what the hell did people do before they started learning to drive anyway?

Sully

What happens if someone on their prov. licence does a test and fails - I take it they get the permit and wait 6months again before re-doing the test? Must be acompinied?

L1011

Calina wrote: »

I mean, what the hell did people do before they started learning to drive anyway?

"Were 16", in many cases. Where I'm from originally there is *no* public transport effectively - it takes nearly a full day to get to Dublin via 3-mile walk/ferry/Lough Swilly Bus/Bus Eireann. Most kids get given a bare NCT pass banger on their 17th birthday - safe in the knowledge that Donegal roads will make it a sure NCT fail within a few weeks - and get let loose on the roads; mainly because its the only mode of survival.

L1011

Sully wrote: »

What happens if someone on their prov. licence does a test and fails - I take it they get the permit and wait 6months again before re-doing the test? Must be acompinied?

If you fail a test on your provisional, it doesn't cease to be valid, so no.

Wertz

janeybabe26 wrote: »

Don't forget that he then tried to equate having 5 days to prepare for a driving test with having 5 days to prepare for LC English

Yes, a simple analogy that I thought some of the more mentally challenged posters on here might be able to grasp. Judging by recent replies, obviously not.

DonJose; I don't need to justify my decision to you or anyone else on here. If I had felt it was an unwise decision, I wouldn't have posted it....I actually find it ironic that I can wait almost 7 months for a test date without hearing a damn thing and then to be presented with a possible date for the following week. Another two tier system in this country of us and them....yeah, present a nice little letter from someone son and we'll usher you to the head of the queue...I'm sorry but why should anyone be prioritised in this system? You enter your name, get in line, take your turn.
I did NOT expect unfair treatment from the RSA, my "nasty" eMail was a genuine inquiry as to why I hadn't heard anything about a formal test date having been on the waiting list for the lenght of time I was on it, given the expected changes for next week. All I wanted to know was when I could expect my test, not an unreasonable request IMO....I didn't honestly expect a date and the date that I was presented with wasn't suitable for my situation so I declined it.

Off-topic: I just came back from Drogheda, visiting an elderly relative....coming down the m-way just after the on ramp at Monasterboice, in the pissing rain, I saw traffic starting to slow and brake en masse ahead. Stuck on hazards and joined the queue. About 5 cars involved, a lot of broken bumper and detritus spewn across both lanes. The main culprit that I could make out was a renault 19 on D plates, which had been spun and was facing into oncoming traffic...hard to tell but it looked to me like that car was overtaking others and cut one off, clipping their front bumper and spinning both cars. I saw no L-plates on any of the cars involved...the renault 19 was being driven by a young black woman, there was another in the passenger and at least 3 kids in the back. No-one looked to be seriously injured but everyone looked shocked. That spot has seen at least 3 mini-pile ups in the last 12 months I would reckon, yet there is no speed camera (there's one about 2 miles further down on the other side), the place is always seems to be wet, there is a blind crest and everyone is putting the foot down as they make their way steadily downhill. Not soi much as a warning sign or anything. How can we say we're serious about raod safety when we can't even mark a black spot on a newish road? If that had happened on a winters evening, we'd be surely looking at fatalities (mostly from tailing traffic).
All that said I still feel a lot safer on the m-way than on the old B roads....I mean at least I only have to worry about being crashed into by cars going in the same genearl direction as me, rather than meeting some culchie head on in their 2lt TDi on a blind bend.

Toto Wolfcastle

Wertz wrote: »

Yes, a simple analogy that I thought some of the more mentally challenged posters on here might be able to grasp. Judging by recent replies, obviously not.

A simple analogy it may be but think about it this way:

1. The Leaving Cert English course is a 2 year course, 3 years with the pressures of the points system. Being told on a Monday that you have to sit and pass the exam on Friday having not studied before gives you an impossible goal to achieve.

2. Learning to drive may take just as long, and if someone who had never driven was given 5 days to prepare, they could never be expected to pass. However, you have had a provisional for a year (right??) and have been driving it, so as such have been 'studying'. No comparison.

And if you have been driving for that long and are not prepared to take an easy 40 minute test (it is easy if you've been driving for that long and think you are capable of driving alone) then you should not be on the road. You are risking your life, and the lives of others.

Yes, fully licenced drivers cause accidents, but that's not the issue here.

You drive alone, which is the right of the fully licenced driver who has passed a test, yet you are on a provisional and are not prepared to take a test you applied for months ago. Need I remind you that you are not supposed to apply for the test until you are prepared to take it.

Slutmonkey57b

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, if the waiting list for tests is 18months (which it has been), and the fail rate is 50% on the first test, then most people will have had to wait 3 years to pass the test through no fault of their own.

That's not at all the same as someone who has had 100 tests over 3 years, is it?

Slutmonkey57b

Calina wrote: »

I don't buy this one as I had to wait 11 months for my driving test at the time and did not drive unaccompanied during that time. It is only unworkable because people are selfish and mefein and ignore the law as it inconveniences them. As a result I'm of the opinion that given the situation, people knew how it worked and broke the law anyway. I mean, what the hell did people do before they started learning to drive anyway?

Then you've ignored point #3, haven't you?

Seth Brundle

dlofnep wrote: »

It's bull**** and just more money for the government.

How?

dlofnep wrote: »

Lots of people didn't apply for their full license because the wait was too long.

And thats meant to be a reasonable excuse?

dlofnep wrote: »

A full license doesn't make you a better driver. I've been on the road two years and drive as careful and as good as the next guy.

A full licence shows that you have (in the eyes of the authorities) reached a basic minimum standard. You have had sufficient time to reach this but currently still stand incompetent to drive (using the official wording!)

dlofnep wrote: »

The petrol prices are atrocious.

They are more expensive abroad!

dlofnep wrote: »

****.

So who did you vote for? Do you think an opposition government would have managed our taxation policies differently?

Seth Brundle

Boggles wrote: »

Oh right the add campaigns that cost millions to make, like a small hollywood action movie with a young fella flying through a window. Shock has been proved not to work, people are desentisied to this, they watch it at the break and continue to watch east enders. You say the government are being agressive, naive would be more like it.

It may be naive (in your opinion) but that does not remove the fact that this is/was an agressive scheme to improve our driver training.

Boggles wrote: »

It is the car that does most of the damage. Getting to know your car, simple things like the different levels of beam, etc.

Cars on their own do sweet FA! Its the driver behind the wheel that usually causes the car to do the damage!
Why should the goverment subsidise a privelige? Anyhow, they are to an extent by sending everyone (or is it every household?) a copy of the ROTR. Surely anyone who wants to drive a car should fund it themselves. Even the owners manual covers beam levels, etc.

Boggles wrote: »

Where is the name of sweet jaysus are you from mate?

My location is irrelevant. I have driven the length and breath of the country on all road types. They have improved immensely over the last 15 years. Getting back to the original point, the road condition doesn't cause an incident - its the driver who isn't driving with careful regard to these conditions who does!

Boggles wrote: »

Learner drivers account for 1.6% of fatal road accidents.

Source?

ec18 wrote: »

funny how everyone that this legislation doesn't affect is supporting it.....would everyone still suppport it if licenses were every 3 years and you had to re do the test every time....instead of just renewing it?.....I wonder......

I have always supported this idea!

Slutmonkey57b

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Again, if the waiting list for tests is 18months (which it has been), and the fail rate is 50% on the first test, then most people will have had to wait 3 years to pass the test through no fault of their own.

That's not at all the same as someone who has had 100 tests over 3 years, is it?

Here is the list of current waiting times

Some are almost a year, some as short as 11 weeks.

If learners were better prepaired for their tests, then the pass rate would rise and fewer would need a second test thus shortening the times further.

Question "Do unaccompanied drivers, actually learn anything while driving?" or do they just get more familier with how the car drives on the road.

L1011

Based on the recent spate of applications, I would suspect you can add at least ten weeks to any of the quoted waiting times - bringing them well above a year in certain areas again.

Actually, I'd be surprised if they don't hit the level at which they've given amnesties in the past (18 months) at some testing centres... not that they'll ever happen again, though (the amnesties, that is).

Wertz

janeybabe26 wrote: »

A simple analogy it may be but think about it this way:

1. The Leaving Cert English course is a 2 year course, 3 years with the pressures of the points system. Being told on a Monday that you have to sit and pass the exam on Friday having not studied before gives you an impossible goal to achieve.

2. Learning to drive may take just as long, and if someone who had never driven was given 5 days to prepare, they could never be expected to pass. However, you have had a provisional for a year (right??) and have been driving it, so as such have been 'studying'. No comparison.

And if you have been driving for that long and are not prepared to take an easy 40 minute test (it is easy if you've been driving for that long and think you are capable of driving alone) then you should not be on the road. You are risking your life, and the lives of others.

Yes, fully licenced drivers cause accidents, but that's not the issue here.

You drive alone, which is the right of the fully licenced driver who has passed a test, yet you are on a provisional and are not prepared to take a test you applied for months ago. Need I remind you that you are not supposed to apply for the test until you are prepared to take it.

I'm sorry, my comparison shouldn't have mentioned leaving certs (points? Pressure? pfft, who cares?).
Let's just call it an english exam. You speak english everyday, you even write/type a little...ie you're constantly practising that skill. But ask you to sit down and take on an examination in the english language and you aren't going to be fully test ready. Not had time to brush up in a few things that were giving you problems...not things that were impeding your ability to communicate, just linguistic typos and small grammatical errors. You enter the test and fail on the strength of those things you didn't brush up on.

Now replace speaking english with driving....something you do most if not all days, which by now should be second nature...ie you're almost constantly practising that skill. But ask you to take on a test and you're not going to be test ready. Not had time to brush up on a few things that are giving you problems, not things that are impeding your ability to drive safely, just small errors or defects in technique that any driver can make in normal day to day driving but that in this particular instance mean you fail, even if none of those on their own presented a danger. You enter the test and fail on the strength of those thing you didn't brush up on...

In the case of the english exam, you haven't really "failed", you've just not attained full marks. In the driving test that is enough to fail you.

Easy 40 minute test?
In whose opinion? I don't know how easy or hard the test is, like I said, I've not done so much as a dry run of my route, but I'm not just going to presume "Ah sure it's a feckin' cake walk, I'll breeze through it" and disimss it as being easy.
I've seen a lot of horror stories over in the LTD forum, where people have failed on what I would consider minor faults. Many of those potential faults I'm not even aware of, because I've not had an instructor sit beside me and point them out recently enough. Like I said above, last time I had a paid professional instructor sitting beside me in the car, I was told I was good enough to get out there and get in the practice and that I didn't need to see them until my test was coming up....should I be doing so unaccompanied? No, but I simply don't have anyone to sit there and I can't afford to keep paying 30-40 quid per hour for someone to ride shotgun. That's my excuse, not a very valid one I'll admit. I've already held my hands up to breaking the law and being 100% aware that I was and am doing so.


Ummm, not apply for the test until I'm prepared for it? WTH? With the length of waiting lists here you could potentially apply for it now and have completely forgotten how to drive come your test date!
I applied for my test around 2-3 months after driving under instruction, accompanied and alone....my understanding of the procedure is that you are called for a test about a month beforehand under normal circumstances....this period allows ample time to take pre-test instruction, get any outstanding issues with the car sorted out and to allow you to be free of work or leisure commitments.

drivingtest.ie wrote:

You will normally be given an appointment notice four to five weeks in advance of your test. This will indicate the time, date and venue for the test together with conditions which must be met.

http://www.drivingtest.ie/frameset.html
(it also mentions 10 weeks on that page as average waiting times. A blatant lie.)
Applying before I was confident on the road alone would have been a foolish move IMO as would have been not applying at all and just hoping to keep driving without ever qualifying ( a tactic that many seem to have employed over the years). I did what I should have done.
Sorry, bottom line is that with 4 day's notice, I and my car were going to have to be test-ready; neither would be, so I declined. I'm to be dealt with within the month and I can live with that.
If it makes anyone on here feel any better, I'm curtailing my unaccompanied driving to absolute minimum....work and the shopping. L-plates will remain down though for reasons outlined above.

thefinalstage

My got that driving test site needs to be updated! It still links to netscape at the bottom!

Zapp Brannigan

However, anyone who applies for a licence from next Tuesday will be issued with a learner permit, obliging them to be accompanied by a driver who has had a full licence for at least two years.

I applied for my 2nd on friday! hope I don't get the stoopid permit thingy!

Wertz

Won't matter...as far as I understand it, all provisional license holders now carry a learner permit; it just mightn't say so on the current document.

Dar

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Again, if the waiting list for tests is 18months (which it has been), and the fail rate is 50% on the first test, then most people will have had to wait 3 years to pass the test through no fault of their own.

That's not at all the same as someone who has had 100 tests over 3 years, is it?

So if they fail 10 times in a row they'll have had to wait 15 to years to pass their test through no fault of their own? Nonsense. The high failure rate for first time tests is because people do not prepare adequately.

Stark

Deleted User wrote: »

Question "Do unaccompanied drivers, actually learn anything while driving?" or do they just get more familier with how the car drives on the road.

They get familiar with handling the car then think they know it all.

DonJose

Wertz wrote: »

I saw no L-plates on any of the cars involved...the renault 19 was being driven by a young black woman, there was another in the passenger and at least 3 kids in the back.

Maybe you haven't noticed but a LOT of L plates have gone missing since the new law was announced. 3 on my road. From what I have seen most African women drivers are/were driving with L plates, I'd say roughly 90% from what I have seen, she could have simply removed her L plate like a lot of other L drivers.

DonJose

Whatever about deferring the implementation of this law, its a huge success and the minister has done exactly what he wanted, he has gotten tens of thousands of L drivers to sign up for their driving test. Great stuff minister.

Before the announcement drivingtest.ie was ranked roughly 400,000 most visited website online, yesterday it was ranked 34,197

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drivingtest.ie

Ickle Magoo

The fail rate is 50%?! That's atrocious! :eek: Explains a lot tho...

Slutmonkey57b

Dar wrote: »

So if they fail 10 times in a row they'll have had to wait 15 to years to pass their test through no fault of their own? Nonsense. The high failure rate for first time tests is because people do not prepare adequately.

That isn't what I posted now, is it? I pointed out that the 3 year wait was not the result of provisional drivers who were taking 100 driving tests that they couldn't pass in that three years, but that the failure of the testing system forces them to have to take that long to get a full licence, unlike other countries where a 50% first-time failure rate would still only result in the applicant being delayed by less than a month to get retested.

And as posted elsewhere, countries which have a higher rate of first-time passes also have a proper system of driver education. And it's worth noting that the failure rate for the test when you took it was also 50%, wasn't it? So either today's provisional drivers are all incompetant, and in your day of course they weren't, or the state of incompetance is constant, but the increase in waiting times makes the problem appear worse to people who want to see it that way.

Slutmonkey57b

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is the list of current waiting times

Some are almost a year, some as short as 11 weeks.

If learners were better prepaired for their tests, then the pass rate would rise and fewer would need a second test thus shortening the times further.

Which still means that the ~50% that pass first time have had to wait anything up to 12-18 months. Since they passed first time, they clearly were prepared for the test, right?

And since there are now going to be and extra 300,000 people applying, you can easily double or triple those waiting list times.

Stark wrote:

They get familiar with handling the car then think they know it all.

Fully licensed drivers in 4x4 and beemers with years of experience are just as (if not more) capable of being oblivious due to over-familiarity with their vehicle and assuming they know it all.

DonJose

Wertz wrote: »

I saw no L-plates on any of the cars involved...the renault 19 was being driven by a young black woman, there was another in the passenger and at least 3 kids in the back. No-one looked to be seriously injured but everyone looked shocked.

Was this that crash, if it was WTF was she doing with 7 people in a Renault 19.

"Seven people have been taken to hospital following a single-vehicle crash on the M1 Dublin to Belfast Road.

Their injuries are not thought to be life threatening."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1028/louth.html

bunny shooter

I started driving motorbikes in UK many years ago.......had to do a 1 x day course to go with my prov licence before I could drive a 100cc bike on road and had to have an L plate front and rear, had to pass test to drive anything over 125cc.

had to pass test before I could drive a car alone, that was the rule and everyone accepted it. Did car test here. Had 1st prov licence and drove around unaccompanied. passed my 2nd test after 15 months. didn't even get to 2nd prov licence

my brother and sister have provs and need to drive to get to work, they are in the proverbial now. sister has failed three tests and is driving approx 5 years, brother is driving car approx 3 years and hasn recently cancelled a test date, he has taken 1 lesson, at start, then drove away, never drove a car before the lesson, he has been under no pressure to do test up to this

Degag

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

And your point is exactly what's wrong with road safety in this country - the situation you describe is precisely what causes most of the road deaths every year. People driving without care on dark country roads because "ah sure it's grand there's nothin on the road an anyways it's only a couple of miles and sure and anyways everyone does it." Very few fatal accidents are caused by provisional drivers getting to and from work while waiting over a year to get tested. Not that there are no accidents, but it's not where the deaths occur.

I strongly disagree and i would advise you to look up your facts regarding what causes the most road accidents each year... i have a strong suspicion that the determining factor is SPEED and not drink in alot of those cases. Whether you decide to believe government propaganda is your own problem. What i mean by this is that the government want an easy target and drink drivers are an easy target.

I am a provisional drver and drive with care and if i do have one or two pints i drive with even more care... as i said and i can only use my own area as an example, there has never been a drink related accident, only SPEED related ones.

togster

Whats the story with this now? Are they still bringing it in?

togster

Tackle69 wrote: »

I strongly disagree and i would advise you to look up your facts regarding what causes the most road accidents each year... i have a strong suspicion that the determining factor is SPEED and not drink in alot of those cases. Whether you decide to believe government propaganda is your own problem. What i mean by this is that the government want an easy target and drink drivers are an easy target.

I am a provisional drver and drive with care and if i do have one or two pints i drive with even more care... as i said and i can only use my own area as an example, there has never been a drink related accident, only SPEED related ones.

What a load of BS. Im afraid its hard to believe your own brand of propaghanda. So are you suggesting that drink drivers don't cause accidents? Shouldn't this post belong in the conspiracy forum. Really you have done provisional licence holders a disservice by spewing this. IMO they should lower the blood alcholol level to 0.

togster

togster wrote: »

Whats the story with this now? Are they still bringing it in?

See below

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Minister for Transport has just announced that he is postponing the requirement for the 122,000 2nd provisional licence holders from the requirement to be accompanied until 30th June next.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhmheykfauid/

Slutmonkey57b

Tackle69 wrote: »

I strongly disagree and i would advise you to look up your facts regarding what causes the most road accidents each year... i have a strong suspicion that the determining factor is SPEED and not drink in alot of those cases.

Read what I wrote - I said driving without care, not driving drunk.

Whether you decide to believe government propaganda is your own problem. What i mean by this is that the government want an easy target and drink drivers are an easy target.

Why are drink drivers an "easy target" then? Very simple - what they are doing is
a) Totally unnecessary.
Drinking, unlike working, is not a necessary fact of life.
b) Totally avoidable.
Even if they did drink, what's to stop them getting a taxi, or taking turns at designated driver?
c) Totally irresponsible.
Putting your own pathetic need for alcohol above other people's safety?
d) Totally unjustifiable.
Due to all of the above. You don't have to drink, and even if you wanted to drink, you don't have to drive yourself home.

Studies have proven that even small (as in half a pint) amounts of alcohol impair your ability to drive.

I am a provisional drver and drive with care and if i do have one or two pints i drive with even more care... as i said and i can only use my own area as an example, there has never been a drink related accident, only SPEED related ones.

You're re-iterating my point that what is wrong with road safety is the "ah sure timmy joe does it all the time and sure he's 60 and never had a crash" attitude. Just because you personally do not know anyone killed drink driving does not mean it doesn't happen.

Slutmonkey57b

DonJose wrote: »

Whatever about deferring the implementation of this law, its a huge success and the minister has done exactly what he wanted, he has gotten tens of thousands of L drivers to sign up for their driving test. Great stuff minister.

Before the announcement drivingtest.ie was ranked roughly 400,000 most visited website online, yesterday it was ranked 34,197

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drivingtest.ie

The minister hasn't a clue what he wanted, as evidenced by his embarrassing radio interviews last week. Anyone familiar with Dempsey's helming of his previous brief will be well aware that a clever manipulative ploy like that is well beyond him.

Even if you assumed that that was his intention, all that the farce of last week proves is that the Government has no clue how to solve the driver testing problem, given the fact that even with outsourced testing, waiting lists were still unacceptably high, and the prospect of the people not already on the waiting list applying would have thouroughly broken the system.

SimpleSam06

See thats what I don't get. What EXACTLY is the difficulty with the driving tests? Why the long wait? Why can't they hire another two dozen testers in every centre, not enough roads? Is there a driving testers cabal with their fingers on the button of a weapon of unimaginable destructive power, ready to destroy us all if there is any change in the status quo? I mean its not like its the hardest thing in the world to get your head around.

SimpleSam06

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

See thats what I don't get. What EXACTLY is the difficulty with the driving tests? Why the long wait? Why can't they hire another two dozen testers in every centre, not enough roads? Is there a driving testers cabal with their fingers on the button of a weapon of unimaginable destructive power, ready to destroy us all if there is any change in the status quo? I mean its not like its the hardest thing in the world to get your head around.

Didn't the testers threaten to go on strike recently when the government wanterd to employ contractors to help reduce the backlog.

Not sure of the details, but it was big news last year.

SimpleSam06

Deleted User wrote: »

Didn't the testers threaten to go on strike recently when the government wanterd to employ contractors to help reduce the backlog.

That distant rumbling is my teeth grinding.

Stark

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

That isn't what I posted now, is it? I pointed out that the 3 year wait was not the result of provisional drivers who were taking 100 driving tests that they couldn't pass in that three years, but that the failure of the testing system forces them to have to take that long to get a full licence, unlike other countries where a 50% first-time failure rate would still only result in the applicant being delayed by less than a month to get retested.

The waiting lists are long because there's no motivation for people to show up and pass their tests when they're allowed drive anyway. Therefore, the testers spend half their day sitting around while yet another person doesn't bother showing up for their test. The people who are motivated into getting their licenses have these people to thank for their hassle in getting them.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

And as posted elsewhere, countries which have a higher rate of first-time passes also have a proper system of driver education. And it's worth noting that the failure rate for the test when you took it was also 50%, wasn't it? So either today's provisional drivers are all incompetant, and in your day of course they weren't, or the state of incompetance is constant, but the increase in waiting times makes the problem appear worse to people who want to see it that way.

In those countries, people actually have to put the effort in to obtain a pass, or they can forget about driving to work the next day.

SimpleSam06

Stark wrote: »

The waiting lists are long because there's no motivation for people to show up and pass their tests when they're allowed drive anyway. Therefore, the testers spend half their day sitting around while yet another person doesn't bother showing up for their test. The people who are motivated into getting their licenses have these people to thank for their hassle in getting them.

Just out of interest, have you got any figures for the number of testers currently employed in Ireland?

ciaran76

Just read this on RTE.

A new road safety regulation affecting drivers on a second provisional licence will not now come into effect until June next year.

Minister Noel Dempsey said on RTÉ's This Week programme that he was deferring the introduction of the accompanied driver provision until 30 June 2008.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1028/roadsafety.html

TwoShedsJackson

After this they'll hopefully bring in compulsory re-testing for any man over 50 driving a large Merc or BMW, and for any woman aged 40 or more driving a Jeep, SUV, 4x4, Merc, or BMW