Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
July 1st Regulation Changes
Options
Comments
-
Morgans wrote:I passed first go (I'm fantastic, I know) but from my vantage point of being a late learner driver, I think learner drivers are far less likely to cause serious accidents than those who pass first go and are a little too confident rather than a little too nervous.
How many times have you been passed by someone going a startling speed with a L-plate up? L- plate drivers that I know are more likely to upset others by not overtaking than the other way round. (I know that this is a danger but less likely to cause a serious accident than someone who is too brave.)
Insurance claim statistics say differently.0 -
Leave the RSA and the Insurance Federations battle it out over the truth in the matter.0
-
It is a hard one. But people have to see that a large part of the delay in getting a test date is caused by people with no chance taking up slots.I dont know. Its a good question and a good point but stopping people who get called but are not ready, those who are only chancing their arm and really just hoping for the best would need a fundamental change to the system. I suppose, maybe some sort of a state sponsored training program when provisional licencees have a set of "lessons" after which the assessor applies for you. As I said, I dont know.
I prefer to think of it as "passed test = proven to at least be able to pretend to be competent for 30 minutes during an embarrassingly easy test of basic driving skills" and "failed test = unable to at least be able to pretend to be competent for 30 minutes during an embarrassingly easy test of basic driving skills" I am quite happy to allow that some provisional driver are fantastic drivers. In fact, I would even go so far as to say I would be quite happy to believe that some of the finest drivers in the country are on provisional licences. I am sure it is possible. I will be willing to agree to all that if you can tell me how we separate those amazing learner drivers from the crap and dangerous ones. Because that's the point isn't it? We need to be able to separate the reasonably competent from the downright dangerous, if we don't use the test what do we use?But the dichotomy of passed test = competent driver vs failed test = incompetent driver is one that is used by the very legalistic on here to clobber anyone with any grey area on the issue.
Life is full of hard luck stories. A line has to be drawn somewhere. And drawing that line between those that have sat and passed a test of competency and those that have not seems pretty reasonable to me.Some hard luck stories in the driving test are just that - hard luck stories.
I will stop you there. Being on a provisional driving licence for ten years is not going to get any sympathy or understanding from me, or indeed a lot of people on this board. I understand that peoples personal circumstances can get in the way but seriously 10 years? A whole decade? And still on a provisional? And you think this person should be allowed to drive unrestricted?If a driver on a provisional for ten years...
I was going to ignore this bit as I thought 10 years on a provo was enough, but anyway. I am afraid I have to agree with one of the previous posters. Anyone that fails a basic test of competence 3 times is, by definition, incompetent in the field being tested. Would you accept this for a train driver? A pilot? Christ, would you let someone who failed their Barbour training course three times near you hair? The reason for the fail is irrelevant. Only the result is relevent.....failed the test three times, (maybe gets nervous thinking about the test), maybe he/she struggles with the reverse around the corner but is perfect otherwise, but is never involved a crash in the ten years, he/she would be classed as incompetent by many on here (as he/she would be in law). No doubt he/she would be fodder for plenty on these forums.
Once someone has passed the test incompetence should be dealt with by the law and insurance companies. I am sure that you will find a person that has written off several cars will find their incompetence will hit them in the wallet.Yet, someone who has passed their test but has subsequently written off multiple cars are never once asked to prove their competence again. IMO its a far grayer area in which circumstances do play a part.
Personally I think there should be regular retesting, every five years or so and I also think that if someone is involved in an incident where their competence is in doubt there should be a requirement for retraining.
The circumstances are that they have not sat or have not passed a basic test of competency.pocketvenus wrote: »
I never drove unaccompanied either on my 1st provisional however I am not going to judge anybody who did as I do not know the circumstances they are in.
But how do you know they are? Are you willing to bet your life that every single untested driver on the road is safe and fully competent?pocketvenus wrote: »As long as they are safe drivers and are fully competent on the road I am not going to get all upset.
No, but it shows that they have at least passed a basic test of competence and so are, in a small way, a "known" quantity. Provo drivers are and "unknown" quantity.pocketvenus wrote: »Having a pink license does not make any more a safe or careful driver than a L - plater in certain cases and I think by taking note of the way some qualified drivers drive highlights this fact.
Yeah, genuinely waiting for 10 or 12 year?pocketvenus wrote: »All I am saying is that you know from reading posts here they are genuine people who have been waiting a long time for tests which were promised to us before July 1st. We want to our tests and have been pro-actively trying to get them but all we are getting are negative comments.
MrP0 -
--amadeus-- wrote: »Look at it another way...
The practical as it stands is a very, very low test standard. Very basic manouvers and very low speeds. The manouvers are the bare minimum you would need to park in Dunnes car park and beyond that the test has little relevance to real driving - most of us won't spend the bulk of our driving lives at 50kph in a housing estate.
And yet 50% of the people on provisionals - people who may be battering down the N7 at 100kph in teh pouring rain unacomanied - are incapable of reaching even this low standard! Extrapolate the figures - if there are 300,000 people on teh test list then that is 150,000 people who are probably incapable of reversing into a parking space and yet there are many on here who claim that they should be free to drive around a city centre for no other reason than they want to.
Of course I would class them as incompetant! If you lack the basic ability to reverse around a corner then you are very unlikley to be able to do everything else perfectly and if you fail the test 3 times then I don't care how long you're driving you are probably unsafe! In your example they aren't a safe driver, just lucky...
Sorry ---amadeus
I had a long response written out to reply to this but the servers went down when I tried to post. But since you have got a couple of thanks down there, I will try to remember the gist.
You say the driving test is a very low standard, and I wouldnt disagree with you on that. However, I don't think there is any disagreement that there is a fair amount of luck involved in the driving test. There is no compensation for the stupidity of other drivers etc. but incompetent drivers pass, competent drivers fail.
L-plate drivers who cant reverse into a space in Dunnes probably wouldn't try to. In reality, they would be going so slow that while they would annoy the ar5e of anyone in their vacinity and if they are unlikely to cause an accident and it would not be a serious one. My experience is that the learner driver would drive in head first into the space, park poorly, annoy those parked alongside and move on.
However, you used this example to illustrate that these are the drivers who are people bombing down the N7 at 100Kmph in teeming rain. ALL drivers should drive safely. Regardless of L-Plates or not. In my experience, drivers whose speed and dangerous driving has shocked me over the past couple years, maybe one or two have been L-Plate drivers, and even to think of when these happened it is a struggle. The vast majority of people who undertake, weave in and out of lane, as if in a chicane. The vast majority of people who stay in the wrong lane of a motorway are competent drivers who have passed their test. The point I am making is that having the L-Plate or not doesn't really matter. The competency of the driver is. As you said, the standard of the test is low, but it is not the final arbiter of who is competent or not.
I find L-plate drivers can infuriate me, and others, by refusing to overtake a truck travelling at 30kmph in a 80 zone, or potter around urban areas deciding which way to go. They can be dangerous but I think proportionately fewer L-plate drivers are reckless than "competent" drivers. Do the stats bear out the anedotal evidence that drivers are most in risk in the year following passing the test. In much the same way now, I think safe to suggest that fewer L plate drivers are willing to take a chance in driving after a drink. I would say that the vast majority of drink drivers are on full licences. Anyone have stats? It would satisfy my logic over confident "competent" drivers.
The idea that you can directly correlate L-plate drivers as "unsafe" as they havent passed their test is nonsense.0 -
You're presuming that every car you see without L-plates is driven by someone with a full license. That's not the case.Morgans wrote:I find L-plate drivers can infuriate me, and others, by refusing to overtake a truck travelling at 30kmph in a 80 zone, or potter around urban areas deciding which way to go.
They should have someone in the passenger seat with them telling them where to go.0 -
Advertisement
-
MrP. Finding it hard to argue with a lot of what you say. It makes good sense even if you did verge on being flippant regarding provisional licence holders being fantastic drivers. I didnt say that. There is a difference between being fantastic and being safe - not putting someone life/car in danger. Just as there are plenty of legal drivers out there who are awful.
I was going to say that the only place where the competent driver gets hurt if writing off several cars is financially and touching wood that it doesnt happen, in their health.
Yeah, I agree with the law change. It makes perfect sense, and those who do not try to pass the test should be weeded out. There are circumstances where people need to live their life, and some of the black and white statements regarding learner drivers and the disgust they engender in some of this forum is ridiculous.0 -
You're presuming that every car you see without L-plates is driven by someone with a full license. That's not the case.
They should have someone in the passenger seat with them telling them where to go.
No I am not. I respect that point, but there is no way of knowing if a driver is a learner if they don't have their L plates up. I suppose unless you know them personally. As my girlfriend is practicising hard for her test at the moment. I drive home (a competent driver, so the law tells me) with the L-plates up occasionally. I asked on these forums if I am breaking a law in doing this, and didnt get a response, so if anyone does know....please pass it on.
They should legally have someone in a passenger seat, unless of course they are on a second provisional. And what if the person in the passenger seat didnt know???0 -
I'm trying to find the exact stats that Noel Brett quoted last October, so forgive me for bringing up such an old stat that Mr Google found for me, on boards. I'm sure that this will be brushed off as irrelevant and meaningless as it is so old, but howandever, until I find a more recent stat, its interesting
According to National Roads Authority figures between 1996-2000, 1.6% of fatal accidents were attributable to learner drivers.
I hope to find Noel Brett's figures shortly.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-75163.html0 -
Morgan wrote:They should legally have someone in a passenger seat, unless of course they are on a second provisional. And what if the person in the passenger seat didnt know???
The person in the passenger seat should at the very least have a full license for 2 years. Preferably they should be a qualified instructor, especially if the learner is just starting out.0 -
You dont understand what i am saying Stark, but its ok. Its hardly a major point.0
-
Advertisement
-
I'm trying to find the exact stats that Noel Brett quoted last October, so forgive me for bringing up such an old stat that Mr Google found for me, on boards. I'm sure that this will be brushed off as irrelevant and meaningless as it is so old, but howandever, until I find a more recent stat, its interesting
According to National Roads Authority figures between 1996-2000, 1.6% of fatal accidents were attributable to learner drivers.
I hope to find Noel Brett's figures shortly.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-75163.html
Actually I think it's a very valid point, and I think much of the carnage on the roads is due to pure pig headed stubbornness: "I've always driven drunk and I know I'm able to handle it so I'm not going to change".
Contempt for the law in Ireland often stems from "it's how it's always been". I think the younger generation has gotten the hint about alcohol and driving, but you've still got people who aren't willing to keep within the law for even a few months while they prepare for their tests. If people are starting out by throwing two fingers to the law, then how do you think they're going to regard the law later in their lives? I think this is an attitude change that will happen in time. Like previous posters have said, people in other countries consider being supervised while learning to be the norm so this should happen here as well. Get people understanding that it's a privilege and not a right again.0 -
I don't think its a major point. My point was not the provisional driver not having the ability to make a turn, but not knowing what turn to take. Having a fully qualified driver or driving instructor beside them who didn't know which turn to take would not have helped them. As I said you misunderstand me.
The high and mighty arguments are great. However, if the goal of driver safety is to decrease deaths on the road, focusing on learner drivers is completely disproportionate to the accidents/fatalities for which they are responsible.
The "We should prosecute j-walkers as if they don't learn respect for the law they will end up child-murderers" line of argument is drivel.0 -
I am not referring to the people who have been driving 10 or 12 years without taking a test I am referring to people who are waiting 4 -6 months or the very small minority like myself waiting longer (8 months and counting to be exact) these are the people who have to suffer and be off the roads.It is a hard one. But people have to see that a large part of the delay in getting a test date is caused by people with no chance taking up slots.
I prefer to think of it as "passed test = proven to at least be able to pretend to be competent for 30 minutes during an embarrassingly easy test of basic driving skills" and "failed test = unable to at least be able to pretend to be competent for 30 minutes during an embarrassingly easy test of basic driving skills" I am quite happy to allow that some provisional driver are fantastic drivers. In fact, I would even go so far as to say I would be quite happy to believe that some of the finest drivers in the country are on provisional licences. I am sure it is possible. I will be willing to agree to all that if you can tell me how we separate those amazing learner drivers from the crap and dangerous ones. Because that's the point isn't it? We need to be able to separate the reasonably competent from the downright dangerous, if we don't use the test what do we use?
Life is full of hard luck stories. A line has to be drawn somewhere. And drawing that line between those that have sat and passed a test of competency and those that have not seems pretty reasonable to me.
I will stop you there. Being on a provisional driving licence for ten years is not going to get any sympathy or understanding from me, or indeed a lot of people on this board. I understand that peoples personal circumstances can get in the way but seriously 10 years? A whole decade? And still on a provisional? And you think this person should be allowed to drive unrestricted?
I was going to ignore this bit as I thought 10 years on a provo was enough, but anyway. I am afraid I have to agree with one of the previous posters. Anyone that fails a basic test of competence 3 times is, by definition, incompetent in the field being tested. Would you accept this for a train driver? A pilot? Christ, would you let someone who failed their Barbour training course three times near you hair? The reason for the fail is irrelevant. Only the result is relevent.
Once someone has passed the test incompetence should be dealt with by the law and insurance companies. I am sure that you will find a person that has written off several cars will find their incompetence will hit them in the wallet.
Personally I think there should be regular retesting, every five years or so and I also think that if someone is involved in an incident where their competence is in doubt there should be a requirement for retraining.
The circumstances are that they have not sat or have not passed a basic test of competency.
But how do you know they are? Are you willing to bet your life that every single untested driver on the road is safe and fully competent?
No, but it shows that they have at least passed a basic test of competence and so are, in a small way, a "known" quantity. Provo drivers are and "unknown" quantity.
Yeah, genuinely waiting for 10 or 12 year?
MrP
Secondly I am not willing to bet my life that any driver is 100% safe on the roads I am sure that the good majority of drivers will tell you over their lifetime driving have done some unsafe or potentially dangerous things whether it is speeding or taking a chance overtaking.
Look the point I am just making is that comments to the effect that everybody on the old provisional licence system is either incompetent or just not bothered about doing their test is unfair.0 -
I was not trying to be flippant. What I was trying to say was that even if *some* of the provo drivers are fantastic drivers not all of them are. We need to be able to differentiate between the two groups. Maybe we could have a semi test? A sort of small test to see if you are a good provisional driver or a bad one. If you passed the semi test then you could drive unaccompanied until you get round to doing you test. How about that?MrP. Finding it hard to argue with a lot of what you say. It makes good sense even if you did verge on being flippant regarding provisional licence holders being fantastic drivers.
And what?I was going to say that the only place where the competent driver gets hurt if writing off several cars is financially and touching wood that it doesnt happen, in their health.
My main point, which is in essence a very very simple one, seems to being missed completely here. I appreciate that it is not black and white. I know that some learners are good drivers and I know that some full licence holder are bad drivers, that is not in question. The problem is, how do we tell the good learner drivers from the bad?Yeah, I agree with the law change. It makes perfect sense, and those who do not try to pass the test should be weeded out. There are circumstances where people need to live their life, and some of the black and white statements regarding learner drivers and the disgust they engender in some of this forum is ridiculous.
So what would you suggest? I again refer to my question, how do you determine which of the learner drivers are of a sufficient level of competency to be allowed to drive unsupervised? I have tried really hard to summon up some kind of sympathy for someone who has found themselves in a position where their lifestyle is only possible if they break a particular law, for example, those people on 1st, 3rd or subsequent provo licences who depend on being able to drive on their own. And I have to say I have failed. No matter how hard I try, I just cannot find even a crumb of sympathy. That said, I do feel some sympathy for those that were driving on a 2nd provo licence and are soon to find themselves on the wrong side of the law, assuming of course they made a reasonable effort to pass a test. I am sorry but I came from somewhere where there was no second provisional and there was no driving unaccompanied and you know what? We managed. I had a job and got to school and was able to see my friends just fine. Was it a pain? Yes it was. I had a job where the bus got me to work 3.5 hours before I started and the bus home left 3 hours after I finished, that was a pain, but I managed.pocketvenus wrote: »I am not referring to the people who have been driving 10 or 12 years without taking a test I am referring to people who are waiting 4 -6 months or the very small minority like myself waiting longer (8 months and counting to be exact) these are the people who have to suffer and be off the roads.
Everyone makes mistakes. Why are the insurance premiums for provisional driver higher than those of full licence holders?pocketvenus wrote: »Secondly I am not willing to bet my life that any driver is 100% safe on the roads I am sure that the good majority of drivers will tell you over their lifetime driving have done some unsafe or potentially dangerous things whether it is speeding or taking a chance overtaking.
I don't believe I said that. What I said was people had not sat a test of competence, therefore we don't know if they are competent. I also said that someone who failed a test of competency was incompetent. I stand by that. Surely you are not disputing that? It only require a basic competency in English to realise that is the case...pocketvenus wrote: »Look the point I am just making is that comments to the effect that everybody on the old provisional licence system is either incompetent or just not bothered about doing their test is unfair.
MrP0 -
I think these these new laws are almost justified in that they are taking care of the 3rd+ provisional crowd.
But what seems to have been neglected is how difficult it will be for people trying to get driving on their first provisional.
Not everyone can has a licensed driver they can chain to the passenger seat. My mam is one of the 4th provisional dossers, and my dad is a dreadful driver who I don't wish to learn from.(He got his licence in the 70's when all you had to do was collect 7 tokens off of a tayto crisp packets)0 -
I think these these new laws are almost justified in that they are taking care of the 3rd+ provisional crowd.
But what seems to have been neglected is how difficult it will be for people trying to get driving on their first provisional.
Not everyone can has a licensed driver they can chain to the passenger seat.
the laws for first provisional drivers isn't changing - they always needed someone with a full license with them so i don't see how the new laws are making it more difficult for them. As had been pointed out a number of times, other countries don't allow learner drivers to drive by themselves and they seem to manage.0 -
-
Hmmm, if only there were other countries in the world where learner drivers were not allowed to drive on there own. If such countries existed we would be able to look at these countries and see how the poor learner coped there. Ah, if only.
But what seems to have been neglected is how difficult it will be for people trying to get driving on their first provisional.(He got his licence in the 70's when all you had to do was collect 7 tokens off of a tayto crisp packets)
MrP0 -
MrPudding. I am pretty much in agreement with you. You have spoken plenty of sense on this. To me your attitude is reasonable, but you are incorrectly quoting me in a previous post. I didnt say them things!0
-
I am really sorry, I have been too enthusiasctic with my cut / paste. I will fix it now.MrPudding. I am pretty much in agreement with you. You have spoken plenty of sense on this. To me your attitude is reasonable, but you are incorrectly quoting me in a previous post. I didnt say them things!
EDIT: Fixed.
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
+1Wishbone..... Not that it matters as why does anyone have to explain themselves to a sad little man on a message board.
Well saidBut why post at all? I cannot see what your posts add to this thread other than feeding into some kind of superiority complex. If you have nothing to add in relation to advise being sought, then just say nothing.
well said monkeyLook back over your posts in this thread. Looks at the OP's original post. Look at your initial reply. You simply posted just to have a "GO" at the OP. There was no benefit to the OP in your post. It was argumentative, condescending and pretty pathetic.0 -
Play the ball, not the man. You're doing yourself no favours resorting to personal insults. It's usually the reserve of those who have nothing else constructive to add to the debate.why does anyone have to explain themselves to a sad little man on a message board
I'm debating the issues from another angle. I have a great interest and quite a good knowledge of the subject. That could possibly explain why I was asked to moderate this forum. Would you prefer if eveyone agreed with you? It would be quite a pointless forum then.monkey24 wrote:in your excitement to get involved in more arguments so you can feel good about yourself
Don't you think that sound a bit hypocritical?monkey24 wrote:If you have nothing to add in relation to advise being sought, then just say nothing
I just find it amazing that we have large numbers of new posters arriving on the Learning to Drive in the days leading up to July 1st. Many of these posters have been driving on a Provisional Licence for many years and most long enough to have done the test several times over.monkey24 wrote:I clearly stated I respected the new rule even though I find the waiting time frustrating. Your immediate response was to try pick it apart beginning with the October date
I did my first driving test when the waiting times were well over one year. I obeyed the regulations and got on with it. I didn't constantly look around for someone else to blame.
My first reply to the Op was post #35. At that stage , the OP had revealed more information about her circumstances. I was replying to those comments. I didn't reply to her original post and I fail to see what was 'argumentative, petty and pathetic'.monkey24 wrote:Look at the OP's original post. Look at your initial reply. You simply posted just to have a "GO" at the OP. There was no benefit to the OP in your post. It was argumentative, condescending and pretty pathetic.
There are many threads on this forum. Have a look through them. I have provided assistance, advice and knowledge on many aspects of Learning to Drive for the past two years or so and will be delighted to continue to do so. However, I have little time for those who break the law and blame others because they have failed to put their house in order and I make no apologies for feeling that way.
Boards.ie is a privately owned, privately funded and privately operated site. If you don't like what you read here, you are perfectly entitled to go elsewhere.0 -
Unfortunately your reasoning is incredibly flawed and your conclusions equally nonsensical.It would satisfy my logic over confident "competent" drivers.
The idea that you can directly correlate L-plate drivers as "unsafe" as they havent passed their test is nonsense.
The majority of recently qualified drivers are by and large young and for the most part relatively inexperienced drivers. Despite having possibly faster reflexes, they are actually slower to anticipate and respond to dangerous situations that a good experienced driver will already be prepared for.
To intimate that learner drivers are better because they are more careful is very sadly untrue, I certainly have seen plenty of incidences that learners have got themselves into that would rarely happen to an experienced driver (writing car off in back of bus, breaking sisters leg in driveway, crashing in to own doorstep,) to name but a few.
Leaners tend to be a bit more oblivious to the dangers and more hesitent, or alternatively misjudging their abilities. I have been passed by many "speeding" learners on our roads, so I dont go with the "more careful and cautious" notion for them any more than any other category.
Tests are there for a reason and they are ethically more sound than none at all with the alternative "pass by not dying" scenario that seems to be the qualification method promoted by many on this thread.
Not I.
I'd like to see people live to drive another day.0 -
i never intimated that learner drivers (as a whole) are better than those who pass their test (as a whole).
The first sentence of where you quoted me came from where I said that learner drivers were less likely to chance their arms when drunk/after having a few. And I still think it.
Second sentence: Not all L-plate drivers are unsafe.
You make some decent points Wil, but maybe pick some better quotes from me if you want to show that my sentiments as nonsense.0 -
Sorry MrP if you took me up wrong I was not accusing you of making those comments all I meant that there was a certain bias among some people against L-platers and as everyone is entitled to their opinion I am ok with that.I was not trying to be flippant. What I was trying to say was that even if *some* of the provo drivers are fantastic drivers not all of them are. We need to be able to differentiate between the two groups. Maybe we could have a semi test? A sort of small test to see if you are a good provisional driver or a bad one. If you passed the semi test then you could drive unaccompanied until you get round to doing you test. How about that?
And what?
My main point, which is in essence a very very simple one, seems to being missed completely here. I appreciate that it is not black and white. I know that some learners are good drivers and I know that some full licence holder are bad drivers, that is not in question. The problem is, how do we tell the good learner drivers from the bad?
So what would you suggest? I again refer to my question, how do you determine which of the learner drivers are of a sufficient level of competency to be allowed to drive unsupervised? I have tried really hard to summon up some kind of sympathy for someone who has found themselves in a position where their lifestyle is only possible if they break a particular law, for example, those people on 1st, 3rd or subsequent provo licences who depend on being able to drive on their own. And I have to say I have failed. No matter how hard I try, I just cannot find even a crumb of sympathy. That said, I do feel some sympathy for those that were driving on a 2nd provo licence and are soon to find themselves on the wrong side of the law, assuming of course they made a reasonable effort to pass a test. I am sorry but I came from somewhere where there was no second provisional and there was no driving unaccompanied and you know what? We managed. I had a job and got to school and was able to see my friends just fine. Was it a pain? Yes it was. I had a job where the bus got me to work 3.5 hours before I started and the bus home left 3 hours after I finished, that was a pain, but I managed.
Everyone makes mistakes. Why are the insurance premiums for provisional driver higher than those of full licence holders?
I don't believe I said that. What I said was people had not sat a test of competence, therefore we don't know if they are competent. I also said that someone who failed a test of competency was incompetent. I stand by that. Surely you are not disputing that? It only require a basic competency in English to realise that is the case...
MrP
I agree the driving test is necessary however I would not fully go as far to say that every person who failed it is incompetent on the road - yes if a person makes a grade 3 fault yes they are need more driving lessons and supervisison however a person who fails on the over-use of mirrors or a small few minor things, which are probably partly due to nerves and they do not do when they are normally driving, we cannot put them in the same class as the previous person - HOWEVER I agree there is no way of seperating these people and that is the way it has to be. They just have to take more lessons and re-sit the test until they pass.
I think an idea which might have been considered is that mandtory driving lessons are required for everyone and once you have taken them and your driving instructor has signed off, a fully approved driving instructor, then you apply for driving test straight away and can drive unaccompanied on your 2nd provisional. If you fail then this is revoked until you go back and take more lessons. As the waiting lists time are coming down the person would not be driving along for that long.
I glad you do feel a bit of sympathy for us 2nd provisionals who have made and effort to get a test and are still waiting but you have to understand in some cases and I am only referring to 2nd provisional licence holders here, that they have no choice but to keep on driving as I am sure you know there are just some places in Ireland where there is no public transport and people have to drive just to get to a bus/ train station. This is something that the Dept of Transport needs to tackle also.
There is no multi approach to improve road safety currently - we are still waiting to see speed cameras, and speeding is one thing which causes road deaths, and never mind delay and discussion on reducing the drink driving limit which again is one of the biggest killersd on the road. I think tackling these would go a long way to reducing the number of deaths on the road. Along with maybe some of the changes to the learner drivers which I stated above.0 -
Wishbone,
I will apologize for the sad little man comment it is not in my nature to be abusive towards anyone. I do think you shouldn't make presumptions on people's situation, which in my case you were.
I have pointed out on a couple of occasions now that nowhere in my post am I looking to join sides or looking for anyone to take sides. You need to see each point being made from a that persons point of view. Just because it doesn't adhere to your own doesn't make it wrong. You can disagree with someone without putting them down. I would go one step further and say you can disagree with someone whilst still providing constructive feedback, being supportive. Then you are being a true asset to the discussion. What is the point in people only offering negative feedback when they disagree with someone else's values, beliefs, circumstances. I don't understand it.
I do think you offer constructive feedback on this board and not once would I question that. But I still maintain your comments on this thread offered no benefit to the OP. I believe you could of approached the topic in a more understanding way. Not by quoting each of the OP's points and then ripping them to shreds. I see this as a fundamental flaw in discussions like this, people see it as a point scoring exercise.
I am going to leave it there. You are right to point out, why then am I getting involved in this thread. What benefit am I adding. Originally I wanted to share my personal experience regarding waiting lists and wanted to speak up for the OP as I think she was unfairly treated. But I won't post anymore after this as there is no benefit going back and forth, we are adding nothing of value to this thread.
Just to add, I commend you on following the law. But you need to understand everyone has different circumstances to deal with. So what sounds like moaning to you could be a very difficult situation for someone else and I think we should respect that.0 -
-
yes, hilarious Stark, and the point I've made among others is that a driving test such as it is at the moment, isn't necessarily the best way of deciding who is safe and who is unsafe.
At least with this rush, the consequences of failing a test are not as drastic as previoulsly, with 10-12 weeks wait rather than a year wait.
I just think that the attitude of plenty on here is that if a learner on a second provisional is driving accompanied by someone with who is qualified for 2 years and 1 month then everything is perfect. They are a safe driver. But woe betide if the accompanying driver has only 1 year and 3/4 experience. They are putting their own lives, the lives of the countries children in real danger and they should hung from the nearest tree. Its quite evangelical at times, when to my mind the reality is far from black and white.0 -
No. Why should we respect someone breaking the law for convenience? I could perhaps see past it if every other country in the world had a clause whereby you could break the law if it save you a bit or time or made your life a bit easier, but they don’t. Do not ask people to be happy about a person breaking the law. The only people I would have any sympathy for are those people who were on a second provisional when the announcement was made, or got their second provisional post the announcement, and have been unable, through no fault of their own, to get a test in time. I think you will find that that is a very very small proportion of the total provo licence holders in total. As for anyone who has gotten themselves into a position since the announcement where they need to drive illegally, too bad.
Just to add, I commend you on following the law. But you need to understand everyone has different circumstances to deal with. So what sounds like moaning to you could be a very difficult situation for someone else and I think we should respect that.
OK, I will ask again (I am not picking on your specifically by the way…. You just keep mentioning this “other way.” I am very interested,) if not a test, how do we decide which of the learner drivers are safe and which aren’t? A questionnaire? References from the mammy? Please, tell us what the alternative to a test of competence is, when the goal of the test is to assess competence.yes, hilarious Stark, and the point I've made among others is that a driving test such as it is at the moment, isn't necessarily the best way of deciding who is safe and who is unsafe.
Quite. Perhaps if people prepared properly for the test they would only have to wait once. And please don’t tell me that the people that fail the test fail because of nerves, incompetent examiner or quotas. Even if they are reasons for fails it can’t be all of them. Is it too much to believe that some people might actually fail the driving test because they are sh1t at driving? Has anyone ever considered that possibility rather than blaming everyone and everything except the driver?At least with this rush, the consequences of failing a test are not as drastic as previoulsly, with 10-12 weeks wait rather than a year wait.
I think this has been explained before by other, and certainly by me. The rules cannot fit everyone and every circumstance perfectly. Are there good and safe provisional drivers? Probably. Are there unsafe and dangerous provisional drivers? Definitely. Which group do you think the rules have to cater for most? So, you have a group of people within a population. This group has to be governed by a set of rules. Within the group there are people that are dangerous and there are people that are safe. Do you want the rules based on those that are safe or those that are dangerous? For society is it more responsible to assume that they are all unsafe, thereby potentially inconveniencing some safe members of the group, or, is it more responsible to assume they are all safe, thereby not inconveniencing this smaller group of “safe” people within the larger group?I just think that the attitude of plenty on here is that if a learner on a second provisional is driving accompanied by someone with who is qualified for 2 years and 1 month then everything is perfect. They are a safe driver. But woe betide if the accompanying driver has only 1 year and 3/4 experience. They are putting their own lives, the lives of the countries children in real danger and they should hung from the nearest tree. Its quite evangelical at times, when to my mind the reality is far from black and white.
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
OK, I will ask again (I am not picking on your specifically by the way…. You just keep mentioning this “other way.” I am very interested,) if not a test, how do we decide which of the learner drivers are safe and which aren’t? A questionnaire? References from the mammy? Please, tell us what the alternative to a test of competence is, when the goal of the test is to assess competence.
Again, I will repeat what I said earlier. Since you say that you werent being flippant earlier I will presume the same here. I dont think the reference from mammy would work. I dont think a questionnaire would work either. Maybe both should be trialled in some small pilot groups just to be sure though.
Such sarcasm. Did you forget that I said earlier some sort of state sponsored driving school system, where all learners are taught in a systemised standard manner how to drive correctly. If these "schools" were set up with trained specialist driving instructors/consultants, the students could be assessed as they progress through x hours of training. At the end of the x hours, the instructors/consultants decide whether or not the student requires more training. This decision would NOT be based on their last 30 minutes of training, and their last 30 minutes of training would not decide whether they will be able to drive to their job legally the following morning. Whether they have to move house because of driver laws etc.
This system would pass the learner driver on the totality of their training. This would be a better system that getting lessons from someone who until recently didnt need any qualification to set themselves up as an instructor, who give instructions which can conflict (for instance - should you always cycle down through the gears when coming to a stop? Ive heard different answers from the two driving instructors that I used and friends have had the same experience) To be judged then on one pressurised half hour where the actual test bares only a resemblance to the way you will drive in the "real-world".
Its like the leaving cert being the true arbiter of a persons intelligence. Anyone who gets over 400 points is intelligent, anyone who doesnt get 400 points is an idiot. Rather than judge intelligence on one test, which does separate the wheat from the chaff to some extent, use the expertise of the teachers who know the students, who know what tehy are looking for to judge.0
Advertisement