No "L" Plates

donhughberto

Noopti wrote: »

That would be crazy! It is bad enough with lots of provisionals trying to sit tests, but if they started forcing people to take a test every 10 years it would be mental! Mainly because almost everyone would fail (due to the test being so anal about small habitual things that people just pick up when they are are driving longer). So would these people need to get lessons again? Would they then be suddenly put off the road until they passed the test?
That idea would be a disaster in my opinion!

Leave it as it is. That is, if you don't renew your license before it expires then you are forced to resit. Because if the person can't be arsed renewing it, then they more than likely aren't driving much/don't care, in which case they probably need to re-sit the test anyway.
And people who get a load of penalty points are obviously bad/dangerous drivers and they also need to resit. But forcing everyone to resit.......! :rolleyes:

I see your point. But something has to be done to curve bad drivers from our roads. My father never passed a test. He is lethal and a bully on the road. I would hate to see him on a bad day. I would enjoy seeing him having to do a test. I guess i am jealous ain't i.

Shazbot

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Id much rather see a crackdown on drink drivers then L drivers who have all their papers and and are waiting for a test.

I've seen this quite a bit on this forum but beg the question. What differance does it make if you're waiting for your test? You're still breaking the law if you're unaccompanied.

People constantly complain about the adjusted law, accusing it as being unfair and solely targeting learners. True, but this isn't a short them solution to the problem. The way I see it, it's aim is to properly train drivers under the instruction of qualified instructers and create better drivers for the future. Making the roads slightly safer in the future. Something we can all appreciate.

JP Liz

Caroline19 wrote: »

In all fairness the government and Gardaí delayed implementing this law for 6 months to give people the opportunity to get their licences sorted...
There's no point complaining because their isn't even a long waiting list to sit your test, 6-8 weeks...The fine is a good idea, will make L drivers thnk before they go on the road. If there caught they end up woth no car!!! And whose fault is that???

Its more like 12 to 15 weeks and 20 weeks in some cases

I do think the penalties are harsh

Noopti

But something has to be done to curve bad drivers from our roads

Yes, it is called penalty points. And with proper enforcement it would sort people out. But alas, proper enforcement seems a long way off.

My father never passed a test. He is lethal and a bully on the road. I would hate to see him on a bad day. I would enjoy seeing him having to do a test. I guess i am jealous ain't i.

But what if you father bucked his ideas up for the test, and passed. Would he suddenly be a more considerate driver?

so basically what yer saying are drivers are at there best just after getting their lessons!!!! Small habitual things could be the reason you fail in the 1st place, whats the point in having a test if yer gonna just pick up bad habits after it

The point of having the test is to show that you have a certain level of skills necessary to drive safely. People who pass have the driving skills, but that doesn't mean they are considerate, or obey the rules of the road, or are always safe drivers. It means they were considerate, obeyed the rules and were safe for 40 minutes during their test!
Getting them to resit a test would mean nothing.

Continual assessment might work in a profession, like teaching, but not for something like driving. For a very simple reason, there are millions of drivers in ireland....and how many teachers?

So re-testing needs to be restricted to expired license holders and re-currant law breakers.

Zamboni

I don't know what all the fuss is about.
I've been driving unaccompanied on a provisional since last October and I applied for my test about a month ago.
I haven't been given a date yet, so the car will stay in the garage from tomorrow until I pass my test.
I'm off to buy a bus pass. I'd rather keep my €2,000 and no criminal record thanks.

ssmith6287

Noopti wrote: »

Yes, it is called penalty points. And with proper enforcement it would sort people out. But alas, proper enforcement seems a long way off.



But what if you father bucked his ideas up for the test, and passed. Would he suddenly be a more considerate driver?



The point of having the test is to show that you have a certain level of skills necessary to drive safely. People who pass have the driving skills, but that doesn't mean they are considerate, or obey the rules of the road, or are always safe drivers. It means they were considerate, obeyed the rules and were safe for 40 minutes during their test!
Getting them to resit a test would mean nothing.

Continual assessment might work in a profession, like teaching, but not for something like driving. For a very simple reason, there are millions of drivers in ireland....and how many teachers?

So re-testing needs to be restricted to expired license holders and re-currant law breakers.

thats comin from a fully licenced driver (i presume) yeah there are alot more drivers then teachers. but if cars have to bes tested evry few years (NCT) then drivers should be aswell. Alot of you will come on here and say that learner drivers are dangerous.....not true. in fact I would say theyre safer as theyre not as confident and therefore not gonna try something there not absolutly confident with (obviously ye get a few eejits) but Ive seen there, My parents, never claimed in their lives got 11 right on my theory test cd. I see when Im out learning "fully qualified drivers" are nutters, my instructor can even point out evrything to me theyre doing wrong. Iff they were tested evry 5 years or so then its surely hit home that they have to loose the bad habits, crashing could be construed as a bad habit ye know. What bad habits are safe. Surely if "fully qualified drivers" were so sure of themselves theyd have no problem taking a small test evry couple of years

ssmith6287

just by the way im agreeing that ye should have to be accompanied. Im just disagreeing with the 6 month waiting time on the license and the accomplice has to have the license more then 2 years

dade

eddiehobbs wrote: »

Thats true for second provisionals, for everybody else its at the discresion of the guard

i stand corrected (as usual )

Noopti

thats comin from a fully licenced driver (i presume) yeah there are alot more drivers then teachers. but if cars have to bes tested evry few years (NCT) then drivers should be aswell.

Completely different. I can get my car an NCT appointment in a few weeks, the test takes 15-20 minutes. If it fails something I pay a professional mechanic to correct the problem. I can then get a re-test on even shorter notice and then pass the NCT.

The driving is test is far more complex, laborious and unpredictable (the human element). So you apply for the test and have to wait 7 weeks, and then fail it. You have to correct your problems (not as easy as re-aligning a light, or tightening some nuts and bolts) and re-sit the test, probably in another month to 7 weeks.
Cars get tested every couple of years because they are machines, so problems can be found and rectified quickly.

Alot of you will come on here and say that learner drivers are dangerous.....not true.

I don't say that. In fact, the opposite. I think there are more dangerous fully licensed drivers than learners. But I don't agree with testing all drivers on a 10 year cycle, as it is unworkable. Like I said, test the ones that really need to be re-tested, the constant rule breakers and the ones with expired licenses.

crashing could be construed as a bad habit ye know

Of course. But personally, when I refer to bad habits I am talking about not holding the steering wheel at 10-2, or maybe not using indicators properly at a roundabout, or coasting etc. ie: small things that will fail you in a test, but not necessarily things that will cause major accidents

I would say that what causes serious crashes is usually out and out reckless and dangerous driving. eg: speeding on dangerous roads, overtaking dangerously, etc

_feedback_

crapmanjoe wrote: »

Man that seems completely over the top and excessive... and a complete waste of everybodys time and money.... not sure what right do they have to impound the car either

Of course they can impound the car ................ he wasn't licensed to drive on his own. Simple as.

ssmith6287

Completely different. I can get my car an NCT appointment in a few weeks, the test takes 15-20 minutes. If it fails something I pay a professional mechanic to correct the problem. I can then get a re-test on even shorter notice and then pass the NCT.

How many ISM learner cars are there out there. It doesnt necessarilly have to be done by a driving test centre. these guys take learners out on mock exams the whole time. Cant speak for the rest of the country but the route in Drogheda should take about 25 mins if theres traffic. if u dnt pass yer test with 6 or 7 years driving behind ye then how are ye safe to drive. Same with a medical. U cud be grand and fit now, in a few years ya mightnt be.

Of course. But personally, when I refer to bad habits I am talking about not holding the steering wheel at 10-2, or maybe not using indicators properly at a roundabout, or coasting etc. ie: small things that will fail you in a test, but not necessarily things that will cause major accidents

how about not being in the right lane at a roundabout, not dangerous if evrybodys doing it but what about the 1 poor sod that is in the right land. alot of people with full licences dont grasp the rules of a roundabout. how can ye say wrong use of an indicator isnt dangerous. Its as misleading as having no indicators.

Im not trying to pick an arguement but road safety is something I feel strongly about. I am a learner, I believe when Im ready to sit a test Ill sit a test but that shouldnt be the last of my education on roads. If the government was truly eager to make the roads safe. There should be .....

• a no nonsense rule for foreign drivers, whether they live here or not. We wouldnt get away with it over there.
• A no nonsense rule with L plate drivers BUT have a bit of common sense with regards waiting 6 months after ye get yer permit before ye can do a test and the accomplace has to have over 2 years full licence experience.
• A ZERO tollerance to drink driving, u get caught for over the limt. its attempted murder.
• and on going training for drivers so they dont pick up bad habits

Noopti

A no nonsense rule with L plate drivers BUT have a bit of common sense with regards waiting 6 months after ye get yer permit before ye can do a test and the accomplace has to have over 2 years full licence experience.

If you profess zero tolerance on all your other points, then it should be the same for this.

nd on going training for drivers so they dont pick up bad habits

So, you are not saying that they should have to resit the exams, just have on-going training? What does that mean, they they must do "lessons" every few years?
"Dear Sir, you are due your annual "Bad Habits" re-education course, please contact us for an appointment date. Note: There is a current waiting time of approx 32 weeks for this course."
And what exactly would these lessons teach the driver who say, has been driving for 20 years?
Instructor: "That is your clutch, and this is how you change gears"
Driver: "I know, I have been driving for 20 years"
Instructor: "When you enter a roundabout, be sure to indicate appropriately"
Driver: "Thanks. But you could have told me that via a leaflet in my letterbox, and it won't change anything when you leave this car. Can you tell me anything that is of actual value to me, a driver of 20 years?"
Instructor: "Try to stay calm when driving, and don't get angry?"
Driver: "Brilliant. Bye."

I can't understand how you think this is workable, the current system for learner drivers is not workable for peats sake, and there are only 100k of them approximately!!

Tazdedub

This law change also has an impact on the qualified driver as well. How many qualified drivers have now been turned into taxi's to take the learner driver where they need to go or to go out in the car with learner driver to give them practice?

As for qualified drivers doing a test every few years, I see no problem with this and would improve road safety. A lot of the bad drivers I see on the roads are qualified drivers. I think it would work if a portion of qualified drivers where retested or any drivers with 6 points or more on their licence should be made sit the test again.

Also I feel the €1000 euro fines for driving unaccompanied and not having L plates on display are very harsh. I mean the fine for speeding 2 penalty points and a €80 fine thats a big difference on €1000.

ssmith6287

Noopti wrote: »

If you profess zero tolerance on all your other points, then it should be the same for this.



So, you are not saying that they should have to resit the exams, just have on-going training? What does that mean, they they must do "lessons" every few years?
"Dear Sir, you are due your annual "Bad Habits" re-education course, please contact us for an appointment date. Note: There is a current waiting time of approx 32 weeks for this course."
And what exactly would these lessons teach the driver who say, has been driving for 20 years?
Instructor: "That is your clutch, and this is how you change gears"
Driver: "I know, I have been driving for 20 years"
Instructor: "When you enter a roundabout, be sure to indicate appropriately"
Driver: "Thanks. But you could have told me that via a leaflet in my letterbox, and it won't change anything when you leave this car. Can you tell me anything that is of actual value to me, a driver of 20 years?"
Instructor: "Try to stay calm when driving, and don't get angry?"
Driver: "Brilliant. Bye."

I can't understand how you think this is workable, the current system for learner drivers is not workable for peats sake, and there are only 100k of them approximately!!

HAHA you just proved my point. Im driving 20 years so Im perfect!!!! when you sit yer exam do does the tester tell ye how to go round a roundabout etc, no. why wud he do it in this one.....Im saying a simple driving test evry few years could hurt no one. theres about 50 or 60 driving instructors in evry housing estate never mind town. these can do the tests and submit them. if ye fail then tough ye have to book another one. and yer a prov driver until ye get 1. Thats why im getting at the long wait to do a test aswell, theres no excuse for the waiting times

Wishbone Ash

Noopti wrote: »

the current system for learner drivers is not workable for peats sake, and there are only 100k of them approximately!!

430,000 approx.

(92,000 on 2nd Provisionals/Learner Permits in Category .

Tazededub wrote:

A lot of the bad drivers I see on the roads are qualified drivers.

As 85% of drivers have a Full Licence, most bad driving would indeed be displayed by those people.

Defenestrate

I hope they all get caught tbh. It's pure selfishness to endanger lives with incompetent driving. If you're good enough, book a test. If the waiting list is long, book it when you're getting good. Simple.

ssmith6287

Defenestrate wrote: »

I hope they all get caught tbh. It's pure selfishness to endanger lives with incompetent driving. If you're good enough, book a test. If the waiting list is long, book it when you're getting good. Simple.

I agree but what about if yer good enough after 3 months of lessons but you have to wait another 3 before ye can take the test.... thats the problem. Bn honest ive no sympathy for 2nd prov drivers esp iff theyve failed their tests

crapmanjoe

elviscostello wrote: »

Of course they can impound the car ................ he wasn't licensed to drive on his own. Simple as.

dont think it is that simple actually, as far as im concerned (and im defin open to correction on this) the car can only be impounded if by its self its illegal

As in illegally parked, no tax, no insurance, no nct,stolen etc but when you get pulled over for driving unaccompanied then the car itself is fine so shudnt be impounded.

which as i said in my post is why if you get arrested for drink driving that they dont impound the car (hell ur free to leave the station, get a taxi to ur car and drive the thing home if you want - if ur that stupid of course)

Noopti

HAHA you just proved my point. Im driving 20 years so Im perfect!!!! when you sit yer exam do does the tester tell ye how to go round a roundabout etc, no. why wud he do it in this one.....

No, you're wrong with that I'm afraid. I never said the driver is perfect, I was highlighting that there would be nothing of value that they would gain from lessons after 20 years. eg: they might not use their indicator at roundabouts. And they still won't after they do their "lessons".

I also never said the tester was telling the driver how to go around roundabouts. They example I gave stated that the person was doing lessons, in response to what you said:

And on going training for drivers so they dont pick up bad habits

See...."Training". Training is different to Testing.

Im saying a simple driving test evry few years could hurt no one.

Won't hurt anyone? Yet the normal testing procedure we have now is backlogged, barely working and has a low pass rate, with 100,000 drivers. But you think that testing millions of qualified drivers will be simple? C'mon...

If the penalty points system was enforced rigorously, of course a lot more manpower would be needed, then that would be all that is needed. So if someone gets enough points, they have proven they are not respectable road users and thus, must prove that they are to the authorities: By doing the test!

Wishbone Ash

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I agree but what about if yer good enough after 3 months of lessons but you have to wait another 3 before ye can take the test.... thats the problem

When you completed the application form for a Learner Permit, you would have been required, in section 28, to sign a declaration that you had a satisfactory knowledge of the Rules of the Road. You therefore would have been aware that you would be required to wait 6 months before taking the test. Why then did you apply if you were not happy with that? Complaining about it here is not going to make any difference to that regulation!

ssimth6287 wrote:

ive no sympathy for 2nd prov drivers esp iff theyve failed their tests

Surely the learners who have taken a test and were uncsuccessful deserve more sympathy that the thousands who didn't even bother applying for a test?

jobucks

Defenestrate wrote: »

I hope they all get caught tbh. It's pure selfishness to endanger lives with incompetent driving. If you're good enough, book a test. If the waiting list is long, book it when you're getting good. Simple.

I'm guessing that you then were born with a complete driving license.. 19 weeks is what I have been waiting for my test, which is finally scheduled for the 14th of July. I am a very good, aware driver. waiting times are the lowest they have ever been in this country.. meaning that when you "the fully licensed" were waiting on your driving test you were probably waiting near enough to a year.. did you drive accompanied? did you leave the car at home and walk everywhere? or have you just become one of those drivers who suddenly forgets that you also had to go through this process.. the only difference being that you did not have the added pressure of fines, points and a 6month deadline. For all those slating those with L plates, a bit of common sense will tell you that the majority of L drivers are as keen as ever to get their full licenses and the bull thats being put out there about 6-8 weeks waiting is nothing but spin doctoring on the RSA's behalf. I personally sat on the phone 3 weeks ago until I was able to speak to someone about the status of my test, I quoted every representative that had been on the radio, TV and papers about their waiting time.. it took 5 days before anyone answered the phone and approx another 3 hours until I was acknowledged and only for I persisted I would still be waiting on a date for my test.. ... trust me its not as straight forward as it seems.:cool:

NullZer0

Noopti wrote: »

That would be crazy! It is bad enough with lots of provisionals trying to sit tests, but if they started forcing people to take a test every 10 years it would be mental!

Yes... the opinion of full license holders on this forum on this subject can change very quickly. I would have thought you would be all for it.

NullZer0

The system is a joke. They can't enforce anything.
I have been stopped several times ( maybe 10 - 15) with no tax or nct (on different occasions) and nothing was said to me.

JP Liz

Defenestrate wrote: »

I hope they all get caught tbh. It's pure selfishness to endanger lives with incompetent driving. If you're good enough, book a test. If the waiting list is long, book it when you're getting good. Simple.

Thats harsh

Not all drivers who fail their tests cause accidents even fully qualified drivers cause accidents

ssmith6287

Won't hurt anyone? Yet the normal testing procedure we have now is backlogged, barely working and has a low pass rate, with 100,000 drivers. But you think that testing millions of qualified drivers will be simple? C'mon...

If the penalty points system was enforced rigorously, of course a lot more manpower would be needed, then that would be all that is needed. So if someone gets enough points, they have proven they are not respectable road users and thus, must prove that they are to the authorities: By doing the test!

Like I said before it doesnt have to be a test centre, plenty of ISM certified driving instructors about the place that could easily do the same job. There would be no back log. I see it with my mates (young lads) and family(not so young) ages might be different but driving wise theyre the same. No accidents (touch wood) but theres always scope for improvement. I just think if you had to do a driving test evry few years then if it cuts out 1 bad habit itd be something. its like a drug, start off small and ye eventually work yer way up. same with driving, ye start off maybe not checking a blind spot, soon its the norm for ya

Defenestrate

jobucks wrote: »

I'm guessing that you then were born with a complete driving license..

Nope, just my model good-looks. :pac:

jobucks wrote: »

meaning that when you "the fully licensed" were waiting on your driving test you were probably waiting near enough to a year

I booked my test when I was still learning, by the time it came along I was ready.

jobucks wrote: »

did you drive accompanied? did you leave the car at home and walk everywhere?

Nope, I got insured on my Mum's car and she accompanied me around and about a bit. I relied on lifts and the bus as I was only 17 at the time.

jobucks wrote: »

or have you just become one of those drivers who suddenly forgets that you also had to go through this process..

Nope, it was a pain and expensive too. But I'd rather semi competent teenagers were kept off the road thank-you very much!

Defenestrate

JP Liz wrote: »

Thats harsh

Not all drivers who fail their tests cause accidents even fully qualified drivers cause accidents

If they cant pass their tests, they're not safe enough to go round driving on their own.

Bluefoam

They should do lessons to reteach BMW drivers how to use indicators

Defenestrate

Bluefoam wrote: »

They should do lessons to reteach BMW drivers how to use indicators

Argh, don't get me started on BMW drivers, I'm having a grumpy Monday.

Easy Rider

I agree....allot of the Fully Licensed drivers, who lets face it drove around on their first and second license on their own are now in the brigade 'Sure if you're good enough you will pass your test' - how easy they forget, how many of them who may have failed their first test drove off on their own and continue to do so until their next test?

Listen, their is allot of luck involved, a warning light could come on when doing your test and you will fail (this happened to a friend of mine (girl) tester noticed but did not fail her - same happened to a male friend and he was failed, surprise surprise...)

For me a pedestrian walked out in front of me when I was turning right ( I saw him on the footpath, he went to step out and went back, I had the filter, looked right he was still on the path, I began to turn, then he walked out), I slowed down and stopped, let him cross...the tester gave me a 3 for 'not giving the pedestrian right of way' - Ehhhhh, since when is slowing down and stopping to let the pedestrian cross not 'right of way' -

He simply failed me out of his own incompetence. what he said to me and I had to laugh is 'Yeah, you would have passed otherwise, it is tough but we have regulations to go by, that could have been a kid' - ?????? Ehhh yeah, that could have been a kid I let cross the road safely....or a dog...or an old woman, I did the right thing...but failed, now have to wait 5 months for another test....

Plus, Gas Byrne and his weird logic and stats that prove him wrong, how many deaths this year have involved 17 - 30 year old male/female drivers?....20% or something? What about the other 80%? Why focus on such a small group of people?