RSA Opinion

darling.x · 01-07-2008 8:24pm #1

I'm a learner since jan and i must have to say that the new laws are fine with me I only feel comfortable driving when someone is sitting with me.

The new laws are probably be a good thing - whatever improves the mess and all on the roads would be a good thing.

What i don't understand is the point of coming down so heavy on one group of drivers and not others like speeders and drunk drivers. All the carnage on the roads will not be solved.

Stark · 01-07-2008 8:27pm

darling.x wrote:

What i don't understand is the point of coming down so heavy on one group of drivers and not others like speeders and drunk drivers. All the carnage on the roads will not be solved.

Uhm... The Gardaí rarely if ever enforce the driving accompanied rule yet they're constantly doing speed checks and breath testing. And second road safety on TV is either about speeding or drink driving. And then there's Gay Byrne's campaign to get speed cameras installed all over the country and talks of reducing the blood alcohol limit. So stop acting the martyr.

Snakeblood · 01-07-2008 8:29pm

darling.x wrote: »

I'm a learner since jan and i must have to say that the new laws are fine with me I only feel comfortable driving when someone is sitting with me.

The new laws are probably be a good thing - whatever improves the mess and all on the roads would be a good thing.

What i don't understand is the point of coming down so heavy on one group of drivers and not others like speeders and drunk drivers. All the carnage on the roads will not be solved.

Theoretically, they are closing a loophole that shouldn't exist in the first place. It's impractical and difficult at the moment, but the end result is going to be positive. There are already laws for drunk drivers and speeders. If you get caught doing either, you get in trouble.

This is just extending the authority onto a group of people who also needed it done. Including me, like. I'm 20 km from my job, and I'm going to need 4 buses to get me to my job, if I go that route. It's still important that this is going to make the roads safer in the long run, even if most learner drivers are safe drivers now.

Wishbone Ash · 01-07-2008 8:33pm

darling.x wrote: »

What i don't understand is the point of coming down so heavy on one group of drivers and not others

So those who drink and drive should be ignored because some people break the speed limit.........

Those who break the speed limit should be ignored because some people don't have an NCT certificate......

What is you point? (before the thread is locked!).

Alanstrainor · 01-07-2008 8:35pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

(before the thread is locked!).

I was one click away from locking this when i saw your alterations;)...i give it 10 minutes:pac:

Yakult · 01-07-2008 9:59pm

darling.x wrote: »

The new laws are probably be a good thing - whatever improves the mess and all on the roads would be a good thing. .

The mess really is over cocky drivers who have a full liecence and dont care for the drivers around them.

L drivers is a small small percentage.

Hanley · 01-07-2008 10:56pm

I STILL want to know of all the fatal or serious crashes on our roads, what percentage are caused by learners?

debbie72 · 02-07-2008 9:29am

i have to agree with you!!! 8mths i dont think is long enough fair enough they have got about half of the 2nd provisinal drivers a test or at least a date for there test but i think if they had given it 12mths then i dont think there would be any excuss for anyone to complain my problem is before the people were given learner permits those on provisinal were able to sit a test basically when ever they wanted even if they passed or not, now the ones on a learner permit have to wait 6mths which is fair enough also gives them enough time to gain experience but the thing is those who got there learners permit from november there 6mths waiting time to take a test is almost over but all this talk is on getting the ones on the 2nd licence a test before everyone else (i could be wrong this maynot be the case) but if it is everyone else will be waiting years to get there test now. but i can see your point would it not be better for the authorities to consentrate on the ones speeding, drinking, taking drugs, or using mobile phones instead of the drivers who are trying to make an honest living by driving to work for the the time been i know it has been mentioned before
let those waiting on a test be able to drive between 8am-8pm once they can prove they are waiting to sit there test just for the moment anyway untill they manage to bring the waiting times down to a reasonable level for everyone of 6-8wks and not just for those on there 2nd prov. licence!!! i know im going to get slated for this but its how i feel:(

TwoShedsJackson · 02-07-2008 9:44am

R_H_C_P wrote: »

The mess really is over cocky drivers who have a full liecence and dont care for the drivers around them.

L drivers is a small small percentage.

Some drivers with full licences are cocky, are bad drivers etc. etc. and so are some learners. The difference is the ones with full licences have at least passed a very basic competency test. It's certainly not an ideal system but reforming this accompanied driver rule is a step on the way to producing safer roads in years to come.

Someone was always going to be put out by whenever this reform was brought in, but something had to be done at some point before the 'provisional' system here became the laughing stock of the entire world rather than just Europe.

calex71 · 02-07-2008 9:56am

as usual it seems to be an irish solution to an irish problem.

Even before the new laws came in things where a joke and still are, you fail your test (deemed not qualified to drive) and you are allowed to drive home.

Its the same with the new laws even if a L driver (im one of these) is caught
ok you get points and a fine but you'll be allowed to drive away !!

There a very few other places where you could get a licence to drive after answering 30 questions on a computer, that anyone with any cop-on could answer.

"The new laws are probably be a good thing" no they are not, they are another joke. In an ideal would they would seize the cars of un accompanied L drivers, and would not give people a licence in the 1st place with out them doing a set amount of hours with an instructer 1st

studiorat · 02-07-2008 1:14pm

I can drive any motorbike. I can't drive my car on my own. Gas eh?

Tigger · 02-07-2008 3:38pm

studiorat wrote: »

I can drive any motorbike. I can't drive my car on my own. Gas eh?

do you have a motor bike lisence or one of those fetching yellow vests with an l plate

Alanstrainor · 02-07-2008 6:23pm

calex71 wrote: »

as usual it seems to be an irish solution to an irish problem.

Even before the new laws came in things where a joke and still are, you fail your test (deemed not qualified to drive) and you are allowed to drive home.

Its the same with the new laws even if a L driver (im one of these) is caught
ok you get points and a fine but you'll be allowed to drive away !!

There a very few other places where you could get a licence to drive after answering 30 questions on a computer, that anyone with any cop-on could answer.

"The new laws are probably be a good thing" no they are not, they are another joke. In an ideal would they would seize the cars of un accompanied L drivers, and would not give people a licence in the 1st place with out them doing a set amount of hours with an instructer 1st

I have to disagree with this. If caught driving unaccompanied, you receive a substantial fine and are left to make your own way home, or get a fully licensed driver pick you up.
There was a reason for changing the name of the provisional license to a learner Permit, it sends a clear message that you do not have a license, merely a permit to drive accompanied.
The Gardaí couldn't possibly store all the cars they would impound, so this is just not feasible.
Ireland has made a step forward in the right direction, by no means perfect i'll agree, but we're getting there.

eddiehobbs · 02-07-2008 10:30pm

Hanley wrote: »

I STILL want to know of all the fatal or serious crashes on our roads, what percentage are caused by learners?

I would like to know this aswell. Cant find any figure on the rsa website.

eddiehobbs · 02-07-2008 10:33pm

studiorat wrote: »

I can drive any motorbike. I can't drive my car on my own. Gas eh?

You can drive your tractor unaccompanied too!!:D

NullZer0 · 02-07-2008 10:51pm

Snakeblood wrote: »

Theoretically, they are closing a loophole that shouldn't exist in the first place.

There was no loophole. I mean... its not like the government didn't know that if you were on a second provisional you could drive unaccompanied.

**//rant starts here

I dont get this whole "loophole" thing... its doing my f*ckin head in. It just goes to show how intelligent some of these people in law/media/other are....

There is an English language - USE IT PEOPLE

**// rant ends here

NullZer0 · 02-07-2008 10:57pm

As for the how many L drivers cause/involved in RTA's each year -

Its actually very interesting, in all the surveys I have read this is never mentioned.

I think I would definately make a monetary contribution if someone was to carry out this survey effectively.

Of course the government haven't considered that FACT (based on statistics per density/population/location - and therefore a reasonable comparison) that there are less Road Traffic Accidents if we drive on the right hand side of the road.

As far as I know Denmark changed the whole driving system in their country in the 60-70's because they saw the sense in it.

I know it sounds like overkill... but if the government DO care and the statistics prove the above then I dont see why this would not be considered.

When they get the Road/Traffic issue sorted they'll have to come up with something else to blame learners and boy racers for. Believe me, they will! Unfortunately thats the way our society works.

IMO its all in the mind, people work all week and then think the world owes them something (I'm referring to both sides of the arguement here with specific reference to the government/law makers), it helps them sleep at night and feel important - "Look at me, I've done something".

A little common sense on the roads wouldn't go astray.

How many accidents are there on the Autobahn in Germany each year?
How many people are killed on it?

Quoted from the rules of the autobahn:

Upon entering an autobahn, you are supposed to accelerate as hard as you can, while still on the sidestrip.

Accordingly, upon leaving an autobahn, you are supposed to decelerate only after switching to the sidestrip.

Overtaking is only allowed by using a lane to the left of the other car. Since most of the time there is no such lane left to use, and since the right lane is almost, but not entirely, unoccupied, be prepared for cars coming from the right.

..... and it goes on.

and for reference:

A driver who chose to drive on the autobahn in the wrong direction. These people are known in Germany as Geisterfahrer

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Wishbone Ash · 02-07-2008 11:00pm

iRock wrote: »

There was no loophole. I mean... its not like the government didn't know that if you were on a second provisional you could drive unaccompanied.

At last - someone else agrees with me. You are indeed correct. It was not a loophole. The media all seem to think that it was even though it was deliberately introduced. :rolleyes:

Wishbone Ash · 02-07-2008 11:02pm

iRock wrote: »

As far as I know Denmark changed the whole driving system in their country in the 60-70's

Sweden 1967(?).

NullZer0 · 02-07-2008 11:10pm

Thankyou! - Sweden it is.

I was in the middle of editing above post when you posted.

sonicthebadger* · 03-07-2008 9:53am

studiorat wrote: »

I can drive any motorbike. I can't drive my car on my own. Gas eh?

I can drive any car as I hold a full licence, and what do you know! I also have a full motorbike licence! But oddly enough, I can't ride any motorbike for another 18 months. I have to ride restricted ones... despite having passed my test. Hmmm...:mad:

sonicthebadger* · 03-07-2008 10:05am

iRock wrote: »

Thankyou! - Sweden it is.

Think I remember reading they only had a handful of traffic lights in the country at the time, the cost and engineering difficulty of changing the sides we drive on would be unreal. I couldn't even begin to imagine the figure. Every set of traffic lights costs tens of thousands for example.

The main reason cited for changing in Sweden was that all their neighbours (who have land borders with them) drove on the right. If they had left it another few decades to change the cost would have been prohibitive. Road safety was thought to have improved after the change because many older drivers never bothered to change and just stopped driving instead.

I'm not certain there's conclusive scientific evidence that driving on one side or the other is safer. It's more a general driver attitude and behaviour that impacts on road safety.

Stark · 03-07-2008 10:18am

studiorat wrote:

I can drive any motorbike. I can't drive my car on my own. Gas eh?

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I can drive any car as I hold a full licence, and what do you know! I also have a full motorbike licence! But oddly enough, I can't ride any motorbike for another 18 months. I have to ride restricted ones... despite having passed my test. Hmmm...:mad:

I can drive any car, yet they won't let me drive a bus on my own. The so-and-sos...

NullZer0 · 03-07-2008 10:44am

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I can drive any car as I hold a full licence, and what do you know! I also have a full motorbike licence! But oddly enough, I can't ride any motorbike for another 18 months. I have to ride restricted ones... despite having passed my test. Hmmm...:mad:

+1

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Think I remember reading they only had a handful of traffic lights in the country at the time, the cost and engineering difficulty of changing the sides we drive on would be unreal. I couldn't even begin to imagine the figure. Every set of traffic lights costs tens of thousands for example.

The main reason cited for changing in Sweden was that all their neighbours (who have land borders with them) drove on the right. If they had left it another few decades to change the cost would have been prohibitive. Road safety was thought to have improved after the change because many older drivers never bothered to change and just stopped driving instead.

I'm not certain there's conclusive scientific evidence that driving on one side or the other is safer. It's more a general driver attitude and behaviour that impacts on road safety.

I know.. and I'm sure the cost would be insane. But the way the government/RSA are going on about things then why dont they consider something like this... if they really are that bothered! - thats the point Im trying to make... once it costs so much they're not interested. I know it would be a massive project.

As far as driver attitude and behaviour goes you know driving on the other side of the road could influence this (or so I believe anyway). Just as weather can influence moods/depression etc alot of things can come into play determining different mindsets.

Then again I'm not a psychologist - just my opinion.

sonicthebadger* · 03-07-2008 11:30am

Stark wrote: »

I can drive any car, yet they won't let me drive a bus on my own. The so-and-sos...

A bus is not a car. You can do a test and get a licence for a bus.

iRock wrote: »

I know.. and I'm sure the cost would be insane. But the way the government/RSA are going on about things then why dont they consider something like this... if they really are that bothered! - thats the point Im trying to make... once it costs so much they're not interested. I know it would be a massive project.

As far as driver attitude and behaviour goes you know driving on the other side of the road could influence this (or so I believe anyway). Just as weather can influence moods/depression etc alot of things can come into play determining different mindsets.

Then again I'm not a psychologist - just my opinion.

It does change perception of safety for a little while, maybe a few years, then everyone is used to it and things get back to normal. There's far more cost effective ways of using the money to change peoples habits.

Check out
http://74.125.39.104/search?q=cache:n_Efq6waVOMJ:www.swov.nl/rapport/R-2003-31.pdf+less+road+marking+experiment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ie&client=firefox-a

http://www.fema.ridersrights.org/crashbarrier2005/

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2008/1-4/12-18/may1208visionzeromotorcycleroad/?R=EPI-100376

JP Liz · 03-07-2008 11:35am

Hanley wrote: »

I STILL want to know of all the fatal or serious crashes on our roads, what percentage are caused by learners?

+ 1

NullZer0 · 03-07-2008 12:02pm

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

A bus is not a car. You can do a test and get a licence for a bus.

It does change perception of safety for a little while, maybe a few years, then everyone is used to it and things get back to normal. There's far more cost effective ways of using the money to change peoples habits.

Check out
http://74.125.39.104/search?q=cache:n_Efq6waVOMJ:www.swov.nl/rapport/R-2003-31.pdf+less+road+marking+experiment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ie&client=firefox-a

http://www.fema.ridersrights.org/crashbarrier2005/

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2008/1-4/12-18/may1208visionzeromotorcycleroad/?R=EPI-100376

Why aren't they being looked at so?

sonicthebadger* · 03-07-2008 12:16pm

iRock wrote: »

Why aren't they being looked at so?

I know roads engineers. They don't take risks when designing roads.

They are being looked at, but since they're still at the research stage it will take time before engineers are willing to take the risk and do something different. If there's not plenty of papers written to back up a decision they won't make it. With good reason.

The roads have to be nearly the same all over the country so it's a big system with lots of inertia. It takes a lot to make it change direction.

peachystarr · 05-07-2008 10:53pm

Hanley wrote: »

I STILL want to know of all the fatal or serious crashes on our roads, what percentage are caused by learners?

What I would like to know is WHO claimed that the purpose of stopping learner drivers driving on their own was to prevent fatal/serious crashes??

IMO it has nothing to do with that, its about taking the possibly incompetant drivers off the road while on their own as they havent proved they are safe driver. Im not saying there not safe, im sure a lot of learners are better drivers than some fully licenced ones but until they can proove it by passing a basic test then its a joke to be letting them drive on their own.

Seriously before the law changed , someone could apply for a provisional licence and then procede to get a 2nd one without doing a test, get insured having never had a driving lesson, possibly having never even sat in a car and to think they could legally get into a car and drive away down the road on their own with no experience and no one with them???? This surely is not right.

And why do people keep referring to the "new" laws, there not new, the laws were always there, its just changed for drivers on their 2nd provisional licence.:)

jhegarty · 05-07-2008 11:39pm

peachystarr wrote: »

What I would like to know is WHO claimed that the purpose of stopping learner drivers driving on their own was to prevent fatal/serious crashes??

The RSA chief executive Noel Brett good enough ?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0630/licence.html

Hanley · 05-07-2008 11:44pm

jhegarty wrote: »

The RSA chief executive Noel Brett good enough ?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0630/licence.html

Pwnd

RSA Opinion

Comments