RSA seeks public's views on learner drivers restrictions

Buffman

hobochris wrote: »

This is something they should bring in once they clear the backlog, maybe next year, providing they put the effort into clearing the backlog of test queues.

The backlog will never be cleared, especially as they are now closing lots of the SGS centres.

Mmmm_Lemony wrote: »

Please explain why?

Bikes are a different story, for one as it is practically impossible for a male under 30 say, to get insured on one as a learner.

Engine size is not really an issue. Due to our tax levels we do not have 'powerful' cars as such. 1.6L petrol, 1.9L diesel, even a 2.0L petrol would not be considered powerful compared to other countries. Look at the UK/US, where V8's and the like are far more common. Thats powerful.

With 1.0L cars now able to do 140+km/h easily, I really don't see the point.
As I said before somewhere else, this would unfairly penalise people learning in their parents car.

Wishbone Ash

Interesting discussion lads/ladies.

In relation to the 'power' restrictions, I'd imagine that it would be done on power output rather than cubic capacity (as in motorcycles). I drive a 3 litre car but it is only 189bhp. Many 2 litre cars are more powerful and I'd imagine that many of the smaller 'skanger mobiles' that tear around my area are probably more powerful too.

Someone made a very valid point that the prohibitive cost of insurance (especially for young males) already regulates this end of things (except for the very well off).

The whole 'mouthwash' debate is a red herring but if a learner was to have one of Mrs WA's sherry trifles or Christmas puddings, they would probably be over the limit for some time!

And, even though I accept that the RSA do not enforce the law, I do agree that enforcement of the existing regulations (or even the former regulations) would be a lot more effective.

jhegarty

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

In relation to the 'power' restrictions, I'd imagine that it would be done on power output rather than cubic capacity (as in motorcycles).

It should really be on power/weight ratio. Some older barges take about 2 weeks to get to 60 with a 2l engine.

But do you really expect sense like that from the RSA ?

zonEEE

Agree with the alcohol limit but thats just about it, what are people that work nights or finish their **** during the night meant to do? Maybe if the country had a decent public transport then it would be ok but at the moment its utter useless.

Wishbone Ash

strongr wrote: »

what are people that work nights or finish their **** during the night meant to do?

I know this isn't what you want to hear but a Provisional Licence/Learner Permit is granted to allow access to public roads for the purposes of learning to drive. It is not granted to allow you to get to and from work.

brian076

Hopefully everyone who has contributed to this thread will contact the RSA with their views,<GDLconsultation@rsa.ie> otherwise they'll think everyone is happy with their proposals

DancingDaisy

I'm not sure about anyone else, but the point strongr has made about driving to and from work seems pretty fair to me.

The impression I got from document was that these regulations would effect you for the two years after learning to drive, as that this particular restricted license idea would come into force at the same time.

I am open to correction though.

I plan to email my observations to the rsa as soon as my exams are over and I have the time to put them into coherent English!

I have no issue with Learner permit holders being unable to drive unaccompanied, but I feel that if you are accompanied at night by an experienced driver, who is capable of taking over from you if you begin to feel tired or have difficulties, then the dangers are lessened.

I think it's important to have that experience under your belt as a learner, rather that end up in a situation, when you have your full license, that you have no experience in. Again, that is only the opinion of someone who has been on the roads for approximately six months, so I am not the voice of experience or any thing even like it!!!

Buffman

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I know this isn't what you want to hear but a Provisional Licence/Learner Permit is granted to allow access to public roads for the purposes of learning to drive. It is not granted to allow you to get to and from work.

I think he is talking about their proposal to restrict people after they pass the test, the 'newely quailified' drivers.

IMO you have either proven you can drive and passed, or not met the standard and failed. A lot of jobs require a full unrestricted licence, so this proposal could mean that people will have to wait at least 6+24=30 months for a full full licence (not a typo, can't think of anything else to call it)
Thats if they don't increase the 6 month rule aswell.

brian076 wrote: »

Hopefully everyone who has contributed to this thread will contact the RSA with their views,<GDLconsultation@rsa.ie> otherwise they'll think everyone is happy with their proposals

I definitely will be, probably just copy and paste my posts from here.:D
Closing date is Fri 13 March09.

ironclaw

I'm for the alcohol limit and the limit to car occupants. From school etc its stupid the amount you can fit into a car... :mad:

Not really keen on the night restriction. Seems abit pointless seeing as most fatal accidents (Or are more likely to) occur at night

The restriction after could work. As long as it allows for motor usage etc and unaccompanied driving. But on the same regard, it should be easier to pass your test. Maybe continous assessment? One test before restriction and one after?

Done some more reading:

It has long been recognized that young, novice drivers are poor at detecting and assessing hazards

- Bit of a white wash that one

Upgraded Driving Test

- I think its hard enough as it stands. The average pass rate is 60%, so 1 in 3 fail.

daveharnett

timmywex wrote: »

2) Night time curfew............so when they qualify they suddenly learn how to drive during the night, bit rediculous imo

Nobody is talking about restricting learners to the daylight hours, just keeping them off the roads from midnight till six(or thereabouts).

timmywex wrote: »

3) Restricted driving after test is passed! The person has passed the test, theyve shown they can drive, why restrict them!

The peice of paper shows one has demonstrated a basic level of competence. It does not magically increase one's ability. I think it makes a lot of gradually removing restrictions as experience builds.

timmywex wrote: »

Sure they dont have much expirience but people through the years have got on fine, the best way to learn and gain expirience is by being at the deepend

Bollocks to that. That attitude exemplifies the problem with Irish motoring. People have not "got on fine", they have died in their scores through their own and others complacency and overconficence.

Zonda999

daveharnett wrote: »

Nobody is talking about restricting learners to the daylight hours, just keeping them off the roads from midnight till six(or thereabouts).

Why though?? Really cant see any point in that. I do agree with mandatory pre-test lessons though

Buffman

daveharnett wrote: »

Nobody is talking about restricting learners to the daylight hours, just keeping them off the roads from midnight till six(or thereabouts).

Whats the point? If a learner is obeying the current law as it stands, he/she will be accompanied and it should not matter what time of the day it is.

daveharnett wrote: »

The peice of paper shows one has demonstrated a basic level of competence. It does not magically increase one's ability. I think it makes a lot of gradually removing restrictions as experience builds.

Thats the whole idea of the mandatory 6 month wait between first permit & test now. We all know that driving is a continuous learning experience, but at some point the 'training wheels' have to come off. At the moment this point is the driving test and I don't see why it should change.

daveharnett wrote: »

Bollocks to that. That attitude exemplifies the problem with Irish motoring. People have not "got on fine", they have died in their scores through their own and others complacency and overconficence.

If people break the law and die, more laws are not going to solve the problem. I would love to see the stats of how many law abiding learners were involved in fatal accidents.

SeanW

As a person who tends towards libertarianism, I feel the government frequently governs best when they get the hell out of the way, and let people live their own lives as they see fit tempered only to repsect the rights of others. As such, I tend not to take the view that a problem can be dealt with by a government trifecta of Tax, Ban and Regulate.

So as you might imagine, I have a serious problem with this proposal by the RSA, which seems to be no more than picking on an easy target.

In particular given what I've read about the whole RSA vs. SGS driver testing, I had to laugh when on one of the first few pages, there was mention of an example in Canada where obtaining a full unrestricted drivers license entails a Byzantine two driving tests over several years setup, and I had to laugh given how much difficulty the RSA has providing a single driving test system that actually functions.
Trying to solve problems by burying people (and businesses) in red tape is IMO a silly and irresponsible idea at the best of times, but when the current system under your remit is so badly run, to propose adding to that is just breathtakingly arrogant beyond words. I intend to write the RSA a polite but strongly worded letter, telling them exactly what I think of them.

But that doesn't mean I think the government should just step aside and allow anarchy on the roads either. In particular, there are some things I think could be done.
1) Bring some form of Drivers Education (Drivers Ed.) to 2nd level schools, show those graphic videos about the carnage caused by dangerous driving, speeding, drinking etc, as well as providing theoretical instruction in the rules of the road and so on.
2) Continue to invest in transportation, both Motorways and public transport (the former being a safer way to travel by road, the latter getting people off the roads
3) Convert busy T-Junctions and crossroards to roundabout, mini-roundabout, or add traffic lights.
4) Take the speed traps off the dual-carriageways with 80km/h limits and put them on dangerous roads and accident blacksposts.
5) Other reasonable measures that may be formulated.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dudara

We need to bring driving education into schools, so everyone learns the same techniques and rules in the same manner (no more being taught by your parents).

A comprehensive driving test, that covers all major areas of driving. Additionally it cannot be taken unless you have completed a set number of hours in training (this could be part of the school-based training, supplemented by lessons from approved instructors).

We need to bring the alcohol level down for ALL drivers.

Mandatory retesting every 10 years for all licensed drivers (this is a bit of a pipedream, but if they ever got the testing system sorted...)

I don't see the point of the engine size restrictions. There are a lot of nippy, powerful small cars out there.

In short, I don't think anything that I've said above is ridiculous. It's pretty much all common sense. The question is whether we continue with our pretty ridiculous system, or we make an effort to change.

brian076

One of the problems we have with regard to comprehensive testing is our infrastructure. In Germany you have to pass a test on the Autobahn before getting a full licence. How do you get tested here on motorways if you live in west Cork or Donegal?

Buffman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Stats would probably show that in the first 10 years of driving a higher % of drivers have been involved in accidents. (I'm just speculating here before anyone starts:)) So where do we draw the line. It's a legal minimum of 6 months experience at the moment.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yep, as I said somewhere before, the current test is more suited to the 60's, not modern day driving.

brian076 wrote: »

One of the problems we have with regard to comprehensive testing is our infrastructure. In Germany you have to pass a test on the Autobahn before getting a full licence. How do you get tested here on motorways if you live in west Cork or Donegal?

Yep, that could be an issue. Some sort of simulator or something maybe?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brian076

I think what is likely to happen, is that when someone passes their theory test they will receive a Cert which will allow them to take a compulsory 10 lessons. Once these have been completed they will then receive a Learner Permit. They must then keep a log of their driving experience which will be maintained by their supervising driver, and before they sit their test they will have to take a minimum of 5 pre-test lessons.
On the day of their test they will have to present this documentation to the tester before they are taken out on the road.

daveharnett

Buffman wrote: »

Whats the point? If a learner is obeying the current law as it stands, he/she will be accompanied and it should not matter what time of the day it is.

The unspoken motive here is to prevent learners from driving after pub and club chucking out time. Assuming the driver is sober and properly supervised, a group of drunk mates in the back is still a serious distraction.

Personally, I don't agree that that is a good enough reason - if enforced, the extra-low alcahol limit, the supervision requirement and the limit on passengers already have that particular problem covered.

I would consider the curfew worthwhile because there are other factors that make late night driving particularly dangerous - tiredness, higher risk of ice and other inclement weather, increased risk of other road users acting unpredictably (for various reasons). Learners have enough challenges to overcome in their first few months without dealing with this stuff.

Buffman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If sombody actually managed to pass their test without having ever driven at all, then it really would be time for the RSA to shut up shop and call it a day.:D

brian076 wrote: »

I think what is likely to happen, is that when someone passes their theory test they will receive a Cert which will allow them to take a compulsory 10 lessons. Once these have been completed they will then receive a Learner Permit. They must then keep a log of their driving experience which will be maintained by their supervising driver, and before they sit their test they will have to take a minimum of 5 pre-test lessons.
On the day of their test they will have to present this documentation to the tester before they are taken out on the road.

This would be an ideal situation, lets hope common sense prevails and it ends up as something like this. Maybe have it staged over the 6 month 'learning' period, and have a standard goverment set fee for any compulsory lessons.

daveharnett wrote: »

I would consider the curfew worthwhile because there are other factors that make late night driving particularly dangerous - tiredness, higher risk of ice and other inclement weather, increased risk of other road users acting unpredictably (for various reasons). Learners have enough challenges to overcome in their first few months without dealing with this stuff.

Yep, but what happens when they pass the test and find themselves in these situations unsupervised. Far better to expierence the above with your instructors help.

DrivingMad

Buffman wrote: »

If sombody actually managed to pass their test without having ever driven at all, then it really would be time for the RSA to shut up shop and call it a day.:D



This would be an ideal situation, lets hope common sense prevails and it ends up as something like this. Maybe have it staged over the 6 month 'learning' period, and have a standard goverment set fee for any compulsory lessons.




Having mandatory lessons, I think are a good idea.
However, this does not mean that you are test ready.
I learnt to drive with my instructor, and waited until he told me I was ready to apply for my test.
I think that by assuming you are ready to take a driving test, applying, then taking one or two lessons does not necessarily leave enough time for any problems to be ironed out.

brian076

DrivingMad wrote: »

I think that by assuming you are ready to take a driving test, applying, then taking one or two lessons does not necessarily leave enough time for any problems to be ironed out.

You're right too many people think a pre-test the day before their driving test will solve all their problems. Unfortunately there are too many people in this country who have convinced themselves that they are much better drivers than they are, and most of them tend to be male. Having worked in this industry for many years I have no doubt that girls, particularly those between the age of 18-23 are far superior to males in the same age group.

ironclaw

brian076 wrote: »

particularly those between the age of 18-23 are far superior to males in the same age group.

Now theres a thread for another day. Have to agree though. Men have better space relations so parking is a natural thing. However, women can multi task which is what driving is really about.

Anyways, back on thread.. :pac:

Sully

I have had a quick review of the document provided by the RSA and plan on sending in my comments on the proposals. I have requested that the RSA provide me with extra statistics including the common cause of accidents (alchol, fatigue, etc) and the road type the accdient occured on. Its unlikely they will have these matched to the common age group occured in such an accident but its not something that interests me much as I am happy that the statistics are correct in stating that its mostly young male drivers in such accidents.

I had thought, perhaps wrong, that most young drivers dont drink and drive. This seems to occur in mostly the older generation as they grew up in a society where it was acceptable. I would prefer to see a blanket ban on drink driving as its clearly a common cause of arrest at checkpoints. I dont think focusing it on young drivers will achieve much as I believe its not associated with one group of user. Its something that should be simply "No" to everybody regardless anyway.

I discovered that statstics are available that show most accidents occur at night so perhaps curbing the time these drivers are allowed drive could work in favour and cut down deaths. My only issue with this being that drivers need to learn how to drive at night and banning them might not achive much in the long term as they will have less experience as a result when the ban is lifted. I would need to think about this more, as really a proper driving test and lessons should cover the problem which is causing such crashes.

Low powered cars is a must. A young driver with little experience driving should not be given a super car to race around the place. Saying that, I wouldnt like to see them being given a car that barley moves. It needs to strike a balance.

Increased penlty points... I like the idea but would it have any affect? Are young learner drivers not already cautious to avoid such incidents? I know when I was learning and driving now I avoid getting such points as it would affect my insurance. So I am not so sure this would actually change.

Hazard Testing... Two studys out both contradicting each other worries me. This would seem more an advanced driving course topic but the principal seems good.

Restriction on Passangers... A lot of parents enforce this as they believe that the noise in the background would be a distraction. Is there studies to confirm this? Id also like to see the front passenger hold a full licence and the backseat can be anybody. Is two a crowd over 4 tho?

Compuslory Driving Lessons. Yes. Without a doubt. Far to many people learn by themsleves, jump on the road and hope for the best. This needs to be stopped and you need to be given lessons by a qualified instructor with a good track record. Rather then billy no mates down the road who has a few points on his license. The problem is deciding how many lessons and trying to avoid high costs in learning how to drive.

Supervised Driver. On your own or with someone who has no driving expereince will not help your learning process. This is a must and you should be learning how to drive with someone who has a full license. This way the passenger can guide and assist the driver. It might also tie in to the above point about driving lessons if the instructor gets to judge how many lessons you need. How? Well if your passenger helps you and you get lots of experience then it can cut down on the amount needed by a qualified instructor.

Upgrade Driving Test. This and the theory test needs a re-think. You need to cover more roads, more conditions and different situations. Parking and driving around a town in the daylight doesnt cut it imo. The theory test often gives answers that make it sound so bloody obvious to someone who has not done such a test what the answer is.

Yakult

Before Rsa bring in these new "laws" they should get the guards to maybe enforce previous laws. They should finish the cake they have currently baked rather than making new ones they wont even start eating. (sending them to aul mary harney down the road isnt doing anyone good).

Its really an wide open debate that hurts my head.

brian076

R_H_C_P wrote: »

Before Rsa bring in these new "laws" they should get the guards to maybe enforce previous laws. They should finish the cake they have currently baked rather than making new ones they wont even start eating. (sending them to aul mary harney down the road isnt doing anyone good).

Its really an wide open debate that hurts my head.

I made this point earlier on in this thread and I totally agree with you. Since the new restrictions were introduced last year a lot of learners have taken their L plates off to avoid being caught. There are severe penalties if you're caught doing this, but I wonder how many have been prosecuted to date. It also makes it difficult for guards at a checkpoint, because unless they stop everyone to check their licence, which would probably take too long, they've no way of knowing who is a learner, not all L drivers are teenagers or young adults.
I made the suggestion that anyone driving on a Learner permit should have some other ID on their car, eg a different colour Insurance Disc, (maybe bright pink), which would stand out and make it obvious to the Guards.
Has anyone any other suggestions?

fearandloathing

in general i agree with putting in place measures that will ensure
that learner drivers are more experienced when the become fully fledged road users. i think accompanied driving, zero alchol(should be for everyone) and manditory lessons (but not 20 hours, maybe 5) are all useful but theres a few things that i disagree with

the idea of a curfew doesnt sit well with me. i'll hardly ever be out on the road myself between say 12pm and 5am but this just seems a bit to draconian for my taste. if you treat young drivers like kids they'll act like kids.

secondly the ageism and blatent hipocracy of the rsa gets me. so if im 25 im so high risk that i need to be mollycoddled by the state like im a bratty child and told what i can and cant do? remember, there are 25 year old doctors driving to hospitals and saving lives, 25 year old barristers and solicitors taking on exceptionally difficult and challenging legal battles just to use 2 extreme examples. are these people incapable of good decision making?

if the rsa brought in a rule that all those fully licenced drivers between the ages of 40 and 50 had to resit their test because they have had it for 20 years or more and need to refresh, but if they fail they lose their licence what would happen?? there would be uproar and it would never be brought in because you know what, if every 40 to 50 year old fully licenced driver in the country was tested in the same way as 20-25 year olds are id say a lot would be walking home.

the rsa just hammer the l-driver, no talk of the boy racers who btw arent driving on a learner permit in their mothers micra. they had been dreaming of driving for years waiting for their 17th birthday to get the provisional, they're fully licenced by 18 for the most part.

the rsa are a lazy, incompetant organisation who would rather sit around coming up with ways to further complicate the plight of learners so they can give a big press release to show how hard they're working rather than tackling the real issues such as the blatent disregard some people still have for drink driving and speed limits, and in my opinion these people are not l-drivers rather experienced, fully licenced drivers who are the ones who are "overconfidant".

learning to drive is a life skill and should be taken seriously, but at this stage the irish system is so up in a heap that its almost impossible to get any sort of congruent practice regime in place for learners where they can learn the basics off the road, get on-road practice and pass a reasonable test without a laundry list of unenforcable restrictions placed upon them. i dont think any young person should have anxiety about learning to drive, it should be taken seriously but also enjoyable.

sorry for such a long post, this is just something that really bothers me..

ironclaw

fearandloathing wrote: »

in general i agree with putting in place measures that will ensure
that learner drivers are more experienced when the become fully fledged road users. i think accompanied driving, zero alchol(should be for everyone) and manditory lessons (but not 20 hours, maybe 5) are all useful but theres a few things that i disagree with

the idea of a curfew doesnt sit well with me. i'll hardly ever be out on the road myself between say 12pm and 5am but this just seems a bit to draconian for my taste. if you treat young drivers like kids they'll act like kids.

secondly the ageism and blatent hipocracy of the rsa gets me. so if im 25 im so high risk that i need to be mollycoddled by the state like im a bratty child and told what i can and cant do? remember, there are 25 year old doctors driving to hospitals and saving lives, 25 year old barristers and solicitors taking on exceptionally difficult and challenging legal battles just to use 2 extreme examples. are these people incapable of good decision making?

if the rsa brought in a rule that all those fully licenced drivers between the ages of 40 and 50 had to resit their test because they have had it for 20 years or more and need to refresh, but if they fail they lose their licence what would happen?? there would be uproar and it would never be brought in because you know what, if every 40 to 50 year old fully licenced driver in the country was tested in the same way as 20-25 year olds are id say a lot would be walking home.

the rsa just hammer the l-driver, no talk of the boy racers who btw arent driving on a learner permit in their mothers micra. they had been dreaming of driving for years waiting for their 17th birthday to get the provisional, they're fully licenced by 18 for the most part.

the rsa are a lazy, incompetant organisation who would rather sit around coming up with ways to further complicate the plight of learners so they can give a big press release to show how hard they're working rather than tackling the real issues such as the blatent disregard some people still have for drink driving and speed limits, and in my opinion these people are not l-drivers rather experienced, fully licenced drivers who are the ones who are "overconfidant".

learning to drive is a life skill and should be taken seriously, but at this stage the irish system is so up in a heap that its almost impossible to get any sort of congruent practice regime in place for learners where they can learn the basics off the road, get on-road practice and pass a reasonable test without a laundry list of unenforcable restrictions placed upon them. i dont think any young person should have anxiety about learning to drive, it should be taken seriously but also enjoyable.

sorry for such a long post, this is just something that really bothers me..

Well said.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.