RSA seeks public's views on learner drivers restrictions

Sully

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

Why only 5hours? Thats not much when you think about it. An hour a lesson so 5 lessons and your fit to drive?

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.

The RSA have statistics which show that many car crashes are happening when the roads are quieter so they want to block learner drivers from taking to the roads at this time. There doesnt seem to be stats to back up the age group but judging by media reports during such accidents its the younger age group again.

Other countries which have taken similar steps have found a reduction in crashes after implementing such a system.

My concern was that blocking people from driving at night could have a negative affect as people need to learn how to drive at night. If you were supervised driving at night, this could fix the problem this country is having with crashes at night which are mostly single vehicle and only one person driving. Also the reducing of power etc. might cut down the problem.

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?

Well the stats are there to prove that this age group are in the most accidents on our road. What do you propose we do? Leave it be as some of the age group are perfectly acceptable drivers who will never crash? If there is a problem it needs to be fixed. The problem is with this age group so work needs to be done to reduce it.

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.

A lot of that age group are on provisional licenses as it is. Ask any younger person to re-take the test and they have a risk of failing. Regardless, this age group clearly isn't a problem so its not going to be looked at.

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.

Boy Racers are targetted by the Guards compared to your regular joe-so. Some are also on a provisional license. There seems to be no statistics about the typical boy racer car being involved in accidents. However, the RSA are targeting learner drivers as this country has a big problem with accidents and drivers getting on the road with little or no driving skill. The idea behind the RSA latest move is to target these problem areas and help fix the problem.

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".

So the statistics are all lies? Not just in Ireland but across Europe?

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..

Your solution seems to be "Its ****ed so badly it cant be fixed". Everything has a fix. The problem is the RSA and the government have been doing sweet F all about the problem until now. There first good move a few months ago resulted in a government back down and the Guards refusing to enforce it. I personally think the RSA are doing good in their role and are targeting younger people as they are the main problem on our roads according to their statistics and European statistics.

Saying that, I do think they need to have focus on the other groups of drivers who are also at fault.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Buffman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you know every guard in the country? Tarring everyone with the one big brush isn't very helpful.

It is being enforced as much as every other road traffic law is.

It sounds like you want a situation where there are massive checkpoints setup 24/7, with every vehicle and driving licence checked, where everyone gets held up for hours, and eventually nobody can get anywhere.

Wishbone Ash

fearandloathing wrote: »

the ageism and blatent hipocracy of the rsa gets me

How is it 'ageism' and where is the hiprocracy?

fearandloathing wrote:

25 year old doctors driving to hospitals and saving lives

25 year old doctors are indeed saving lives but they are very highly educated and serve internships, not a little 25 minute test. They are also with their colleagues and under the supervision of a consultant and can seek assistance and advice when required.

fearandloathing wrote:

25 year old barristers and solicitors taking on exceptionally difficult and challenging legal battles

A junior barrister again, is very highly educated and under the supervision of his superiors. He's hardly a danger to the general public and, should he make a poor decision, he's highly unlikey to maim and kill others.

fearandloathing wrote:

are these people incapable of good decision making

I don't understand the point you are making.

fearandloathing wrote:

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

Those drivers are statistically the safest drivers on our roads, hence the reason why they have the lowest insurance costs.

Why on earth would a safety organisation concentrate on the people least likely to die on our roads when there is another segment slaughtering themselves on a weekly basis?

Would you expect charitable organisations to help the most affluent people in our society? Would you expect Alcoholics Anonymous to have meeting full of pioneers? Perhaps the ISPCA should only show interest in pets in loving homes!

fearandloathing wrote:

the rsa are a lazy, incompetant organisation

Very constructive. :rolleyes:

fearandloathing wrote:

such as the blatent disregard some people still have for drink driving and speed limits

Exceeding the speed limit and driving under the influence of alcohol are already illegal. The enforcement of these rest with the Gardai, not the RSA. Do you think that the RSA should illegally act outside it's remit?

fearandloathing wrote:

these people are not l-drivers rather experienced, fully licenced drivers who are the ones who are "overconfidant".

That would explain why learners have much cheaper insurance!!


...wait a minute..... that just doesn't sound right!

fearandloathing wrote:

without a laundry list of unenforcable restrictions placed upon them

There are very few restrictions placed on learners here compared to other countries!

ironclaw wrote:

Well said

Did you actually read his/her post?

bmcgrath

I think restricting engine sizes is silly. That means my parents or myself would have to buy a car with a smaller engine just so I can learn. Pure BS! Silly! :mad:

Wishbone Ash

bmcgrath wrote: »

I think restricting engine sizes is silly. That means my parents or myself would have to buy a car with a smaller engine just so I can learn. Pure BS! Silly! :mad:

You don't need to buy a car to learn to drive. Many of us learned to drive, passed the test and then bought a car when we could afford it.

bmcgrath

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You don't need to buy a car to learn to drive. Many of us learned to drive, passed the test and then bought a car when we could afford it.

How did you learn to drive?

Sully

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agreed.

Buffman wrote: »

Do you know every guard in the country? Tarring everyone with the one big brush isn't very helpful.

It is being enforced as much as every other road traffic law is.

It sounds like you want a situation where there are massive checkpoints setup 24/7, with every vehicle and driving licence checked, where everyone gets held up for hours, and eventually nobody can get anywhere.

Well we can only go on what the Guards have already said publicly at the time the law was introduced. Plus based on experience, many drivers people have witnessed driving through a checkpoint or a garda with an L plate up and a clear learner drive have been ignored.

Other examples include people who are learner drivers who have not been questioned when stopped at a checkpoint etc.

So the poster is correct in his comment while it may be a little unfair to generalise even after the garda rep said it pretty much wouldn't be enforced.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You don't need to buy a car to learn to drive. Many of us learned to drive, passed the test and then bought a car when we could afford it.

Unless we are misunderstanding the suggestion by the RSA - learner drivers would need to drive a lower powered car when learning how to drive. The poster is saying that there is a risk his parents will have to buy a lower powered car so s/he can learn how to drive if the rule is brought in and affects his parents car.