Motorway Cops kick L driver ass!

veryangryman

Just watching on BBC the Motorway Cops show. They pull over this dude for driving on provisional in the M6 Birmingham and seize the vehicle!

Wow is all ill say. As one who has driven motorway on L plate (and im sure im not the only cheeky chappy here), id have a canary over it.

That said, id guess that even in the UK, it only really be enforced on the busier motorways. This particular one was right by spaghetti junciton outside Birmingham.

Still that sends some message across. :eek:

Amtmann

Looks like the RSA are itching to too: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/driving-curfew-proposed-to-save-young-mens-lives-1868264.html

Sponge Bob

Was at suicide cross in Galway today and unexpectedly breezed into the roundabout because an unaccompanied L plate driver was blocking the entrance to my right and would not pull out.

They have their uses

DWCommuter

All L drvers on all Irish Motorways should have their cars impounded. Then they should be made do the theory test all over again.

And before some smart arse starts on at me, I'd apply similar penalties to speeders. Full license holders can be dickheads, but this care free attitude from L drivers wandering onto motorways needs to be stamped out ruthlessly before it becomes the epidemic it was (and continues to be) on the M50.

My grievance? Yes you guessed I had one. Last Sunday on the M8 near Cashel. L-driver in the outer lane travelling at approx 80 kmph and so panic stricken by the intensity of traffic coming from behind (flashing lights and honking horns) that they didn't dare move into the inner lane! Bonkers! Never saw a police car from Cork to Naas. You'd get done quicker for road tax outside your house!

murphaph

veryangryman wrote: »

Just watching on BBC the Motorway Cops show. They pull over this dude for driving on provisional in the M6 Birmingham and seize the vehicle!

Wow is all ill say. As one who has driven motorway on L plate (and im sure im not the only cheeky chappy here), id have a canary over it.

That said, id guess that even in the UK, it only really be enforced on the busier motorways. This particular one was right by spaghetti junciton outside Birmingham.

Still that sends some message across. :eek:

Wrong! UK police from the PSNI to the Met will at the minimum prevent the L driver from proceeding unaccompanied but often just seize the car as it was being driven without a licence. Motorway or not. Of course, that's what professional police should do when they discover a driver behind the wheel who has never adequately demonstrated their ability to erm, drive.

corktina

murphaph wrote: »

Wrong! UK police from the PSNI to the Met will at the minimum prevent the L driver from proceeding unaccompanied but often just seize the car as it was being driven without a licence. Motorway or not. Of course, that's what professional police should do when they discover a driver behind the wheel who has never adequately demonstrated their ability to erm, drive.

absolutely.I used to breeze over and buy a car and drive home regardless of Tax and MoT but now with their new ANPR technology, I wouldnt dream of it.They will take great delight in impounding your car, its a weapon in their armoury they were over the moon to get. You get it back once you show the paper work is in order but you have to pay a whopping recovery and storage charge. Moral: take your documents with you.

The other one that I thought showed their professionalism was the guy with unsecured kids in the car who , after a lecture and instructions on how to rejoin the Motorway, they allowed to proceed. He promptly ignored what they told him and pulled out in front of a truck almost causing a pile up (it was really close...) and they went after him, booked him again and made him arrange another vehicle to carry his kids safely.

The second guy had 15 years experiance, but was clueless...anyone driving here with a Provisional licence and no TUTOR (cos thats what the full license holder should be in effect) should have severe action taken, and yet I see them everyday... Our Gards should have the Professional pride to be doing this instead of harassing basically law abiding drivers slightley over the speed limit.

bmaxi

murphaph wrote: »

. Of course, that's what professional police should do .

What are they?

seamus

The laws in the UK differ than in Ireland.

In the UK a provisional licence is only valid when the driver is accompanied. If the driver is unaccompanied, then they are legally driving without a licence (because it's not valid), and therefore by extension their insurance is invalid because they are unlicenced. So the UK cops can (and do) charge them with driving without a licence or insurance. This is why they seize the vehicle and clamp down on it hard.

In this country, your provisional licence is still a "licence", regardless of whether you're unaccompanied, so legally it (or driving on the motorway) is a far lesser offence than driving without insurance (which is a criminal offence). I'm sure the Gardai would be willing to clamp down hard on it here, if the law was on their side.

Alun

seamus wrote: »

The laws in the UK differ than in Ireland.

In this country, your provisional licence is still a "licence", regardless of whether you're unaccompanied,...

That's crazy. Surely they could have changed that when they made the transition from Provisional Licences (always thought that was a stupid and misleading name anyway) to Learner's Permits?

Cookie_Monster

Alun wrote: »

That's crazy. Surely they could have changed that when they made the transition from Provisional Licences (always thought that was a stupid and misleading name anyway) to Learner's Permits?

That would be forward thinking though and we all know how good the gov is at that!

corktina

seamus wrote: »

The laws in the UK differ than in Ireland.

In the UK a provisional licence is only valid when the driver is accompanied. If the driver is unaccompanied, then they are legally driving without a licence (because it's not valid), and therefore by extension their insurance is invalid because they are unlicenced. So the UK cops can (and do) charge them with driving without a licence or insurance. This is why they seize the vehicle and clamp down on it hard.

In this country, your provisional licence is still a "licence", regardless of whether you're unaccompanied, so legally it (or driving on the motorway) is a far lesser offence than driving without insurance (which is a criminal offence). I'm sure the Gardai would be willing to clamp down hard on it here, if the law was on their side.

sorry but im sure you are wrong.If you are driving unaccompanied in Ireland it is an offense and you are driving "not in accordance with your license" and therefore your Insurance is not valid.

the_syco

DWCommuter wrote: »

My grievance? Yes you guessed I had one. Last Sunday on the M8 near Cashel. L-driver in the outer lane travelling at approx 80 kmph and so panic stricken by the intensity of traffic coming from behind (flashing lights and honking horns) that they didn't dare move into the inner lane! Bonkers!

Replace "L-Driver" with "woman driver" or "old people", and although perfectly legal, still drives me up the wall!

seamus

corktina wrote: »

sorry but im sure you are wrong.If you are driving unaccompanied in Ireland it is an offense and you are driving "not in accordance with your license" and therefore your Insurance is not valid.

I'm afraid that's incorrect. Although it is an offence to drive unaccompanied on a provisional licence, nowhere is the provisional licence defined as only being valid when the driver is accompanied.

veryangryman

Im sorry if this sounds rude, but the quality of information from the majority in this is inaccurate.

Anyone on a learner permit MUST have an accompanied licensed (and sober) passenger available to take over in the event of the learner permit holder bottling something up

The permit is there to let you LEARN to drive

corktina

seamus wrote: »

I'm afraid that's incorrect. Although it is an offence to drive unaccompanied on a provisional licence, nowhere is the provisional licence defined as only being valid when the driver is accompanied.

whats the difference?

This is the sort of arguement that people who want to continue driving unaccompanied put forward, the sort of guys who cant pass the test.

A learner Driver is not licensed to drive unaccompanied...full stop.

I didnt say your license isnt valid, I sadi your Insurance isnt valid

seamus

corktina wrote: »

This is the sort of arguement that people who want to continue driving unaccompanied put forward, the sort of guys who cant pass the test.

I passed my test 8 years ago, I'm simply telling you the facts.

A learner Driver is not licensed to drive unaccompanied...full stop.

The licence itself does not impose any conditions on the holder except for the validity dates on it and the categories of vehicle licenced. Although it is illegal for a provisional holder to drive unaccompanied, driving unaccompanied does not invalidate your licence. This does matter, for the reason I'll point out below.

I didnt say your license isnt valid, I sadi your Insurance isnt valid

The validity of your insurance and the contract of insurance between you and your insurer are, believe it or not, two very distinct things.

Your insurance is legally valid in this state provided that you have been accurate in the data you've provided to your insurer (car type, licence type, name, age, etc) and provided that you are driving within the terms on your insurance certificate.
Outside of this, your insurer cannot invalidate your insurance. If you look at your insurance certificate, you will see that it contains a couple of conditions, usually:

1. That you are driving the vehicle mentioned on the certificate
2. That you hold a valid licence for the category of vehicle being driven
3. That it is only being used for commuting or pleasure (in the case of most non-business policies).

Point 2 is crucial in this whole thing. Your learner permit/provisional licence is still valid even if you are driving unaccompanied. Therefore, even when driving unaccompanied, you are driving within the terms of your insurance certificate, therefore you are still insured.
In the eyes of the law, you are insured, and that's what matters.

Separately you may have an agreement with the insurance company (all that extra documentation they gave you), where you agree to do your best to drive within the law, keep your car roadworthy and so on and so forth. On these grounds, the insurance company can sue you for breaching that contract and reclaim any costs they've had to pay out.

However, because they have indemnified you by way of your insurance certificate, they are obliged (through statute) to cover any third party costs you may incur. In the eyes of any court, this means that you are legally insured.

Cheeble

corktina wrote: »

law abiding drivers slightley over the speed limit.

Oxymoron.

serfboard

corktina wrote: »

Our Gards should have the Professional pride to be doing this instead of harassing basically law abiding drivers slightley over the speed limit.

Cheeble wrote: »

Oxymoron.

Yep - spotted this. Typical attitude in this country - the Guards should enforce the law when other people break it - not when I do.

BTW, am guilty of this attitude myself

veryangryman

seamus wrote: »

Although it is illegal for a provisional holder to drive unaccompanied, driving unaccompanied does not invalidate your licence.

The validity of your insurance and the contract of insurance between you and your insurer are, believe it or not, two very distinct things.

Your insurance is legally valid in this state provided that you have been accurate in the data you've provided to your insurer (car type, licence type, name, age, etc) and provided that you are driving within the terms on your insurance certificate.


1. That you are driving the vehicle mentioned on the certificate
2. That you hold a valid licence for the category of vehicle being driven
3. That it is only being used for commuting or pleasure (in the case of most non-business policies).

Point 2 is crucial in this whole thing. Your learner permit/provisional licence is still valid even if you are driving unaccompanied. Therefore, even when driving unaccompanied, you are driving within the terms of your insurance certificate, therefore you are still insured.
In the eyes of the law, you are insured, and that's what matters.

Separately you may have an agreement with the insurance company (all that extra documentation they gave you), where you agree to do your best to drive within the law, keep your car roadworthy and so on and so forth. On these grounds, the insurance company can sue you for breaching that contract and reclaim any costs they've had to pay out.

However, because they have indemnified you by way of your insurance certificate, they are obliged (through statute) to cover any third party costs you may incur. In the eyes of any court, this means that you are legally insured.

Your insurance can be valid even when breaking the law? Please ask anyone who has made a claim as an L driver unaccompanied to verify this. Many an insurance company "wiggles" way out of claims for this very reason. And it isnt wiggling.

Youd make a good solicitor with your arguments, but i will still have to disagree

seamus

veryangryman wrote: »

Your insurance can be valid even when breaking the law? Please ask anyone who has made a claim as an L driver unaccompanied to verify this.

/hand up

But on that topic - of course your insurance is valid even when you've broken the law. The vast majority of traffic accidents on public roads are caused by somebody breaking the law at some point - think driving without due care and attention. The victims of (insured) drunk-drivers get compensation all the time.

If you were to invalidate every insurance claim where the law was broken, compulsory 3rd party insurance would be rendered pointless.

Guy:Incognito

seamus wrote: »

. I'm sure the Gardai would be willing to clamp down hard on it here, if the law was on their side.

No they wouldnt. they have shown they are not willing to clamp down with the current laws and the ability to issue large fines for driving unnaccompanied so why would a change in consequences (to the driver) change their (the Gardai) attitude?

Alun

seamus wrote:

I'm sure the Gardai would be willing to clamp down hard on it here, if the law was on their side.

Well why don't the Gardai, through their superiors or their association, petition the relevant minister(s) for a change in the law if they're that concerned? It's all well and good whining that they don't have the powers to do this and that, where in practically every other country, in Europe at least, they do, but if they were really that bothered they'd actively try and do something about it.

corktina

Cheeble wrote: »

Oxymoron.

who you calling a moron? :pac:

corktina

veryangryman wrote: »

Your insurance can be valid even when breaking the law? Please ask anyone who has made a claim as an L driver unaccompanied to verify this. Many an insurance company "wiggles" way out of claims for this very reason. And it isnt wiggling.

Youd make a good solicitor with your arguments, but i will still have to disagree

exactly....feeling you are insured and getting an Insurance Company to pay out are two diffeerent things.

Carawaystick

veryangryman wrote: »

Your insurance can be valid even when breaking the law? Please ask anyone who has made a claim as an L driver unaccompanied to verify this. Many an insurance company "wiggles" way out of claims for this very reason.

If a third party claims off the lawbreaking driver they will be covered.
There was a case recently of passengers in the back of a car van, not in any seat, getting covered by the insurance policy on the van.
The insurance co will try wriggle out of paying out to the first party, but the third party insurance coverage is very clearly specified by the EU.

Davidth88

Hi,

I too saw the programme mentioned by the OP. I was quite impressed by the level of policing shown in the film, although it's obviously edited to make you feel that way. ( Although I wasn't impressed to see the police charging at 140+ mph to an accident where there were already loads of police/ambulance/fire however that's a different point maybe for the ES forum )

If a change in the law is needed here ( in Ireland ) to stop people totally flouting the law and driving without a licence that is valid for what they are actually doing ( Carefully worded to keep serfboard happy ) then lets do it ! Speak to your TD , ask him to speak to the minister.

If you don't have the correct licence then your insurance SHOULD be in invalid , and if caught your car SHOULD be taken away from you.

If you don't have a roadworthy vehicle , or a vehicle without a valid NCT then again your insurance SHOULD be invalid and if caught your car SHOULD be taken away from you .

In my opinion the politicans here don't have the 'balls' to make what could be concived as unpopular decisions .

weepee

Any L driver alone on a motorway, should be jailed, its lunacy. If they are accompanied,
the qualifies driver should be jailed instead.

Ive seen L drivers on Belfasts westlink nearly causing carnage.

NFD100

Fatal crash driver on provisional licence



A JURY HAS recommended that the law regarding provisional drivers be fully enforced after hearing how a young woman had been driving for just four weeks when she lost control of her car and crashed into a wall, resulting in the death of two of her passengers.


Theresa Dingivan (21), Rathcarrig, Pike Road, Fermoy, Co Cork, was on her first provisional licence and had never taken any driving lessons from a trained instructor when she crashed at Strawhall just outside Fermoy on the night of August 5th, 2007.

Two local men, Michael Murphy (22), Main Street, Castlelyons, and James Sexton (19), Firmount, Castlelyons, who were both back-seat passengers in Ms Dingivan’s car, were killed in the crash which happened at about 9pm.

Ms Dingivan was later charged with dangerous driving causing their deaths but was found not guilty of both charges by a jury following a trial which lasted five days at Cork Circuit Criminal Court last November.

Ms Dingivan told the inquest into both deaths yesterday that she had been in the Peddlars Bar in Castlelyons that afternoon drinking 7up and was bringing her sister, Bridget, and their friend, Cillian Smith, into Fermoy when the two men asked her for a lift.

She had put on her seatbelt and she saw both her sister, who was in the front passenger seat, and Mr Smith, who was in the rear left seat, put on their seatbelts but she didn’t see either of the deceased put on their seatbelts when they got into the back seat, she said.

Ms Dingivan said she did not believe she was speeding and that she was doing about 50km/h when she went to overtake another car but she lost control of the steering and her car collided with the piers and wall of a house on the right-hand side of the road.

“It was like the steering wheel was pulling hard to the right. I was holding on to the steering wheel tight. The first time it pulled, I could control it, the second time I couldn’t control it at all,” she told the inquest before the coroner for north Cork, Dr Michael Kennedy.

The inquest heard that part of the roof of the car was sheared off in the impact and that both Mr Murphy and Mr Sexton were thrown from the vehicle.

Mr Murphy was killed instantly and Mr Sexton was pronounced dead at the scene a short time later.

Garda Micheál O’Donovan said he found that the 13-year-old Honda Civic car was in a roadworthy condition before the crash and believed that a combination of speed, weight in the car and Ms Dingivan’s inexperience as a driver were factors in the collision.

Forensic crash investigator Garda Tom Dunlea said he believed from marks on the road that the car had travelled some 87 metres out of control and that it was travelling between between 96km/h and 108km/h at the time of the collision.

The jury returned a verdict of death by misadventure in the case of both young men and recommended that the law regarding provisional licence holders be fully enforced.

This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

Noffles

This madness has been created by yourselves... how the f*ck any sensible country can let someone apply for a license and then simply get in a car and drive off is IDIOTIC... At least that's been stopped.... but amusingly the ****head mentality is still there.

Even now when it's supposed to be illegal to drive with an L plate unaccompanied you still see these f*ckwits driving alone...

weepee

What a sad story and terrible waste of young life.

Bluefoam

I saw an Irish 'cops' type program where after pulling people for not having the correct lisence or for commuting an offence, they were sent on their way and allowed to continue commuting the offence. I was gobsmacked!

BTW, rather than push all their one sided 'he drives, she dies' rubbish. They should clear the driving test waiting list and ensure all drivers on the road are correctly lisenced. But they cannot do that because they are utterly incompetant.

I heard that Gay Byrne got his lisence in an amnesty and never sat the test. Is that true, if so, what gives him the right to lecture everyone else?

mayordenis

Bluefoam wrote: »

I heard that Gay Byrne got his lisence in an amnesty and never sat the test. Is that true, if so, what gives him the right to lecture everyone else?

Whatever way he got his license is irrelevant, he's a figure head and a tosser, that's why he has the job.
But I agree clearing the backlog and getting people to respect the road, and learn about it at a younger age should be worked on hugely. People shouldn't be hitting 21+ with no idea how to drive, I know not everyone is going to have a car but it would be much more useful life skill than say Irish.

PCPhoto

probably going off topic here but why dont they fit all cars/vans etc with tachographs and they can be read in the event of an accident (showing what speeds were done at the time)....failure to have a working tachograph could then be an offence and would be the responsibility of the car owner (not driver as it would open a loophole - where one blames the other)...also insurance companies would write a clause into their contracts that if tachograph shows over limit then coverage is third party only.

back to the topic at hand..... L-Drivers on the Motorway should have their cars taken - if anything - to teach them to respect the law/rules of the road.

Personally I think "Rules of the Road", "Emergency First Aid" and "basic Car Mechanics" should be part of school education....and no-one should be allowed to drive without proper education on how to deal with car problems or in the event of an accident.....maybe people need to meet victims of road accidents to "Learn" of the risks involved with driving.

Anyway ..just my two cents

Alun

Noffles wrote: »

This madness has been created by yourselves... how the f*ck any sensible country can let someone apply for a license and then simply get in a car and drive off is IDIOTIC... At least that's been stopped.... but amusingly the ****head mentality is still there.

Even now when it's supposed to be illegal to drive with an L plate unaccompanied you still see these f*ckwits driving alone...

FFS it always was illegal, even before the new law changes (except for the bizarre 2nd provisional thing). The revised law did little to change that except for a renaming of the provisional licence to Learner's Permit, the removal of the 2nd provisional fudge, and the requirement that the accompanying driver have held their full licence for more than 2 years, that's all.

The thing was it was not enforced (which it is now up to a degree, but not nearly enough) and secondly it was, and to a very large extent, still is socially acceptable amongst some circles. Hell, I know an otherwise perfectly sensible mother (who's Swiss as well!) who has just bought her 18 year old daughter a car to drive back and forth to college in Donegal, and she drives around on L plates and a Learners Permit with only a few weeks of lessons as well. When challenged, she shrugged her shoulders and said "How else is she going to get home at weekends?". Until you totally eradicate that kind of mentality, this kind of thing will continue.

corktina

I believe a license of any kind shouldnt be provided unless the applicant has completed a course with a professional instructer, say 10 hours ....

Noffles

Alun wrote: »

FFS it always was illegal, even before the new law changes (except for the bizarre 2nd provisional thing). The revised law did little to change that except for a renaming of the provisional licence to Learner's Permit, the removal of the 2nd provisional fudge, and the requirement that the accompanying driver have held their full licence for more than 2 years, that's all.

The thing was it was not enforced (which it is now up to a degree, but not nearly enough) and secondly it was, and to a very large extent, still is socially acceptable amongst some circles. Hell, I know an otherwise perfectly sensible mother (who's Swiss as well!) who has just bought her 18 year old daughter a car to drive back and forth to college in Donegal, and she drives around on L plates and a Learners Permit with only a few weeks of lessons as well. When challenged, she shrugged her shoulders and said "How else is she going to get home at weekends?". Until you totally eradicate that kind of mentality, this kind of thing will continue.

To be honest I always thought it was legal...??? I'm not Irish though and well when you see it done so often you tend to presume that it's allowed... I'll stand by my comment though... it's f*cking idiotic!

Alun

Noffles wrote: »

To be honest I always thought it was legal...??? I'm not Irish though and well when you see it done so often you tend to presume that it's allowed... I'll stand by my comment though... it's f*cking idiotic!

I'm not Irish either, and was gobsmacked when I arrived here and discovered the degree to which it was happening. When I came here on holidays a few times before coming here to live I recall being a bit confused with the sheer number of cars driving around with L plates on and only one occupant, i.e. the driver, but didn't think too much about it at the time. I remember telling a couple of German tourists about it as well, and I'm sure they were convinced I was spinning them a yarn.

seamus

Noffles wrote: »

To be honest I always thought it was legal...??? I'm not Irish though and well when you see it done so often you tend to presume that it's allowed... I'll stand by my comment though... it's f*cking idiotic!

It's not legal, but for years it's been

1. Tolerated by the public
2. Seen as "normal"
3. Largely ignored by the Gardai

Points 1 & 2 have changed a lot in the last 10 years and there's a much larger contingent of the public (including learner drivers) who realise that in fact it's not a good idea.

My primary issue with it is not so much that it's illegal nor the fact that they're learners - they don't actually cause many serious accidents in terms of their presence on the road. The offence itself is not that major or heinous in reality. The issue is that from the very start of their driving career, people are shown by example that it's perfectly OK to ignore the road laws so long as you don't get caught.

It's still largely ignored by the Gardai, because there's not a massive amount they can do about it..

Stekelly wrote:

No they wouldnt. they have shown they are not willing to clamp down with the current laws and the ability to issue large fines for driving unnaccompanied so why would a change in consequences (to the driver) change their (the Gardai) attitude?

Although theoretically the size of a fine should reflect the size of the offence, in this case it doesn't. Not from a legal point of view anyway.
Driving uninsured or unlicenced is a criminal offence and can land you with a custodial sentence. They also have other, long-lasting consequences such as driving bans or increases in insurance. Driving unaccompanied is a road traffic offence and cannot get you a custodial sentence. It has no long-lasting consequences in reality, so from the Garda's point of view, the hassle involved in bringing an unaccompanied driver to court doesn't justify the punishment at the end.
In fact, given the length of time it would take to bring such a case, it's plausible (and likely) that the driver will have passed their test before the court case, and at that stage afaik the judge would be unable to revoke or endorse the full licence. I could be wrong on that point though.

Cuddlesworth

What's the difference between passing your driving test and going on to a motorway, not passing your driving test and going onto a motorway?

Besides the piece of paper which says you capable of driving around at 50kph and can reverse around a corner.

I know a woman who refuses to use fifth gear, drives down the motorway at 60kph,never uses her indicators and drives the entire time in the outside lane. Never once has she been pulled by police and she will continue to do it for the foreseeable future because she can't understand what she is doing wrong.

Sort that out first.

Jeanxx

Just throwing my two cents in on this topic as a learner driver myself.

I am currently getting lessons with a professional instructor only (as no one in my house drives) and even just out on the road for a couple of hours a week I've witnessed incompetence by full licenced drivers (not indicating, tailgating, pulling out in front etc...) as well as learner drivers. We get a lot of stick for having L-plates because people on the road forget quickly that they had to learn in the beginning, it's not an innate ability.

Saying that I don't agree with L-drivers driving on the motorway, I personally wouldn't be able to do it even if I wanted to...!

I need a car to get to college and work because the public transport is so bad to the places I have to go and is costing me way too way especially because I have to get taxi's a lot of the time. I don't and won't be able to have a full licenced driver with me for those times because it's just not feasible and in a lot of people's cases it's just not. The law really didn't take into account many people's situations. Not everyone has a full licenced driver ready to go to work or college with them!

corktina

whats your excuse for not passing the test first ? there is no waiting list to speak of now..

at least your getting proper lessons, well done,but you know the the license you have isnt to facilitate you going to work or college, its to allow you to learn to drive and when you have reached the required standard and proved it THEN you can drive to work or college.

Jeanxx

corktina wrote: »

whats your excuse for not passing the test first ? there is no waiting list to speak of now..

at least your getting proper lessons, well done,but you know the the license you have isnt to facilitate you going to work or college, its to allow you to learn to drive and when you have reached the required standard and proved it THEN you can drive to work or college.

I'm only learning to drive for the last four months. I haven't reached the six month period when I can apply for my test.

I know exactly what the learner permit is but I'm still going to drive to work and college while I am waiting for my driving test and when I feel confident and prepared enough to drive on my own.

Bluefoam

Jeanxx wrote: »

I've witnessed incompetence by full licenced drivers (not indicating, tailgating, pulling out in front etc...) as well as learner drivers. We get a lot of stick for having L-plates because people on the road forget quickly that they had to learn in the beginning, it's not an innate ability.

I think that there is a big difference between capable drivers purposely flouting the rules of the road and driving in an aggressive manner (there are penalties for this type of driving) & drivers who do not possess the skills to drive in a manner that is safe & progressive...

Jeanxx wrote: »

I need a car to get to college and work because the public transport is so bad to the places I have to go and is costing me way too way especially because I have to get taxi's a lot of the time. I don't and won't be able to have a full licensed driver with me for those times because it's just not feasible and in a lot of people's cases it's just not.

As difficult as it is to manage your life without a car, you owe it to other drivers to become competent and skilled before you drive alone - the state dictates that this is measured by your ability to pass the driving test...

I find it disturbing that people go to college, get a job & then when their situation requires, they have an immediate need for a car & decide they can't live without ir. Why don't people plan ahead and learn to drive at an early stage? It like going to school and deciding not to do maths - then when they get an interview to be an accountant they wonder why they can't just learn on the job...

Jeanxx wrote: »

The law really didn't take into account many people's situations. Not everyone has a full licensed driver ready to go to work or college with them!

Its you job to follow the law - they can't tailor the law to suit your circumstances - To be honest I need a big wad of cash, but the government didn't consider my circumstances when they outlawed armed bank robbery...

Bluefoam

Jeanxx wrote: »

I'm only learning to drive for the last four months. I haven't reached the six month period when I can apply for my test.

I know exactly what the learner permit is but I'm still going to drive to work and college while I am waiting for my driving test and when I feel confident and prepared enough to drive on my own.

I hope you don't kill anyone.

Jeanxx

Bluefoam wrote: »

I hope you don't kill anyone.

Yes I hope I don't either because that is why I clearly stated 'confident and prepared' enough to drive on my own.

I wouldn't even think of going out to drive on my own now at this stage. So you can stop worrying.

I can't keep getting professional lessons. I need to go out on my own at one stage even if it's just the causeway or the beach. How am I supposed to pass my test if I only get one lesson a week? Some of my mates who drive aren't too happy to let me drive their cars even to practise and fair enough I can see where they're coming from and I completely see where you are coming from too. I'm not disputing that.

In fairness though I'm twenty so I didn't leave it late to learn to drive. Yes it is my job to follow the law but say that to the drug dealers and scumbags out there who are doing worse things to make people's lives a misery. It's their job too but they're not doing it.

Of course I could go out there and kill someone tomorrow but so could a full licenced driver. How many road deaths have you heard of that involve a learner driver? Not too many. I'm not saying it doesn't happen because it does.

I'm not saying I'm a good driver at all, I'm not saying I could go out there and drive better than someone with plenty of years experience I'm just saying when my instructor is happy with my driving, when I've booked my test and when I feel ready I'm going to drive on a provisional and obey the other rules of the road.

Alun

Jeanxx wrote: »

Yes I hope I don't either because that is why I clearly stated 'confident and prepared' enough to drive on my own.

Ah, well, that's alright then. Are you a qualified driving examiner? No, I didn't think so. So what makes you think you're qualified to judge when you're good enough?

I've got news for you ... millions of people, all over the world, have learnt to drive under regimes where they're only allowed on the road when taking professional lessons with qualified driving instructors in dual controlled cars. How do you think they manage to learn? Not entirely coincidentally these are countries with much, much higher driving standards than here.

ardmacha

Yes it is my job to follow the law but say that to the drug dealers and scumbags out there who are doing worse things to make people's lives a misery. It's their job too but they're not doing it.

OK so our approach is determined by the most irresponsible member of society, because they do something then that makes it alright for me to do something. I don't think that I am justified in acting as a scumbag because someone else does so.

All of these these threads are full of whataboutry, putting forward the principle that something is OK because of some other unreated thing.

Requiring people to do a driving test makes sense in itself, whatever else goes on. It may not be a perfect test, but that is a reason to improve it, not ignore it. Establishing an orderly licence enforcement regime for learner permits can only be start in improving the driving standards on the road. When this problem has been sorted perhaps attention can move to other issues, in particular a theory test when renewing licences for all drivers would be a good idea.

Cuddlesworth

Bluefoam wrote: »

Why don't people plan ahead and learn to drive at an early stage?

I can't speak for anybody else, but as a male cost was a huge reason. I remember being quoted 6k for a 1litre micra at 18. Or 2.5k to be put on my fathers car as a named driver. I would struggle to pay that now with a full time job.

I held a provisional for 4 years before passing my test. I didn't drive during that time as I couldn't afford to. When I could I got my license I sold my car and bought a bike. Currently waiting 7 months now for a date.

Jeanxx

Alun wrote: »

Ah, well, that's alright then. Are you a qualified driving examiner? No, I didn't think so. So what makes you think you're qualified to judge when you're good enough?

I've got news for you ... millions of people, all over the world, have learnt to drive under regimes where they're only allowed on the road when taking professional lessons with qualified driving instructors in dual controlled cars. How do you think they manage to learn? Not entirely coincidentally these are countries with much, much higher driving standards than here.

I said I'm getting professional lessons.

I also said that when my instructor is happy with my driving and tells me to book my test. I still have another two months before I can do that and I'm still not going to be driving on my own before that.

I can see where people on here are coming from. I'm not disputing that fact. In comparision with other L-drivers out there I'm not the one you should be worried about. Some people just hop in a car nowadays after a few lessons from a friend or a parent and think they can drive.

I know I can't drive safely or properly and I'm not going to get into a car until I can. I'm booking my test as soon as it's possible and when I'm prepared. The way some people are going on you'd swear I'm going to go milling people off the roads. I see what people are saying, of course I do.

Alun

Jeanxx wrote: »

I also said that when my instructor is happy with my driving and tells me to book my test. I still have another two months before I can do that and I'm still not going to be driving on my own before that.

Unfortunately it's not your driving instructor's job to determine whether you're fit to drive on your own, that's the job of the RSA's driving examiners. And if he does (as some do) recommend you to drive on your own for 'practice' before passing your test, then he deserves to have his licence as a driving instructor revoked.

seamus

Jeanxx wrote: »

Saying that I don't agree with L-drivers driving on the motorway, I personally wouldn't be able to do it even if I wanted to...!

With all due respect Jean, this comment sums up exactly why L-drivers shouldn't be driving alone - because they lack the experience to judge just how capable they are and aren't in any given situation and can get themselves into trouble very quickly which they can't get out of.

In fact, there would be nothing wrong with allowing L-drivers on a motorway, supervised. Motorways are easy and they're safe, and provided that someone is confident enough and experienced keeping control of their vehicle, there's no good reason why someone without a full licence shouldn't be allowed on a motorway, supervised.

Now, I'm not saying that someone should be able to pick up their brand new provisional licence, grab their mate with his 2-year-old licence and head off down the motorway, because that would be madness. But in the later stages of the learning process, it's absolute madness that we *don't* teach our drivers how to use motorways.