learner drivers getting hung out to dry once again

johnmcdnl

Can everyone saying that people from farms and the likes aren't learning to drive properly - they are learning properly but then late at night a few of them decided to take their cars out and rally round the roads at 100mph for the craic..

it's not that their not learning to drive properly but their being reckless for the sake of it in the middle of the night or whenever - they could drive safely if they wanted too

do you honestly think it's because they can't drive correctly or that uncle paddy told them it was acceptable to go drifting or doing handbrake turns in the middle of the night...

just because the stats say that the fatal accidents occur in the middle of the night in the countryside it doesn't mean it's because country lads aren't safe drivers..

their just reckless when they want to be... but if their mindset was different they'd be perfectly safe drivers

mandatory lessons won't change mindsets...

Chuchoter

Why oh why didn't I learn to drive last year!!??:(:mad:

Thoie

johnmcdnl wrote: »

it's not that their not learning to drive properly but their being reckless for the sake of it in the middle of the night or whenever - they could drive safely if they wanted too

do you honestly think it's because they can't drive correctly or that uncle paddy told them it was acceptable to go drifting or doing handbrake turns in the middle of the night...

Rubbish. It's nothing to do with where they're from, but to do with the fact that they are lacking the experience to know what they're doing. If they could "drive safely if they wanted to" they'd know at what speed to approach a corner, when not to overtake, etc. They'd be able to read the road ahead and adjust their driving accordingly. Not only are they lacking in experience, but they don't know that they're lacking some of the basic skills.

No matter how much driving I did around fields in old bangers from the age of 12, it didn't mean I could go straight on to the road. All I had learned from driving around fields were some of the mechanics of driving - how to change gear, brake, reverse. It meant that when I was 17 I skipped over the first hour or so of cutting out, stuttering along and over-steering. It gave no grounding in the experience needed to be a good driver on the roads.

christina_x

Im doing my theory soon, does anybody know if this will effect me once i have my provisional??:o

hypersquirrel

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Can everyone saying that people from farms and the likes aren't learning to drive properly - they are learning properly but then late at night a few of them decided to take their cars out and rally round the roads at 100mph for the craic..

it's not that their not learning to drive properly but their being reckless for the sake of it in the middle of the night or whenever - they could drive safely if they wanted too

do you honestly think it's because they can't drive correctly or that uncle paddy told them it was acceptable to go drifting or doing handbrake turns in the middle of the night...

just because the stats say that the fatal accidents occur in the middle of the night in the countryside it doesn't mean it's because country lads aren't safe drivers..

their just reckless when they want to be... but if their mindset was different they'd be perfectly safe drivers

mandatory lessons won't change mindsets...

Sorry but I fail to see how driving around fields and your own lane means that you are able to drive properly. I'm from the country and sure I was able to stop, start, change gears, turn etc. That means nothing though. Driving around a field is never going to have you prepared for driving on a busy road. Unless you're having to contend with traffic lights, filter lanes, a whole variety of different junctions and most importantly other road users in said field then you don't know how to drive.

Introducing mandatory lessons isn't going to make people stop driving like lunatics but it will weed out people who simply don't know how to drive. I know plenty of people on fill licenses who haven't got a clue about how to indicate at a roundabout, how to safely change lanes etc. Funnily enough these are all people who had Mammy, Daddy or old Auntie Mary teach them.

johnmcdnl

Thoie wrote: »

Rubbish. It's nothing to do with where they're from, but to do with the fact that they are lacking the experience to know what they're doing. If they could "drive safely if they wanted to" they'd know at what speed to approach a corner, when not to overtake, etc. They'd be able to read the road ahead and adjust their driving accordingly. Not only are they lacking in experience, but they don't know that they're lacking some of the basic skills.

No matter how much driving I did around fields in old bangers from the age of 12, it didn't mean I could go straight on to the road. All I had learned from driving around fields were some of the mechanics of driving - how to change gear, brake, reverse. It meant that when I was 17 I skipped over the first hour or so of cutting out, stuttering along and over-steering. It gave no grounding in the experience needed to be a good driver on the roads.

I didn't go straight to the road either - but I didn't need to spend nearly 600 euro on mandatory lessons either - I learned driving around the roads a bit on the slow side and picking it all up myself as I went along... Do you really think young lads are so ignorant that they don't know that you can't do 80mph around a tight corner... they only end up trying these stunts when the "boys" are in the car with them and they want to show off.... If they wanted to drive safely they would - they'll do their lessons and drive nice and slowly and safely for their lessons but once the instructor gets out of the car they take off and are back to their rallying round the roads to show off to each other... the lads who do these stunts do the lessons but it goes in one ear and out the other... in fairness - how many of fatal crashes are by young lads LEARNING to drive compared to the young lads who try to go round corners at 100mph with 10 lads squeezed into the back seat in the middle of the night...

If you put a speed limiter on every car in the country you could watch the number of deaths on the road drop just like that... and who can have any sort of justifiable reason to remove them - exactly...

that'd stop a lot of the carnage among young lads - not making them spend 600 euro on a rake of lessons...

I'm fully for making the roads safer but seeing as "speed kills" why not just make speeding impossible................

Venom

johnmcdnl wrote: »

I didn't go straight to the road either - but I didn't need to spend nearly 600 euro on mandatory lessons either - I learned driving around the roads a bit on the slow side and picking it all up myself as I went along... Do you really think young lads are so ignorant that they don't know that you can't do 80mph around a tight corner... they only end up trying these stunts when the "boys" are in the car with them and they want to show off.... If they wanted to drive safely they would - they'll do their lessons and drive nice and slowly and safely for their lessons but once the instructor gets out of the car they take off and are back to their rallying round the roads to show off to each other... the lads who do these stunts do the lessons but it goes in one ear and out the other... in fairness - how many of fatal crashes are by young lads LEARNING to drive compared to the young lads who try to go round corners at 100mph with 10 lads squeezed into the back seat in the middle of the night...

If you put a speed limiter on every car in the country you could watch the number of deaths on the road drop just like that... and who can have any sort of justifiable reason to remove them - exactly...

that'd stop a lot of the carnage among young lads - not making them spend 600 euro on a rake of lessons...

I'm fully for making the roads safer but seeing as "speed kills" why not just make speeding impossible................

Not only are these retards ignorant to the rules of the road but if they knew how to drive they wouldn't be rallying round the roads to show off to each other. Sadly it's not a case of them just killing themselves but other innocent road users as well

theg81der

I wish they`d just call a spade a spade - "here lads we need to screw some poor suckers to pay for our expenses.........I`ve got it, we needed to shut these fellas up dat we made pay lots to be allowed to give driving lessons -

Media statement - "blah blah safety blah blah road deaths blah blah committee blah blah tighter provisions."

Learner driver - "that`ll be €1000 please". (well by the time you add up everything)

citizen_p

i dont agree with the 12 compulsory lessons, i learned to drive at 13, tractors, jeeps, cars ( i dont speed etc...). most rules of the road are common sense, its implemantation thats hard for people who tend to panic or are starting to drive. so i would purpose a system of instructors signing a form saying he/she is performing to a standard after say 6 cumpolsary lessons, recommending more if necessary.

im currently trying to rush through before these laws are put in place.

where i am lessons are 50 - 60 quid an hour, on top of insurance, car etc... is alot to ask from a student moneywise. if they really want safe driving they should fund some courses, lessons etc....

also the driving supervised by your parents.
1 what if your parents dont drive,
2 i find it hard to get people to go anywhere with me for a "drive", as these people have lives too. anytime my parents could assist me is at night as both work. or me driving my friends around that have full licences (stereotype alert, they dont encourage me to speed)

grumble grumble grumble...............

johnmcdnl

hypersquirrel wrote: »

Sorry but I fail to see how driving around fields and your own lane means that you are able to drive properly. I'm from the country and sure I was able to stop, start, change gears, turn etc. That means nothing though. Driving around a field is never going to have you prepared for driving on a busy road. Unless you're having to contend with traffic lights, filter lanes, a whole variety of different junctions and most importantly other road users in said field then you don't know how to drive.

Introducing mandatory lessons isn't going to make people stop driving like lunatics but it will weed out people who simply don't know how to drive. I know plenty of people on fill licenses who haven't got a clue about how to indicate at a roundabout, how to safely change lanes etc. Funnily enough these are all people who had Mammy, Daddy or old Auntie Mary teach them.

surely if they can't indicate at a roundabout they'll fail the test - so therefore they can indicate at the roundabout but just choose not too... I dunno too many people who fluked passing a driving test... The test is already there to weed out the drivers who can't drive at roundabout or traffic lights etc etc...

hypersquirrel

johnmcdnl wrote: »

surely if they can't indicate at a roundabout they'll fail the test - so therefore they can indicate at the roundabout but just choose not too... I dunno too many people who fluked passing a driving test... The test is already there to weed out the drivers who can't drive at roundabout or traffic lights etc etc...

Not indicating correctly at a roundabout is only grade 2 fault, not a grade 3. It only becomes a grade 3 if it directly results in them obstructing traffic.

starlit

€50 euro for a driving lesson? ye are joking me? You would pay approx €35-€40 where I am depending on the instructor rates.

whadabouchasir

johnmcdnl wrote: »

If you put a speed limiter on every car in the country you could watch the number of deaths on the road drop just like that... and who can have any sort of justifiable reason to remove them - exactly...

I was waiting for someone to mention a speed limiter,just so I can point out how pointless it would be.
1)In order for it to stop people from breaking the speed limit completely the limit would have to be set at 50 km/h.This just isn't practical.
2)It won't stop people from drink driving
3)It won't stop people from overcrowding cars.
4)It won't ensure that people always wear their seat belt
5)It won't stop dangerous driving such as dangerous overtaking,not looking at junctions,not stoppping at stop signs or red lights
6)Even if the limit was set at a reasonable limit like 120 km/h,to allow for the speed limit on motorways,this wouldn't really make much of a difference on back roads or accident blackspots where most of the crashes occur because very few people would actually go over 120 km/h on theses roads anyway.
7)It would be impossible to police and everyone that really wanted to speed would just get the limiter removed.
8)It won't improve the quality of the roads.
The reason why I'm against it is because it wouldn't be practical and wouldn't make much of a diffrence

gollem_1975

I was paying €50 for a 2 hour lesson with Ascari in d9 in my own car. The hourly rate is €30. I 100% have no problem recommending this guy.

Prior to this guy I paid €300 for 10 lessons with Dublin school of motoring with 2 different instructors ( not as good as Ascari tbh )

with these regulations coming in , well regardless of the regulations, I have heard that there is a big growth in the number of driving instructors setting up their own schools over the last few months and this trend is probably set to continue at pace now.

driving lesson prices and cheap hotel rooms....perhaps Dublin tourist board should market the city as a place to learn how to drive :-)

Kimono-Girl

hypersquirrel wrote: »

Introducing mandatory lessons isn't going to make people stop driving like lunatics but it will weed out people who simply don't know how to drive. I know plenty of people on fill licenses who haven't got a clue about how to indicate at a roundabout, how to safely change lanes etc. Funnily enough these are all people who had Mammy, Daddy or old Auntie Mary teach them.

I agree, and lets face it Mammy, Daddy and Auntie Mary may be ok to get you started on the basics but chances are they will just end up teaching you their bad road habits as any driver knows you build up over the years driving!

if you compare me to my OH, when i started driving my friend (had his licence four years and is what i would consider to e an excellent driver) taught me the basics in an empty car park in HIS car for the first few weeks before i got my car, this car park also had a freely open multi story so i learned hill starts/stops...etc

Then when i got my car my friend accompanied me to and from work everyday, and as big a pain in the ass it was he still did it, at this time i also received 10 lessons, the first instructor i got after 1 lesson told me i was ready to take the test, needless to say i didn't believe him and my friend recommended i at least take three lessons anyway, so i booked a different instructor and took 9 lessons with him, he also agreed my driving was good, but continued to take me on harder routes (narrow lanes etc...) and teach me the basics of driving, he also told me what to do in icy conditions...etc

two days and six months after i got my provisional, i passed my test with only one minor mark ( i had to reverse around a corner in very low visibility due to a hail stone shower)...

My OH, (coincidently i am from the city he is from the country for whom ever that matters to) had Mammy and Daddy and big brother teaching him, he said to me himself his mammy made him nervous when she was there, almost making him crash with her fretting...etc he got 1 lesson from an instructor before his test and passed...BUT in winter when it was all icy my experience stood to me which resulted in me driving to his house in the country on an Icy Christmas eve without incident, he didn't have the confidence to drive the icy roads, he is now is a good driver but only due to years of experience on our roads, but it does show he lacked the lessons. I used constantly have to remind him to indicate around roundabouts, or when he is overtaking a cyclist...etc he used cruise too which my instructor trained me not to do...

in my opinion if people have to be forced into taking them it is a good thing, expensive or not if you want to have the privilege of driving, there are expenses involved,The car itself, Insurance, Tax, Nct, Petrol and now Lessons so start saving if you WANT to drive!

it might not change mindsets but with the right instructors we'll get a better standard of driving here!

johnmurphy2010

I think alot of the rules that the RSA are soon to be implementing are correct - but some are just plain silly.

Firstly, I think that it is a brilliant idea that new fully qualified drivers must display an 'R' plate for their first 2 years on the road. A relation of mine actually wrote to a top man at the RSA years ago suggesting exactly this rule and they completely fobbed him off. Perhaps if he had of having any connection to the late late show they may have taken him seriously and appointed him chairman of the RSA. Just shows you this po*y country works on "it's not what you know, it's who you know".

I can see the idea behind the 12 lessons (16 for bikes). A learner could go out and buy a little cheap car, get a relation/friend (assuming they are fully qualified) to sit beside them and drive around. That doesn't mean the learner is getting any proper instruction. So in a way this rule is a good thing. I know cost is always a factor (afterall, money makes the world go 'round), but I think that this will (even if in a very small way) increase the standard of drivers on the road.

However, one of the silly ideas is this whole 'learner log' that is to be signed by a parent and instructor. I cannot see any 'real' logic in this. I was told by an RSA official that the MAIN REASON for this rule is to prove that the learner driver took lessons from a qualified RSA instructor when going to sit their driving test. Wouldn't receipts do that?

Anyway, I think that if the RSA want to REALLY clamp down on the whole 'dangerous driving' and help stop the 'speed kills' thing, another thing they could do, which I have always said they should have done for many years now, is this:

As it currently stands, a person (male or female irrespective of age) can sit their test in a 1.0Litre niissan micra, pass, get their full license and then immediately hop into (and drive) a 2.0Litre bmw which they are not at all capable of handling. After all a 1.0litre micra and a 2.0Litre bmw are two completely different animals. (believe me, I have driven both)

So what I think should happen is that if you sit your driving test in a motor vehicle that falls within a specific engine capacity range/vehicle size, you may only drive a vehicle within (or less than) that engine capacity range/vehicle size.

less engine capacity - less power!

I understand that a 1.0Litre nissan micra can go at dangerously high speeds, but one problem with driving big cars with big engines as opposed to litte/medium sized cars with little/medium sized engines is that your perception of speed will alter a bit. For example, if you were driving a 1.0 litre micra down the road at 100km/hr, it would feel like your screaming along the road at rip roaring speed. However, you do the same speed in a 2.0litre bmw. It will feel like your crawling along the road and you will want to increase your speed.
Now...apply that to a 17 year old 'boy racer' who has just passed his test in a 1.0 litre micra on day1 and on day2 he goes out and buys a 2.0 bmw. what have you got?...speed. Not only that, but he wont be able to handle the car. His view of the world around him while driving will drastically diminish because hes driving a much bigger car. In essence, he's an accident waiting to happen.

So that's my view on some of the new rules and a suggestion of a new one.

[oh, i refferred to 'boy racers' and 'he' in the last paragraph really to illustrate a point - but i suppose it can apply to anyone really]

cheers

jm

EverybodyLies

4th of April. Should have mine done in March. Can't afford lessons, so fingers crossed.

Dempsey

johnmurphy2010 wrote: »

I think alot of the rules that the RSA are soon to be implementing are correct - but some are just plain silly.

Firstly, I think that it is a brilliant idea that new fully qualified drivers must display an 'R' plate for their first 2 years on the road. A relation of mine actually wrote to a top man at the RSA years ago suggesting exactly this rule and they completely fobbed him off. Perhaps if he had of having any connection to the late late show they may have taken him seriously and appointed him chairman of the RSA. Just shows you this po*y country works on "it's not what you know, it's who you know".

I can see the idea behind the 12 lessons (16 for bikes). A learner could go out and buy a little cheap car, get a relation/friend (assuming they are fully qualified) to sit beside them and drive around. That doesn't mean the learner is getting any proper instruction. So in a way this rule is a good thing. I know cost is always a factor (afterall, money makes the world go 'round), but I think that this will (even if in a very small way) increase the standard of drivers on the road.

However, one of the silly ideas is this whole 'learner log' that is to be signed by a parent and instructor. I cannot see any 'real' logic in this. I was told by an RSA official that the MAIN REASON for this rule is to prove that the learner driver took lessons from a qualified RSA instructor when going to sit their driving test. Wouldn't receipts do that?

Anyway, I think that if the RSA want to REALLY clamp down on the whole 'dangerous driving' and help stop the 'speed kills' thing, another thing they could do, which I have always said they should have done for many years now, is this:

As it currently stands, a person (male or female irrespective of age) can sit their test in a 1.0Litre niissan micra, pass, get their full license and then immediately hop into (and drive) a 2.0Litre bmw which they are not at all capable of handling. After all a 1.0litre micra and a 2.0Litre bmw are two completely different animals. (believe me, I have driven both)

So what I think should happen is that if you sit your driving test in a motor vehicle that falls within a specific engine capacity range/vehicle size, you may only drive a vehicle within (or less than) that engine capacity range/vehicle size.

less engine capacity - less power!

I understand that a 1.0Litre nissan micra can go at dangerously high speeds, but one problem with driving big cars with big engines as opposed to litte/medium sized cars with little/medium sized engines is that your perception of speed will alter a bit. For example, if you were driving a 1.0 litre micra down the road at 100km/hr, it would feel like your screaming along the road at rip roaring speed. However, you do the same speed in a 2.0litre bmw. It will feel like your crawling along the road and you will want to increase your speed.
Now...apply that to a 17 year old 'boy racer' who has just passed his test in a 1.0 litre micra on day1 and on day2 he goes out and buys a 2.0 bmw. what have you got?...speed. Not only that, but he wont be able to handle the car. His view of the world around him while driving will drastically diminish because hes driving a much bigger car. In essence, he's an accident waiting to happen.

So that's my view on some of the new rules and a suggestion of a new one.

[oh, i refferred to 'boy racers' and 'he' in the last paragraph really to illustrate a point - but i suppose it can apply to anyone really]

cheers

jm

1) the minimum lesson rule is just a money making measure, not everyone needs that amount of lessons to be a competent driver. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

2) Learner log (as said), complete nonsense tbh

3) Difference between some cars is spot on, people on provisionals should be restricted and so should people on full licences under 2 years.

Had a near miss with a boy racer last night, we were meeting on a street that usually has the room for one, he was driving about 45-50mph in a 30 zone (yes its easy notice someone driving over the limit) and only for that there was a gap in the parked traffic, i wonder what would have happened.

It was midnight and he had his dims on, if you want to call them dims, it took me a while to realise that there was a car coming against me because all I could see was a moving black object.

I was pissed, he didnt slow down at all, and thought if he did hit me (it be a head on too) I'd crawl out of the car and fetch my hurley from the boot and make **** of him.

These are the type of people that need to be hammered, we need to find a system that sounds these lads out and restricts them not a rule that hammers everyone because of them.

johnmurphy2010

johnmurphy2010 wrote: »

I understand that a 1.0Litre nissan micra can go at dangerously high speeds, but one problem with driving big cars with big engines as opposed to litte/medium sized cars with little/medium sized engines is that your perception of speed will alter a bit. For example, if you were driving a 1.0 litre micra down the road at 100km/hr, it would feel like your screaming along the road at rip roaring speed. However, you do the same speed in a 2.0litre bmw. It will feel like your crawling along the road and you will want to increase your speed.
Now...apply that to a 17 year old 'boy racer' who has just passed his test in a 1.0 litre micra on day1 and on day2 he goes out and buys a 2.0 bmw. what have you got?...speed. Not only that, but he wont be able to handle the car. His view of the world around him while driving will drastically diminish because hes driving a much bigger car. In essence, he's an accident waiting to happen.

So that's my view on some of the new rules and a suggestion of a new one.

[oh, i refferred to 'boy racers' and 'he' in the last paragraph really to illustrate a point - but i suppose it can apply to anyone really]

cheers

jm

I've been driving a 1l micra for the last year or so. I saw the most gorgeous 2.4 convertible I'd love. Can I get insurance on anything above 1.4? can I fcuk. I'll have to have my licence a couple more years for that, or pay out 2 grand insurance.
Whatever about the rules the insurance companies are enforcing that one!

stovelid

theg81der wrote: »

Media statement - "blah blah safety blah blah road deaths blah blah committee blah blah tighter provisions."

Learner driver - "that`ll be €1000 please". (well by the time you add up everything)

Car dealer - "That'll be X grand for a car with an inappropriate engine size for a learner"

Learner: "woot!""

Insurance company - "That'll be an exorbitant amount of insurance for a car with an inappropriate engine size for a learner"

Learner: "woot!""

fyp

Venom

bluewolf wrote: »

I've been driving a 1l micra for the last year or so. I saw the most gorgeous 2.4 convertible I'd love. Can I get insurance on anything above 1.4? can I fcuk. I'll have to have my licence a couple more years for that, or pay out 2 grand insurance.
Whatever about the rules the insurance companies are enforcing that one!

The insurance companies won't insure anything above a 1.5l for a learner these days.

Venom

Venom wrote: »

The insurance companies won't insure anything above a 1.5l for a learner these days.

I'm not a learner
Table says licence less than 2 or 3 years, nothing above 1.4

meathstevie

snuggles285 wrote: »

Yes I have been learning to drive the past two years but It has been very broken such as I have a couple of months of lessons, then stop due to bad weather conditions and other comittments and might not drive again for 2-4 months, confidence breaks down, nerves get the better of me again and then start driving again and the same cycle starts again...so never have been able to constantly drive on a monthly basis since I started. I'd say I really only have about a years driving experience overall. I really still see myself as a beginner still and no where near ready for my test. Neve done one. Hope to within the next year.

Sorry but are you actually saying bad driving weather puts you off driving ?
Don't take it wrong but learning to drive in winter is the best time to learn. When you've learnt to deal with ice, snow, fog and rain there's hardly anything left that can be thrown at you.

lol at bad driving conditions
Maybe if it was compulsory to drive in bad conditions, people might have a little more cop on that lights are necessary when driving in lashing rain, black skies and poor visibility

ShooterSF

Only passed my test last month. Only did one pre-test, that was my collection of lessons. Instead I read the rules of the road, watched some good videos online and read the motor forums and such, keeping an eye on habits that infuriate other drivers.
Looking back I should have done a lesson or two for confidence if nothing lese but this mandatory 12 lessons sounds like bollox.

The driving test is there to test your ability to drive. How you gain that ability is irrelevant. If people who are not good enough to drive are passing the test then change the ****ing test! Better still introduce scaling licenses with multiple tests and compulsory re-tests every 7 or 8 years.

Mint Sauce

bluewolf wrote: »

lol at bad driving conditions
Maybe if it was compulsory to drive in bad conditions, people might have a little more cop on that lights are necessary when driving in lashing rain, black skies and poor visibility

absolutly agree 100%, really annoys my meeting cars in lashing rain or dusk with not even a side/parking light

my only regret is not getting experience in winter conditions, just passed my test a few months ago, so am yet to drive in the snow and ice, only started lessons before xmas but where car was local roads where impassable and did not have access to car at that time

Ickle Magoo

It's hardly learner drivers getting hung out to dry - it's trying to improve the general standard of driving - which is abysmal - starting with the newest on the roads. I learnt to drive on lessons only, my parents wouldn't take me out A) so I didn't prang their car but also so I didn't pick up their bad habits. I only got a car once fully qualified to drive it - that included a reverse park, something that seems to be missing from the irish testing judging by the parking car abandonment you see around the place.

I've never understood and most non-irish are completely flabbergasted that you allow people with absolutely no certification on your roads and then ask them to pass their test when they get a chance, it's completely the wrong way around. A full licence should be compulsory for car/insurance purchase and only driving instructors should be allowed to have learners driving their cars.

It won't change the horrendous driving of the multitudes that have benefited from what must be the most lax road laws and law enforcement in the western world but perhaps the next generation of drivers will know that driving in the dark requires lights and that you look right at a roundabout. :cool:

Sofiztikated

To be honest, this is a typically Irish response to a problem.

Firstly, driving is a privilege, not a right. It doesn't matter if we have no transport system, you do NOT have an automatic right to drive.

Getting an unqualified person to fill in your log book to say you've been practicing? What if you don't get the log fill in, do you get detention? Held back after driving school, and given lines?

The ones dying on the roads, do you honestly think that making them take 12 lessons is going to stop them from cramming 29 people into the back of "De Mammies" Passat or Avensis, and hurtling down B roads as 60mph/100kmh, and ploughing them into a tree? No.

So how are we going to stop them? Let me see. Have the AGS Traffic Core do something about the amount of poor driving? Maybe.

Look at it this way, we have SUCH a disregard for cars in this country, we have no respect for them. Honestly, if you are a driver yourself, how many times in the last month have you actually checked your for oil/had it checked for oil. What about brakes? Lights? Do you put on your lights in poor visibility?

Now you may ask what has this got to do with learner drivers. Let me tell you. If you are educated to ensure that your car is operating correctly, and functioning properly, the car will operate to its designed capabilities. You may also learn that the car is a machine that is capable of speed. Now speed in itself is not going to kill you. Speeding will. Incorrect speeds. Doing 110kmh on a road designated 80kmh is probably not the best of ideas.

And to the people crying about how "Oh poor students, can't afford this, waa waa waa?" Well doesn't that just suck. Fact of the matter is, you don't have an automatic right to drive. If you can't afford it, don't do it. Owning a car is expensive. Purchasing. Taxing. Insuring. Maintenance. Learning to drive. Unfortunately it costs money.

Educate and police. Better idea that manditory lessons.

Oh and Johnmcdnl, just because you can drive a tractor, doesn't mean that you have an automatic right to drive a car. And how did you learn to drive said tractor? How do you know you are operating said tractor correctly? yes you can make it move forward and back, but are you ACTUALLY operating it right? Correct lines on the road? Signals? Do you know the rules of the road for said tractor?

Cookie_Monster

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I only got a car once fully qualified to drive it - that included a reverse park, something that seems to be missing from the irish testing judging by the parking car abandonment you see around the place.

the reverse around the corner is to simulate this. they obviously can't do it into a smaller space with cars in case you **** it up and damage cars. There is no parallel park though... (or many many other things)

johnmcdnl

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Oh and Johnmcdnl, just because you can drive a tractor, doesn't mean that you have an automatic right to drive a car. And how did you learn to drive said tractor? How do you know you are operating said tractor correctly? yes you can make it move forward and back, but are you ACTUALLY operating it right? Correct lines on the road? Signals? Do you know the rules of the road for said tractor?

I learned all my hand signals and lanes etc etc etc for my theory test - isn't that what the theory test is for???

anyone what to tell me why I did my theory test for at all???? was it just for the craic because apparently learning all the signals and when to indicate and stopping distances etc etc etc etc etc etc for the theory is a waste of time

yes - I do know all my lanes and hand signals because to get my provisional/tractor license I had to show I knew them all for my theory test

Ickle Magoo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the reverse around the corner is to simulate this. they obviously can't do it into a smaller space with cars in case you **** it up and damage cars. There is no parallel park though... (or many many other things)

If I remember correctly - it was a wee while ago now - I had to do a reverse park, a parallel park, reverse round a corner, go on a dual carriageway, uphill start and all the rest. They found places with spaces between walls or bollards to do the parking - I don't think there is any reason not to include it in the test. I've had to reverse peoples cars in and out of spaces for them they are so bad at it! :eek:

johnmurphy2010

bluewolf wrote: »

I've been driving a 1l micra for the last year or so. I saw the most gorgeous 2.4 convertible I'd love. Can I get insurance on anything above 1.4? can I fcuk. I'll have to have my licence a couple more years for that, or pay out 2 grand insurance.
Whatever about the rules the insurance companies are enforcing that one!

You have just proven my point. thank you.

From what you have just stated, I gather you are on the road probably 1 year at the most. You are driving a 1.0 litre micra which I may only assume is the car you done you test in and now, only being on the road for a very short period of time want to drive a 2.4 litre car which you are in no way capable of handling. (I don't care how much you say that you are a "great driver")

Doesn't it further emphasise my points the fact that the insurance company will charge you alot of money to insure you on a 2.4 litre. They are assuming (with good cause) that you will end up either creaming yourself, or worst, someone else.

However, if you had money, you could legally still insure yourself on the 2.4 litre car and drive it and no guard can stop you (unless you break the law in some way).

If it were up to me, assuming the car you done your test in was a 1.0 litre micra, you would only be legally allowed to drive a car with a max engine capacity of 1.2.

Also, another thing I don't get is that....
Even if you drive a 1.0 litre micra, a 1.6 litre golf, a 2.0 trooper, or whatever...you can only drive an absolute max of 120km/hr.

Actually, if the RSA brought this rule in, they would also make a mint in the process of assisting saving lives because everytime someone wants to change their car for one that has a far bigger capacity engine, they must go through the system and sit a test.

A cant see the downside of this one really.

Noreen1

johnmurphy2010 wrote: »

You have just proven my point. thank you.

From what you have just stated, I gather you are on the road probably 1 year at the most. You are driving a 1.0 litre micra which I may only assume is the car you done you test in and now, only being on the road for a very short period of time want to drive a 2.4 litre car which you are in no way capable of handling. (I don't care how much you say that you are a "great driver")

Doesn't it further emphasise my points the fact that the insurance company will charge you alot of money to insure you on a 2.4 litre. They are assuming (with good cause) that you will end up either creaming yourself, or worst, someone else.

However, if you had money, you could legally still insure yourself on the 2.4 litre car and drive it and no guard can stop you (unless you break the law in some way).

If it were up to me, assuming the car you done your test in was a 1.0 litre micra, you would only be legally allowed to drive a car with a max engine capacity of 1.2.

Also, another thing I don't get is that....
Even if you drive a 1.0 litre micra, a 1.6 litre golf, a 2.0 trooper, or whatever...you can only drive an absolute max of 120km/hr.

Actually, if the RSA brought this rule in, they would also make a mint in the process of assisting saving lives because everytime someone wants to change their car for one that has a far bigger capacity engine, they must go through the system and sit a test.

A cant see the downside of this one really.

Er, I think you just missed his point. He cannot get insurance for a car with an engine capacity over 1.4L, at any price. Therefore, he cannot legally drive a 2.0L.

Noreen

FlashGordon1969

HavingCrack wrote: »

I never thought Fianna Fail would ever come out with anything I approve of but every suggestion in this is worthwhile.

Lets face facts within a short period after passing test -your good test habits will pass. So put what you like in the test-have them driving around hazards like lunatics its all to no avail long term. The R plate thing and the double penalty points are good ideas as are speed modifiers BUT what chance of these when you rarely see the Cops these days anyway. Driving five years I can recall one drink driving check and despite frequently speeding (say 10-20 MPH) here and there= no tickets.

johnmurphy2010

johnmurphy2010 wrote: »

You have just proven my point. thank you.

Since I said I can't reasonable get insurance and therefore cannot drive the car, regulations aside, I have indeed proven it and shown you regulations are hardly needed

From what you have just stated, I gather you are on the road probably 1 year at the most. You are driving a 1.0 litre micra which I may only assume is the car you done you test in and now, only being on the road for a very short period of time want to drive a 2.4 litre car which you are in no way capable of handling. (I don't care how much you say that you are a "great driver")

Couple years in all
Did most of my lessons in instructor car but no idea what engine that was

If it were up to me, assuming the car you done your test in was a 1.0 litre micra, you would only be legally allowed to drive a car with a max engine capacity of 1.2.

Ok, good thing it's not up to you

Also, another thing I don't get is that....
Even if you drive a 1.0 litre micra, a 1.6 litre golf, a 2.0 trooper, or whatever...you can only drive an absolute max of 120km/hr.

And It would be nice not to have to take 5 mins to merge up to motorway speed

noreen wrote:

Er, I think you just missed his point. He cannot get insurance for a car with an engine capacity over 1.4L, at any price. Therefore, he cannot legally drive a 2.0L.

She

Well techincally I did get one for 2k but I have no intention of paying 2k insurance for a 5k car

edit:
I'd nearly be for the re-testing for larger cars simply for
1/ people in big cars taking any excuse to tailgate me or other small cars, doing some seriously dangerous driving and having no concept of safety distance
2/ people not knowing to turn the lights on their big cars on :mad:
and 3/ learn what the lanes on a motorway are for.
That should be on the theory test. Instant fail if you say "fast lane" or think the middle lane is the one to be in.

FlashGordon1969

Tend to agree with you about big cars tail gating-are they hiding a deficiency by driving such a big vehicle ,particularly an SUV in Dublin? On another point-if you are on M50 according to guy in AA (conor) you aint meant to be "just cruising in the outer lane" which confused me-if you are going max speed limit in outer lane surely that is not cruising??Perhaps he meant those going under it?

FlashGordon1969

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

Tend to agree with you about big cars tail gating-are they hiding a deficiency by driving such a big vehicle ,particularly an SUV in Dublin? On another point-if you are on M50 according to guy in AA (conor) you aint meant to be "just cruising in the outer lane" which confused me-if you are going max speed limit in outer lane surely that is not cruising??Perhaps he meant those going under it?

Would read to me as "outer [assuming you mean rightmost lane] is for overtaking not driving in" which is a major pet peeve of mine
So now you know, don't drive in the overtaking lane :pac:

stovelid

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

On another point-if you are on M50 according to guy in AA (conor) you aint meant to be "just cruising in the outer lane" which confused me-if you are going max speed limit in outer lane surely that is not cruising??Perhaps he meant those going under it?

They're called overtaking lanes.

The clue to their correct usage is cunningly contained in the name.

starlit

I cannot understand why they don't have driving lessons for first timers driving on a motorway who are newly passed full driving licence holders!

johnmurphy2010

Noreen1 wrote: »

Er, I think you just missed his point. He cannot get insurance for a car with an engine capacity over 1.4L, at any price. Therefore, he cannot legally drive a 2.0L.

Noreen

I suggest you read back what I wrote and your response. I got his point quite well. My point is that he CAN LEGALLY drive a 2.0L. For example, if he won the lotto tomorrow and offered 30,000 to be insured on a 2.0L, are you seriously telling me that they are going to refuse him? Not at all. Therefore, LEGAL / ILLEGAL has nothing to do with it from an insurance companies point of view because it is simply the insurance companies choice to not insure him. It is not that they are not insuring him because it is illegal for him to drive a 2.0L.

johnmurphy2010

johnmurphy2010 wrote: »

I suggest you read back what I wrote and your response. I got his point quite well. My point is that he CAN LEGALLY drive a 2.0L. For example, if he won the lotto tomorrow and offered 30,000 to be insured on a 2.0L, are you seriously telling me that they are going to refuse him? Not at all. Therefore, LEGAL / ILLEGAL has nothing to do with it from an insurance companies point of view because it is simply the insurance companies choice to not insure him. It is not that they are not insuring him because it is illegal for him to drive a 2.0L.

She
And my original point was if I could barely get insurance there's hardly a need for regulation. It was a flippant remark.

flash1080

stovelid wrote: »

They're called overtaking lanes.

The clue to their correct usage is cunningly contained in the name.

Ditto for fog lights and parking lights.

gollem_1975

snuggles285 wrote: »

I cannot understand why they don't have driving lessons for first timers driving on a motorway who are newly passed full driving licence holders!

My instructor ( Ascari ) gives a free motorway lesson after you pass your test.

It is possible to have driving lessons after you pass your test. driving schools don't market them though .. the market seems to be for learner drivers only.

perhaps there should be another exam before you can drive unaccompanied on the motorways also ? could be incentivised by a lower insurance premium ?

Sofiztikated

bluewolf wrote: »

She
And my original point was if I could barely get insurance there's hardly a need for regulation. It was a flippant remark.

Not really. They are not "not insuring you," as they cannot refuse to quote you, especially if you have tried 3 other insurance companies. They can however offer you an outrageous quote.

Then again, even for new drivers, and technically even provisional drivers, 2.0l engines are not outrageously expensive. I don't mean to sound offensive, but because you cannot afford it, does not mean the next learner cannot.

I don't think it should be capacity, but BHP/PS decisive. You can get more bhp out of a standard glanza than out of a standard passat. Having said that, and I would love to see the statistics for this, how many people killing themselves are in modified cars, boy racer cars, (I hate that term.)

Because any time I see horrific crashes, what I can make out of the cars, they are standard.

Dempsey

flash1080 wrote: »

Ditto for fog lights and parking lights.

Dont confuse parking lights with DRL's though.

Personally, I do have parks on whilst driving when light levels are low, its proven to reduce accidents.

FlashGordon1969

The test will be made more complex next few years but driving on the roads will remain appallingly bad. Monitoring young drivers is a good idea with double penalty points etc but making the test more complex is a ton of nonsense because we all slipped back into some bad habits once the test was over.
As for the smart arse telling me about the over taking lane-I actually didnt know that because going on the drivers around me (you probably)I assumed it was the fast lane!! Shame on me!



I normally run a few yellow lights a day for example.

BTW-I know this will elicit the usual pedants and smug drivers but I wont be back so blast away and my sympathy to all learner drivers. I do have my test.

gurramok

'Thousands of Learner Drivers escape the rap'
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thousands-of-ldrivers-avoid-rap-2393120.html

AH response. Fair play, rap is crap

indo wrote:

HALF of all learner drivers due before the courts last year for two basic driving offences escaped without a conviction.

The new figures come after gardai mounted an October bank holiday road safety campaign targeted especially at learner drivers -- statistically among the riskiest road users.

According to the figures from the Courts Service, around 6,700 charges were brought against learner drivers last year for driving without L-plates and driving unaccompanied.

Just 50pc of the 2,118 learner drivers summonsed for driving without L-plates were convicted, and just 51pc of the 2,344 learner drivers summonsed for driving unaccompanied were convicted.

Those brought before the courts represent only a fraction of the 275,000 learner drivers in the country.

The biggest single reason for learner drivers escaping a conviction last year was that -- in around 2,000 cases -- the drivers could not be tracked down by gardai. This resulted in the courts recording these cases "strike out, not served".

Guy:Incognito

Morlar wrote: »

Well a lot of people especially growing up on farms will know how to drive a car without needing 16x lessons from a driving instructor. A lot more people are more comfortable learning from a partner or a parent so making lessons from driving schools/instructors compulsory to those people simply means additional un-needed cost. The cost of lessons has gone up a lot - someone recently told me (this could be way wrong) it was now €50 per lesson. I'd prefer them to overhaul the TEST system rather than making driving instructors compulsory.

The other parts about R plates for 2x years and increased penalty points I would agree with.

Is what your describing above not the same type of haphazard rubbish going on in other aspects of the running of the country that everyone is giving out about? It's all well and good moaning about reforms in other sectors but as soon as it affects you (not you in particular) it's suddenly an attack.

TheDoc

Thank god I found this thread

Was putting my test on the long finger.

Gonig to get it done now this month, save myself some money.

Its tough enough getting moeny to provide for the OTT priced insurance I'm going to have to pay ( quoted €3000 on a 1.4 car at 23yrs of age)

And they want me to pay for 12 hours lessons aswell, kiss me fat one.

If the lessons were provided by a government department, and free of charge, part of the theory test, then I'm all for it.