L-drivers to get penalty points for driving alone

SocSocPol

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ldrivers-to-get-penalty-points-for-driving-alone-3214926.html

Not before time bearing in mind;
A total of 45 unaccompanied learner drivers were involved in fatal crashes over the past 40 months, while a further 74 were involved in collisions resulting in serious injuries in the same period.

The fatalities involving unaccompanied drivers have accounted for one out of every 15 deaths on the roads since January 2009.
However it has to questioned as to why unaccopmanied learners will only recieve 1 penalty point for this offence, and why if they fail to display L plates in an effort to avoid detection they will recieve no penalty points for that offence.

summerskin

I've never understood why they are allowed to drive over here without a full license. In no other country could you do it. You can drive to your driving test, fail it and then drive home. Ridiculous.

It's little wonder that the standard of driving here is so poor.

mawk

maybe we could also deal with the other 14 out of 15 deaths while we are at it?

signage, road markings and sensible speed limits would be nice. and maybe fix the potholes so people don't serve to avoid them.

I also agree that learners need to be accompanied though.

MadsL

One word. Good.

More words. About frickin time...

SocSocPol

mawk wrote: »

maybe we could also deal with the other 14 out of 15 deaths while we are at it?

signage, road markings and sensible speed limits would be nice. and maybe fix the potholes so people don't serve to avoid them.

I also agree that learners need to be accompanied though.

Can you provide a link to evidence that any of the above are responsible for the other 14 out 15 road deaths.
We already have penalty points for speeding, no nct,no seatbelt,using a handheld mobile and a host of other offences, (all of which attract at least 2 penalty points).

Oranage2

I'm not that opinionated on many subjects but people that fail the test shouldn't even be allowed drive on the road even with a full license driver.

The test is 30-40 minutes long and you can make 7 medium mistakes, so basically if you cant drive for 5 minutes without making a mistake then you shouldn't even be allowed on the road full stop, too much of a danger IMO. (If they want to practice then they can do it on private property)


As for learner drivers that haven't failed the test, I suggest they must be accompanied by a full license driver and that they cant drive over 50km/h.

Jester252

Would drive at 50 km/hr not make them more of a risk.

MagicSean

Jester252 wrote: »

Would drive at 50 km/hr not make them more of a risk.

How?

amacca

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm not that opinionated on many subjects but people that fail the test shouldn't even be allowed drive on the road even with a full license driver.

The test is 30-40 minutes long and you can make 7 medium mistakes, so basically if you cant drive for 5 minutes without making a mistake then you shouldn't even be allowed on the road full stop, too much of a danger IMO.


As for learner drivers that haven't failed the test, I suggest they must be accompanied by a full license driver and that they cant drive over 50km/h.

being driving for ten years without a single accident....the test was bullsh1t then...and it appears to be bullsh1t now too

so while I agree that learner drivers shouldn't drive unaccompanied I have some sympathy for learners that fail and need to drive for work etc

if the test wasn't subject to the whim of mini dictators (in some cases - I think the testers should be tested/observed on a regular basis by an independent observer) and the "medium mistakes" as you refer to them were actually mistakes in some cases and not simply things you need to do to satisfy tester that dont actually make you any safer on the road and in some cases are dangerous imo then I would agree totally

some of the things I had to do to pass that test I basically immediately disregarded after I passed and went back to driving safely afterwards -- whats considered to be the "proper way" to drive needs to be looked at too, some things are nonsensical and they still seem to be at them

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

One word. Good.

More words. About frickin time...

Even more words.
Who did it take so long...

Oranage2

Jester252 wrote: »

Would drive at 50 km/hr not make them more of a risk.

I'm open to be proven wrong but the 'driving slow is more dangerous' in my opinion is a myth.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Vicxas

Im glad this is happening, L drivers can be very dangerous on the roads, especially the nervous ones.

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

How?

Mobile roadblock, most accidents are caused by drivers maneovering off the main driving line or entering the driving lane of other vehicles, having to overtake a vehicle that is going unnecessarily slow increases this risk.

Cienciano

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm not that opinionated on many subjects but people that fail the test shouldn't even be allowed drive on the road even with a full license driver.

The test is 30-40 minutes long and you can make 7 medium mistakes, so basically if you cant drive for 5 minutes without making a mistake then you shouldn't even be allowed on the road full stop, too much of a danger IMO. (If they want to practice then they can do it on private property)


As for learner drivers that haven't failed the test, I suggest they must be accompanied by a full license driver and that they cant drive over 50km/h.

And everyone should have to resit the test every 5 years

pablomakaveli

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm not that opinionated on many subjects but people that fail the test shouldn't even be allowed drive on the road even with a full license driver.

The test is 30-40 minutes long and you can make 7 medium mistakes, so basically if you cant drive for 5 minutes without making a mistake then you shouldn't even be allowed on the road full stop, too much of a danger IMO. (If they want to practice then they can do it on private property)


As for learner drivers that haven't failed the test, I suggest they must be accompanied by a full license driver and that they cant drive over 50km/h.

First suggestion is ridiculous tbh. If someone failed their test and wasnt allowed drive on the road after how would they prepare for their re-test? Given one in two people fail the test that would be a lot of people off the road. Driving is a skill that requires practice to pick up.

phasers

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm not that opinionated on many subjects but people that fail the test shouldn't even be allowed drive on the road even with a full license driver.

The test is 30-40 minutes long and you can make 7 medium mistakes, so basically if you cant drive for 5 minutes without making a mistake then you shouldn't even be allowed on the road full stop, too much of a danger IMO. (If they want to practice then they can do it on private property)


As for learner drivers that haven't failed the test, I suggest they must be accompanied by a full license driver and that they cant drive over 50km/h.

Either you don't drive a car or you are not thinking this through. Learners need real road experience. how exactly are they supposed to pass the test if they've never been on a feckin road before.


And 50 km/hr? Really? On dual carriageways?


The fact of the matter is learners are going to drive unaccompanied no matter what, they'll just take off the L plates and chance it. They shouldn't but they do. Your bizarre ideas will only make L drivers worse.

Oranage2

Captain Morgan wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well without doing the test we dont know how good or bad the drivers standard is so have a blanket rule for all is easier. Also restrict learners to only be allowed drive on 50/60km roads so is that they're not holding up others.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

First suggestion is ridiculous tbh. If someone failed their test and wasnt allowed drive on the road after how would they prepare for their re-test? Given one in two people fail the test that would be a lot of people off the road. Driving is a skill that requires practice to pick up.

Good!


Also if somebody was to fail the test nerves, unlucky etc. I'm not against them never being allowed drive. Just that they have to practice in a driving school or on private roads.

Plazaman

Cienciano wrote: »

And everyone should have to resit the test every 5 years

Ehhh, I don't think so. Look at the current backlogs to sit driving tests in some parts of the country and now add perfectly good drivers having to resit a test (which will just turn out to be another Government money making scheme) into the mix and it'll just lead to chaos.

I'll compromise and say that anyone who reachs 12 points on their licence or gets disqualifies for drink driving, should be made to resit a driving test.

average_runner

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm not that opinionated on many subjects but people that fail the test shouldn't even be allowed drive on the road even with a full license driver.

The test is 30-40 minutes long and you can make 7 medium mistakes, so basically if you cant drive for 5 minutes without making a mistake then you shouldn't even be allowed on the road full stop, too much of a danger IMO. (If they want to practice then they can do it on private property)


As for learner drivers that haven't failed the test, I suggest they must be accompanied by a full license driver and that they cant drive over 50km/h.

Not driving over 50k will cause more accidents. People trying to over take them etc

tbh

summerskin wrote: »

I've never understood why they are allowed to drive over here without a full license. In no other country could you do it.

I'm in India at the moment. I can tell you, you're wrong about that

Oranage2

phasers wrote: »

Either you don't drive a car or you are not thinking this through. Learners need real road experience. how exactly are they supposed to pass the test if they've never been on a feckin road before.


And 50 km/hr? Really? On dual carriageways?


The fact of the matter is learners are going to drive unaccompanied no matter what, they'll just take off the L plates and chance it. They shouldn't but they do. Your bizarre ideas will only make L drivers worse.

A little strict perhaps but I think it's exactly what the country need - Have big fines for anybody breaking the rules too will put a stop the the majority of people taking 'a chance'.



On a side note too, I think roads should be graded, have country roads and dual carriages at a higher grade so learner drivers arent allowed use them.

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

Mobile roadblock, most accidents are caused by drivers maneovering off the main driving line or entering the driving lane of other vehicles,

I can tell you that most accidents are not caused by this.

Deleted User wrote: »

having to overtake a vehicle that is going unnecessarily slow increases this risk.

You do not have to overtake a vehicle that is going slowly. You certainly don't have to overtake it dangerously. You're blaming the careful driver for the actions of the irresponsible and impatient driver.

Optimalprimerib

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm not that opinionated on many subjects but people that fail the test shouldn't even be allowed drive on the road even with a full license driver.

The test is 30-40 minutes long and you can make 7 medium mistakes, so basically if you cant drive for 5 minutes without making a mistake then you shouldn't even be allowed on the road full stop, too much of a danger IMO. (If they want to practice then they can do it on private property)


As for learner drivers that haven't failed the test, I suggest they must be accompanied by a full license driver and that they cant drive over 50km/h.

Totally disagree with this.

1. Everytime anyone gets behind the wheel, they make at least 1 mistake while driving. It may be tiny, not checking mirrors, develop bad driving habits.
2. People with full licences can also make errors. They make up the other 14 deaths after all.
3. The driving test wait list is really bad. I am not sure what it is now, but I had to wait over a year for my 2nd attempt.
4. Practising on private property?? How is this supposed to help develop reaction skills needed when something goes wrong or when a decision is to be made on the road. The best way to learn is actual experience.

My idea would be a sorter expiry on driving licences and a retake of the exam for full license drivers, sure once you have your license, you don't need rules.

pablohoney87

It would be silly to have them restricted to 50 km so lets try keep the ridiculous arguments outta this. Sure in my test I got penalised for not getting the car up to 60 in a 60 zone.

Should be 1 point for Learner alone.
Another point and a fine if L plates arent displayed.
If its brought to court a hefty fine to go with the points.
No exceptions even for work.

Is there a rule if you pick up 6 points on a L license its a 2 year ban?
Should be 4 points anyway for a permit.

Shenshen

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm not that opinionated on many subjects but people that fail the test shouldn't even be allowed drive on the road even with a full license driver.

The test is 30-40 minutes long and you can make 7 medium mistakes, so basically if you cant drive for 5 minutes without making a mistake then you shouldn't even be allowed on the road full stop, too much of a danger IMO. (If they want to practice then they can do it on private property)


As for learner drivers that haven't failed the test, I suggest they must be accompanied by a full license driver and that they cant drive over 50km/h.

So, people who get nevours in test situations should just never ever attempt to even take the test, is that what you're saying?

Also, I currently drive accompanied with L plates. I will do the speed limit, and not a kph more. The amount of road rage this enduces in other drivers, and the amount of frighteningly dangerous overtaking I get to experience every day beggars belief. Do you think your suggestion that learner drivers should only drive at 50 kph will make the roads safer?

While I do agree that the situation of people driving without full license, and people driving without license at all needs to be addressed, I also think that the driving skills of those with full licenses here are in dire need of re-assessment.

Optimalprimerib

Oranage2 wrote: »

phasers wrote: »

Either you don't drive a car or you are not thinking this through. Learners need real road experience. how exactly are they supposed to pass the test if they've never been on a feckin road before.


And 50 km/hr? Really? On dual carriageways?


The fact of the matter is learners are going to drive unaccompanied no matter what, they'll just take off the L plates and chance it. They shouldn't but they do. Your bizarre ideas will only make L drivers worse.

A little strict perhaps but I think it's exactly what the country need - Have big fines for anybody breaking the rules too will put a stop the the majority of people taking 'a chance'.



On a side note too, I think roads should be graded, have country roads and dual carriages at a higher grade so learner drivers arent allowed use them.

Learner drivers should also have a helicopter and license so that they can be dropped onto permitted roads to drive. They should also be sent to a closed off area where they learn to concentrate better. A concentration camp maybe.

Shenshen

Vicxas wrote: »

Im glad this is happening, L drivers can be very dangerous on the roads, especially the nervous ones.

I agree.
What I seriously don't understand is this idea that a passenger is somehow going to improve their driving...
At the end of the day, the passenger can be the most fantastic drive in the world. He or she will have no influence on which pedal the learner steps on, or where they konk out the car.

Cienciano

Plazaman wrote: »

Ehhh, I don't think so. Look at the current backlogs to sit driving tests in some parts of the country and now add perfectly good drivers having to resit a test (which will just turn out to be another Government money making scheme) into the mix and it'll just lead to chaos.

I'll compromise and say that anyone who reachs 12 points on their licence or gets disqualifies for drink driving, should be made to resit a driving test.

I wasn't serious, I honestly thought orange was taking the piss so I was just joining in

MagicSean

Shenshen wrote: »

I agree.
What I seriously don't understand is this idea that a passenger is somehow going to improve their driving...
At the end of the day, the passenger can be the most fantastic drive in the world. He or she will have no influence on which pedal the learner steps on, or where they konk out the car.

But they will have the knowledge and experience to help the driver if needed. And in some cases can take over as driver if needed.

GavRedKing

Sometimes its just not possible to have a full license driver in the car with you wherever you go.

For instance if you're going to work/college you cant expect to have a full license driver in the car with you, opposite side of that argument is well you can take the bus or cycle but thats not possible either all of the time.

For every " bad " L plate driver theres as many " bad " full license drivers out there.

I'm not preaching from any horse, I've made mistakes on the road, I think its safe to say everyone has at one stage or another.

Shenshen

Oranage2 wrote: »

A little strict perhaps but I think it's exactly what the country need - Have big fines for anybody breaking the rules too will put a stop the the majority of people taking 'a chance'.



On a side note too, I think roads should be graded, have country roads and dual carriages at a higher grade so learner drivers arent allowed use them.

Big fines are already possible.
But when is the last time you saw someone - anyone out on the roads enforcing the rules?
I get overtaken regularly for doing the speed limit, I get cut up, I see people running red lights, blocking traffic by stopping in yellow boxes (the other day I got beeped at persistently for refusing to drive into a yellow box where I could see the way out was blocked by traffice). I have in the 4 months I've been driving seen 1 (one) camera van.

I grew up in Germany, where there are static cameras at the entrances to many villages and towns, and on most busy intersections. There are undercover traffic patrol cars with front mounted litte speed cameras to catch offenders on the Autobahns.
If you speed or run a red light, you will get caught. The fines are a little lower over there, but the knowledge that you will have to pay them makes people behave. Here, the fines may be higher, but people know that 9 times out of 10 they will get away with it scot-free.

Naid23

Everybody was a learner driver at some stage so I really can't understand Mup$ets who go on like they've never made a mistake driving.
Drives me mental, Once people see the L plates they automatically assume the person can't drive.

I'm a full licenced driver and was using my sisters car for a week which has L plates and the hassle I got off other drivers, Beeping/dangerous Overtaking etc was unnecessary. Have seen numerous idiots overtake cars using the luas track near bluebell while there is an approaching luas tram. Madness!! :eek:

I would never give any grief to a learner driver and dont get why people would- as I said we were ALL LEARNER DRIVERS AT ONE STAGE.

wellboytoo

Most people on here are looking at this problem from the viewpoint of the past, it should be looked at from a different angle, You cannot drive a car until you have a full licence on your own, then you set about the 20 week procedure of getting a full licenece.
All this talk of I need to get to college and all that is so much bull, in any european country the idea is you get the licence and then drive, we have to change our mindset on this.
You have no right to drive, it is an earned priviledge.

Fratton Fred

GavRedKing wrote: »

Sometimes its just not possible to have a full license driver in the car with you wherever you go.
For instance if you're going to work/college you cant expect to have a full license driver in the car with you, opposite side of that argument is well you can take the bus or cycle but thats not possible either all of the time.
For every " bad " L plate driver theres as many " bad " full license drivers out there. I'm not preaching from any horse, I've made mistakes on the road, I think its safe to say everyone has at one stage or another.

So why bother having a test at all. In fact, why bother with L plates?

Driving a car on a public road is a privilege, not a right. To earn that you have to demonstrate that you can drive.

I don't agree that drivers should re-sit a test every five years, but I do think a ban should mean removal of a licence and the driver made to re-apply and retake their test.

Mint Sauce

I'm greatful for where I got to do my test and lessons. Diving on an 80km road and on a dual carriage way at 100km with entering and exiting was both part of them and expected.

jester77

phasers wrote: »

Either you don't drive a car or you are not thinking this through. Learners need real road experience. how exactly are they supposed to pass the test if they've never been on a feckin road before.


And 50 km/hr? Really? On dual carriageways?


The fact of the matter is learners are going to drive unaccompanied no matter what, they'll just take off the L plates and chance it. They shouldn't but they do. Your bizarre ideas will only make L drivers worse.

You should not be allowed to drive on the road unless under the supervision of a qualified instructor. It's crazy that someone with little to no experience can just stick an L on the their car and off they go. It's the wrong place for learning.

I learned to drive in Germany many years ago, Ireland could learn from their system. You register at a school, you have to to a lot of class hours learning about the rules of the road, how a car works, what to do in an emergency situation, etc. You also have to cover a lot of hours driving in different situations under the supervision of the instructor, e.g. driving in the country, driving in the city, driving on the motorway, driving in residential areas, driving at night, etc. The only time you sit in a car is when an instructor is there.

Once the instructor thinks you are competent enough, he will put you forward for the driving test. You have to pass a theory test, you attend a full day first-aid training course, eye-test and once they are successful you do your driving test. The instructor is also in the car on your driving test to take over if something goes wrong.

If you fail, you cycle home and attend more classes.

Shenshen

MagicSean wrote: »

But they will have the knowledge and experience to help the driver if needed. And in some cases can take over as driver if needed.

I've got my husband sitting next to me every day. Most of the time he's half-asleep now, but even in the begining all he really could do was give me helpful hints and tips. He could not have done anything at all if I had panicked at something and hit the accelerator by accident rather than the brakes (something that happened to my mom once, on a full license).

At best, the passenger could be a calming influence, but they cannot really take any direct action to prevent dangerous behaviour.
A driving instructor in a driving school car would be much better placed, as they can actually stop the car if required.

MagicSean

Shenshen wrote: »

I've got my husband sitting next to me every day. Most of the time he's half-asleep now, but even in the begining all he really could do was give me helpful hints and tips. He could not have done anything at all if I had panicked at something and hit the accelerator by accident rather than the brakes (something that happened to my mom once, on a full license).

At best, the passenger could be a calming influence, but they cannot really take any direct action to prevent dangerous behaviour.
A driving instructor in a driving school car would be much better placed, as they can actually stop the car if required.

That's not really practicable is it? Anyway, the driver chooses their passenger. If you choose a dud that's your own fault.

blackwhite

GavRedKing wrote: »

Sometimes its just not possible to have a full license driver in the car with you wherever you go.

For instance if you're going to work/college you cant expect to have a full license driver in the car with you, opposite side of that argument is well you can take the bus or cycle but thats not possible either all of the time.

Not trying to have a go at you in particular, but this mindset right here is the root cause of many of the problems on the road.

Nobody is entitled to drive. Being allowed to drive on public roads (accompanied or otherwise) is a privilege, a privilege only granted when you meet certain criteria (i.e. pass the theory test to drive under supervision, and pass the full test to drive unaccompanied).
If you are going to need to drive unaccompanied for work/college/whatever, it is your responsibility to ensure that you have earned the privilege to do so. You don't have the right to decide that you are a special case, and that the rules don't apply to you because it is inconvenient.

SocSocPol

GavRedKing wrote: »

Sometimes its just not possible to have a full license driver in the car with you wherever you go.

For instance if you're going to work/college you cant expect to have a full license driver in the car with you, opposite side of that argument is well you can take the bus or cycle but thats not possible either all of the time.

For every " bad " L plate driver theres as many " bad " full license drivers out there.

I'm not preaching from any horse, I've made mistakes on the road, I think its safe to say everyone has at one stage or another.

Then dont drive, it's illegal and you are not legally qualified to. Simples.

anncoates

GavRedKing wrote: »

Sometimes its just not possible to have a full license driver in the car with you wherever you go.

For instance if you're going to work/college you cant expect to have a full license driver in the car with you, opposite side of that argument is well you can take the bus or cycle but thats not possible either all of the time.

For every " bad " L plate driver theres as many " bad " full license drivers out there.

I'm not preaching from any horse, I've made mistakes on the road, I think its safe to say everyone has at one stage or another.

If other countries don't allow people to build lives around cars thst they are not qualified to drive, then neither should we.

Any attempt in this country to make people pass tests asap ends up with loads of people going omg I drive 50 miles to work/college on a provisional and I haven't (bothered my hole to do) passed the test.

Tough.

Life doesn't appear to break down on the countries where it is enforced.

OldGoat

Is a learner driver in a car alone in breach of the insurance agreement and therefore not covered, i.e. driving without insurance?
If they get stopped and pointed for driving alone should they also get pointed/fined for driving without insurance?

Diabhal Beag

Feel sorry for learners as I know a lot of people this will affect workwise but I can't argue. You really should be passing the test. There'll be a lot of people putting their names on waiting lists this week.

Professey Chin

OldGoat wrote: »

Is a learner driver in a car alone in breach of the insurance agreement and therefore not covered, i.e. driving without insurance?
If they get stopped and pointed for driving alone should they also get pointed/fined for driving without insurance?

Nope. The policy just means theyre insured while driving the car. No full licenses driver requirements.

anncoates

I don't understand this entitlement attitude to driving either
You don't suddenly wake up in the morning and realise you have to get to college or work that day and can't drive
If it's that important to you and if you live in the middle of nowhere, then take your driving lessons asap and pass. If you can't afford it well then you can't afford insurance either I'm sure, so on your bike

OG, I think insurance will cover, but 3rd party only and they may get you to repay the costs yourself to them

anncoates wrote:

f other countries don't allow people to build lives around cars thst they are not qualified to drive, then neither should we.

Any attempt in this country to make people pass tests asap ends up with loads of people going omg I drive 50 miles to work/college on a provisional and I haven't (bothered my hole to do) passed the test.

Tough.

Life doesn't appear to break down on the countries where it is enforced.

Yeah, this

Shenshen

MagicSean wrote: »

That's not really practicable is it? Anyway, the driver chooses their passenger. If you choose a dud that's your own fault.

How is it not practicable?
It's the way most European countries do it....

Shenshen

anncoates wrote: »

Life doesn't appear to break down on the countries where it is enforced.

I have to point out that in those countries, public transport does tend to be a lot more highly developed, though.
Also, it's reasonably safe to cycle in those countries, something I would not dare attempt here.

Professey Chin

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

Feel sorry for learners as I know a lot of people this will affect workwise but I can't argue. You really should be passing the test. There'll be a lot of people putting their names on waiting lists this week.

It wont make a difference. Theres no enforcement of anything and people know the Garda numbers arent there to make any kind of dent.
I've driven all around the country at all hours and have gone through a grand total of 4 checkpoints over the last few years with only one looking to see my license (that I didnt have at the time & they didnt ask me to produce it at a garda station. Just let me on my way).
Garda checkpoints are predictable in where theyll turn up and anyone with a bit of sense will know what roads to take to avoid them.

mathie

Vicxas wrote: »

Im glad this is happening, L drivers can be very dangerous on the roads, especially the nervous ones.

Nervous roads.

Jesus what next ... A half-shark half-octopus?

arodabomb

Shenshen wrote: »

I've got my husband sitting next to me every day. Most of the time he's half-asleep now, but even in the begining all he really could do was give me helpful hints and tips. He could not have done anything at all if I had panicked at something and hit the accelerator by accident rather than the brakes (something that happened to my mom once, on a full license).

At best, the passenger could be a calming influence, but they cannot really take any direct action to prevent dangerous behaviour.
A driving instructor in a driving school car would be much better placed, as they can actually stop the car if required.

Well, your husband is pretty crap at his role then. Asleep? You may as well be on your own. Find someone who cares and is willing to actually watch your driving and pay attention. They need to be doing as much observing and "driving" themselves while not actually being behind the wheel.

When I was learning, my father was basically the driver, less and less so as I progressed. But on one occasion I had taken a corner a little fast and I nearly hit a parked car (I was only going about 20-30km), but before I had even registered that I needed to brake, my father had his hand on the handbrake ready to stop it if I didn't. The accompanied driver needs to be the driver too!

Yes there is little direct action they can take but they will see things before you do and be able to direct you in situations that you have yet to encounter. Drive with a good driver who is willing to help you and you'll see the difference. (Stop just driving the hubby to the pub )