L-drivers to get penalty points for driving alone

leeomurchu

Confab wrote: »

It's actually not a legal requirement to indicate. A good idea though.

Tell me that's not true, sure it's a legal requirement to indicate intent:eek:

Mr Benevolent

HavingCrack wrote: »

I find this very hard to believe. The standard of driving I've seen in southern Italy, south west France, all of Spain and Portugal and whole swathes of the United States (in particular Massachussetts (know as Massholes), Virginia and New Jersey) is far, far, far worse than anything I have ever seen in Ireland.

There are poor Irish drivers but give me a day driving in Dublin over Rome or Boston any day.

I agree. The standard of driving I've seen in Ireland is quite good compared to some countries.

leeomurchu

Kev.OC wrote: »

Little bit of useless information for you, 75% of bike accidents involve another vehicle, yet recently it was proposed that holders of full licences for motorbikes would face double penalty points under the new penalty point review.

Cause, y'know, double points will clearly stop all those people who were gifted licences from crashing into us. :rolleyes:


To answer your question, currently to get a bike licence you need to firstly get a provisional. Then you've to do 16 hours of IBT (initial basic training). This is compulsory and you can't get on the road (legally anyway) without doing it. The 16 hours if IBT involves 6 in the classroom, learning the layout of the controls, analysing videos of lessons and tests to learn what you should and shouldn't do.

Regarding supervision, bikes are different in that you've to get your full licence before you can carry a passenger. As a learner you can drive around by yourself without supervision.

There are also restrictions that apply to the power of bikes, but that's rather long-winded to explain, and besides, the regulations are changing on the 19th of January. If you want I can sum the old and new regulations up for you, but it's not exactly going to be a concise sentence or two. :pac:

I'm going through that rigmarole myself at the min full b licence for 10 years and I have to say the IBT is a great idea it gives you a bit of confidence in what you're getting into. yes it is a pricey expense that should probably be off set against insurance or similar but you have to pay for an insurance assessment after which can be €200 luckily mines included in the price.

I think it's a great idea that should be incorporated into the B licence aswell obviously as i said it's an expense but what price would you put on safety.

Driving is a privilege that not everybody deserves put in the effort or get the bus.

wellboytoo

leeomurchu wrote: »

You're wrong there mate it's not all off road the last 6 hours are on the public roads which is actually a good thing imagine someone being thought in a car park for 16 hours then let loose on the road apparently competent to drive.

I stand corrected , what I meant was that they have no licence to be on the public road until they have completed the 16 hours of tuition.

Colmustard

I have a full licence years, I never had an accident I am a safe driver in that I am patient and easy going on the road I never speed. But I ask would I pass a driving test now and honestly, no, I have all sorts of bad habit.

Shenshen

HavingCrack wrote: »

I find this very hard to believe. The standard of driving I've seen in southern Italy, south west France, all of Spain and Portugal and whole swathes of the United States (in particular Massachussetts (know as Massholes), Virginia and New Jersey) is far, far, far worse than anything I have ever seen in Ireland.

There are poor Irish drivers but give me a day driving in Dublin over Rome or Boston any day.

If I recall correctly, driving tests in the US are not performed on public roads.
You drive around on an oversized parking lot made to resemble roads, and then are given your license.
A friend of mine had to take the test to get a US license when she was au pair in Colorado, and found the whole exercise laughable.
She says it also explains why Americans can't drive round corners, and why there's thos very low blanket speed limits everywhere.

Shenshen

Colmustard wrote: »

I have a full licence years, I never had an accident I am a safe driver in that I am patient and easy going on the road I never speed. But I ask would I pass a driving test now and honestly, no, I have all sorts of bad habit.

I took the test for the first time a while back... I drove out of the test centre, up a dual carriage way, round a roundabout, back the dual carriage way, and the tester asked me to return to the test centre.

When I received my results sheet, he had marked me down for not indicating when overtaking a parked car.
Now, I was a bundle of nerves that day, and I would have agreed with him failing me, but I couldn't for the life of me remember any parked cars on the route we had taken.
But I was talking to my instructor later on, and she told me that that particular instructor always marks people down for the indicating when driving past parked cars, nevermind if there were parked cars or not, and as far as she remembers has never passed anyone.
Which was a bit of a relief, because I had seriously started to doubt my mental capacities thinking I had overlooked a car parked on a dual carriageway!

I think the Irish system would profit from the rule that other countries have, where you take your test with your instructor in the car. That way, the tester will actually only mark you down for things that really happened.

SocSocPol

Confab wrote: »

Meh, I've been driving without a full licence for 18 months now. It's no big deal. 6.6% of road deaths are caused by learner drivers - that means 93.4% of deaths are caused by the infinitely superior drivers with full licences. These stats are meaningless, and the Independent is an utter rag.

PS: Yes, my 2nd test is booked and will be done soon.

Hopefully you will be caught before then.

Border-Rat

Its thanks to pricks like this that drive up insurance prices.

curehead

I'm driving on a provisional for 7 years
A couple of reasons for not having a full liscence I failed my test 3 times the reason
I have no idea like in school I was never great at tests and exams maybe it was nerves or whatever it was
When taking lessons the instructor though I was a great driver was very complimentary
Said I should pass no problems he wouldn't have let me take the test if he didn't feel I was a good driver.
I done this with him three times
And of course another reason is nobody enforces any rules I've never had an accident was never stopped and asked for anything so I just waited for my provisional to lapse before I needed a new one and applied again.
How does twenty minutes in a car with some guy qualify as a test or 20 or so one hour lessons with an equally qualified person who deems your driving to be road worthy not
I think when the actual instructor deems you good enough he should be able to give your full liscence

talullah

I'm a learner driver and have no choice but to drive unaccompanied to work and back. I'm 25 and have been driving for just over a year now and would have done my test only can't afford all the lessons + fuel, insurance, tax etc and all other bills and expenses. It's not fair that i'm not given a choice yet can be penalised Sure, I agree that some learners shouldn't be driving unaccompanied but something has to give here, I don't know anyone who can afford all these lessons, I know we all need to get some lessons but to be tied to twelve whether you as a driver need them or not is not fair. Rant over.

Border-Rat

It's no big deal. 6.6% of road deaths are caused by learner drivers - that means 93.4% of deaths are caused by the infinitely superior drivers with full licences. These stats are meaningless.

That's because most people driving are driving on a full license. So in fact, 6.6% is even disproportionate. People who have taken the time to pass a driving test are - in fact - better drivers. People who drive without a license are more likely to hit someone, and many of those are probably driving with no insurance. Why should people with decent no claims record put it all at risk over people like that?

Impound their cars, state auction them and use the proceeds to fill out our pot-holed rally course roads.

A Primal Nut

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.

The law regarding provisional licenses is the same as the UK. Can't drive on motorways, unaccompanied, etc.

You can drive to your driving test, fail it and then drive home. Ridiculous.

I don't see the problem. How could someone learn to drive if they aren't allowed on the roads?

StephenHendry

i agree that all L drivers should be accompanied, but its like anything how will this be policed or enforced properly. its interesting that we had a thread about tailgating which is as serious as L drivers on the road. L drivers need to be on the road as often as possible so as they become as competent as possible coming up to their tests. anyway as someone said to me once, just because you passed your test, doesnt mean you're necessarily a good driver

StephenHendry

if varadkar can solve the problem of the waiting list, that will help with this new rule. on its own, it won't solve all the problems. again people who won't have the full licence driver at hand at all times and need to have the car to get to work, they will just chance going out without the L plate and probably get away with it

Dravokivich

curehead wrote: »

I'm driving on a provisional for 7 years
A couple of reasons for not having a full liscence I failed my test 3 times the reason
I have no idea like in school I was never great at tests and exams maybe it was nerves or whatever it was
When taking lessons the instructor though I was a great driver was very complimentary
Said I should pass no problems he wouldn't have let me take the test if he didn't feel I was a good driver.
I done this with him three times
And of course another reason is nobody enforces any rules I've never had an accident was never stopped and asked for anything so I just waited for my provisional to lapse before I needed a new one and applied again.
How does twenty minutes in a car with some guy qualify as a test or 20 or so one hour lessons with an equally qualified person who deems your driving to be road worthy not
I think when the actual instructor deems you good enough he should be able to give your full liscence

So you continue to pay for lessons until they are statisfied?

humanji

humanji wrote: »

http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2003/March/graphics/sidecar.side.jpg

I used to know someone who built one like this!
http://www.voont.com/files/images/guide/funeral/coffin.jpg

TwoShedsJackson

leeomurchu wrote: »

Tell me that's not true, sure it's a legal requirement to indicate intent:eek:

No it isn't, in fact usage of indicators is entirely optional. Clearly you should use them, but they have no standing in law etc.

As an example, if you're at a T junction and waiting to turn right on to the main road, and someone comes along from your right, indicating left - if you assume they are in fact going to turn and pull out in front of them, and they proceed to go straight into you, you will be 100% at fault in the subsequent insurance claim.

An indicator means nothing, so take it as that, and wait until you see them turn.

marienbad

StephenHendry wrote: »

if varadkar can solve the problem of the waiting list, that will help with this new rule. on its own, it won't solve all the problems. again people who won't have the full licence driver at hand at all times and need to have the car to get to work, they will just chance going out without the L plate and probably get away with it

Exactly- until the waiting list is down to something like one month this problem will never go away . Fix the backlog before you penalise the people on the backlog. This is going on for decades at this stage .

And all the self righteousness from full licence holders is laughable - how many of you drove with just provisionals in your own day ?

leeomurchu

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

No it isn't, in fact usage of indicators is entirely optional. Clearly you should use them, but they have no standing in law etc.

As an example, if you're at a T junction and waiting to turn right on to the main road, and someone comes along from your right, indicating left - if you assume they are in fact going to turn and pull out in front of them, and they proceed to go straight into you, you will be 100% at fault in the subsequent insurance claim.

An indicator means nothing, so take it as that, and wait until you see them turn.

Sweet Jebus little wonder our road fatalities are so. This just goes to show that L drivers are not the major issue clearly the entire system needs an overhaul.

2Scoops

SocSocPol wrote: »

The fatalities involving unaccompanied drivers have accounted for one out of every 15 deaths on the roads since January 2009.

6.6% of fatal accidents involve learner permit holders (no indication that being involved means they actually to blame for it btw). ~13.5% of all licence holders are learner permit holders according to 2010 statistics from the RSA. A very strong case to be made that learner drivers cause less accidents. :pac:

Also, the penalty has gone from an 'up to €1000' fine to a single penalty point and blanket €80 fine. Is this actually a more lenient penalty?

Mint Sauce

The problem here is, we have had a lot of things to good, or our own way for too long, Learners unacompanied, the SW system, taxation and charges, etc etc etc.

If your caught in the UK you could be done for a number of charges, and the Cop wont let you drive off if stopped, your car WILL BE lifted, and you will either be walking home, or being driven to the local nick.

Also I dont get this thing about people driving for years on a permit or 1st/2nd/3rd whatever provissional, and only done their test 1/2/3 times. I had my full licence about 7 months after getting 1st provisional. The moment I received the provisional in my hand, I had the lessons booked, and I had my test booked. Once I got the date in the post I rechulded it for 6 months later, as per the rules of waiting 6 months to sit your test, so no excuss for waiting times. Unfortunatly I got a couple of grade twos over, but I had reapplied straight away, and had a retest a few weeks later, and whilst learning I walked and got buses.

Capt'n Midnight

SocSocPol wrote: »

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).

NCT is 5 penalty points, something like 2% of accidents caused by mechanical failures so way out of proportion

Capt'n Midnight

fifipie_d wrote: »

I have been driving for almost 5 months on a permit and like yourself i am always accompanied. The road rage and bullying i receive every day because of that L plate is unbelievable.

compare that to the UK where people voluntarily put up green L plates to let other road users know that they have recently passed the test

In the UK you can be done for driving alone with L plates even if you have a full license.

Oranage2 wrote: »

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 what would be the point of an L driver not driving above 50km/h? When they pass their test they won't have had any practice on dual carriageways and driving at 100km/h and over and they could now do this unaccompanied.

meanwhile up northhttp://www.nidirect.gov.uk/planned-changes-to-driver-rider-training-and-testing

'New' drivers and riders

R plates will be replaced by N (for ‘New’ driver/rider) plates which you must display for two years
as a new driver (under 24 years old) you will not be allowed to carry passengers aged 14 to 20 (except immediate family members) during the first six months after you have passed your driving test and got your full licence
this restriction will not apply if there is a supervising driver (aged 21 years or older and who has held a full driving licence for three years) in the front passenger seat
there will be exemptions for appropriately trained emergency services drivers
you will have to take a remedial course if, as a new driver, you are at risk of having your licence revoked because you have accumulated six or more penalty points

Not sure if the 45mph and motorway restrictions apply to N drivers.

curehead

irish-stew wrote: »

The problem here is, we have had a lot of things to good, or our own way for too long, Learners unacompanied, the SW system, taxation and charges, etc etc etc.

If your caught in the UK you could be done for a number of charges, and the Cop wont let you drive off if stopped, your car WILL BE lifted, and you will either be walking home, or being driven to the local nick.

Also I dont get this thing about people driving for years on a permit or 1st/2nd/3rd whatever provissional, and only done their test 1/2/3 times. I had my full licence about 7 months after getting 1st provisional. The moment I received the provisional in my hand, I had the lessons booked, and I had my test booked. Once I got the date in the post I rechulded it for 6 months later, as per the rules of waiting 6 months to sit your test, so no excuss for waiting times. Unfortunatly I got a couple of grade twos over, but I had reapplied straight away, and had a retest a few weeks later, and whilst learning I walked and got buses.

The cost I guess is one reason more lessons more retest
The other being its not enforced
So no real pressure

boomtown123

This is absolutely ridiculous. The amount of people giving out about L drivers is pitiful - how did you all get your full licenses? I suppose you all went round with your qualified driver 24/7(yeah right!!!). A good majority of you were probably in the days when you just had to send away for a license and not take any test!!

The amount of hassle I experienced when I was learning was ridiculous - purely because I wasn't breaking the speed limit! Full drivers also need to learn how to use their indicators! As soon as people see L plates they immediately think they have the right to intimidate the person. People need to get off their high horses and forget the idea that they were born with a full license to drive - YOU ALL HAD TO LEARN AT SOME STAGE!!!

What they need to do is revise the whole testing process. In fact it needs to be removed. It should be incorporated into a new learning scheme. e.g. you have to reach a certain standard agreed upon by the instructor to move on to the next level. As one person has suggested - how on earth does a 20 minute test qualify a person to drive. Its just a suggestion before the high horse brigade says anything!

curehead

Dravokivich wrote: »

curehead wrote: »

I'm driving on a provisional for 7 years
A couple of reasons for not having a full liscence I failed my test 3 times the reason
I have no idea like in school I was never great at tests and exams maybe it was nerves or whatever it was
When taking lessons the instructor though I was a great driver was very complimentary
Said I should pass no problems he wouldn't have let me take the test if he didn't feel I was a good driver.
I done this with him three times
And of course another reason is nobody enforces any rules I've never had an accident was never stopped and asked for anything so I just waited for my provisional to lapse before I needed a new one and applied again.
How does twenty minutes in a car with some guy qualify as a test or 20 or so one hour lessons with an equally qualified person who deems your driving to be road worthy not
I think when the actual instructor deems you good enough he should be able to give your full liscence

So you continue to pay for lessons until they are statisfied?

Yes exactly you might pass after two lessons maybe you need ten.
Some may need twenty.
My instructor thought I was good enough after about five lessons
Yet come the day of the test no go joe.

Kirby

I failed my first driving test. I know what I'm good at and what I'm not. I've never been involved in an accident of any kind and I'm the only one of my family or friends who can say that. I'm a safe driver......a snarky middle aged woman with a pen is not going to tell me otherwise.

I realise why it's a good idea for an unaccompanied driver to get penalty points. I get it. And I wouldn't rally against it. But it wont stop most people from continuing about their lives and using their cars to get where they need to be. That's just the reality of the situation and the high horse brigade need to get over themselves.

I know plenty of people who hold a full license who I don't feel comfortable being a passenger. They either drive too fast, don't indicate and generally have poor road position. You can normally tell within the first minute or two in a car with somebody if they are a safe driver or not. A license doesn't really change that.

boomtown123

Dravokivich wrote: »

So you continue to pay for lessons until they are statisfied?

Yes - more quality of measuring things than just leaving it to a 20 minute test.

Oranage2

Jam-Fly wrote: »

so if people fail the test, they can never drive on a road until they pass the test? are you actually serious? I assume you also mean people who haven't taken the test (ie haven't failed/passed yet) aren't allowed drive on public roads?

How do you expect people to learn?

If you said: drivers should have to have a qualified driver instructor present, drive in a dual controlled car, driver under 50km/h, could not drive during night or rain, and could only drive a maximum of 30 minutes at a time, that would be one thing, but saying people without a full license should never, ever drive on the road and practice on private property??? You realise having practice driving around a field is pretty worthless experience? And please inform me if there's a wealth of driving schools in Ireland that provide acres of land for an off-road, "private property" learning experience.

Nope.

I said if somebody fails the test then they shouldnt be allowed on the road. If they are a learner driver who has not failed then they are allowed drive on a public road but with heavy restrictions.

Is it a little harsh that people who fail must learn on a private road?

No, I shouldnt have my life put at risk by a person deemed unsafe to drive.

Shenshen wrote: »

When I received my results sheet, he had marked me down for not indicating when overtaking a parked car.
Now, I was a bundle of nerves that day, and I would have agreed with him failing me, but I couldn't for the life of me remember any parked cars on the route we had taken.
But I was talking to my instructor later on, and she told me that that particular instructor always marks people down for the indicating when driving past parked cars, nevermind if there were parked cars or not, and as far as she remembers has never passed anyone.

Ah yes the ole conspiracy theories! Also he never passed a single person sounds like some BS excuse.

curehead wrote: »

I'm driving on a provisional for 7 years
A couple of reasons for not having a full liscence I failed my test 3 times the reason
I have no idea like in school I was never great at tests and exams maybe it was nerves or whatever it was
When taking lessons the instructor though I was a great driver was very complimentary
Said I should pass no problems he wouldn't have let me take the test if he didn't feel I was a good driver.
I done this with him three times
And of course another reason is nobody enforces any rules I've never had an accident was never stopped and asked for anything so I just waited for my provisional to lapse before I needed a new one and applied again.
How does twenty minutes in a car with some guy qualify as a test or 20 or so one hour lessons with an equally qualified person who deems your driving to be road worthy not
I think when the actual instructor deems you good enough he should be able to give your full liscence

Probably time to get a new instructor.

talullah wrote: »

I'm a learner driver and have no choice but to drive unaccompanied to work and back. I'm 25 and have been driving for just over a year now and would have done my test only can't afford all the lessons + fuel, insurance, tax etc and all other bills and expenses. It's not fair that i'm not given a choice yet can be penalised Sure, I agree that some learners shouldn't be driving unaccompanied but something has to give here, I don't know anyone who can afford all these lessons, I know we all need to get some lessons but to be tied to twelve whether you as a driver need them or not is not fair. Rant over.

Ah sure I cant afford issurance so I just wont bother :rolleyes:

Kev.OC

Dravokivich wrote: »

curehead wrote: »

I'm driving on a provisional for 7 years
A couple of reasons for not having a full liscence I failed my test 3 times the reason
I have no idea like in school I was never great at tests and exams maybe it was nerves or whatever it was
When taking lessons the instructor though I was a great driver was very complimentary
Said I should pass no problems he wouldn't have let me take the test if he didn't feel I was a good driver.
I done this with him three times
And of course another reason is nobody enforces any rules I've never had an accident was never stopped and asked for anything so I just waited for my provisional to lapse before I needed a new one and applied again.
How does twenty minutes in a car with some guy qualify as a test or 20 or so one hour lessons with an equally qualified person who deems your driving to be road worthy not
I think when the actual instructor deems you good enough he should be able to give your full liscence

So you continue to pay for lessons until they are statisfied?

curehead wrote: »

Yes exactly you might pass after two lessons maybe you need ten.
Some may need twenty.
My instructor thought I was good enough after about five lessons
Yet come the day of the test no go joe.

boomtown123 wrote: »

Yes - more quality of measuring things than just leaving it to a 20 minute test.

Really? I'm sorry, but that is incredibly naive. So you pay an instructor for lessons for as long as they consider necessary? Be it two lessons or twenty? Just keep giving them money until they say stop?

Jesus, no recession around here. :pac:

Mint Sauce

curehead wrote: »

The cost I guess is one reason more lessons more retest
The other being its not enforced
So no real pressure

There lies the problem no inforcement for a law that was already there. But surely its an investment as well, okay between lessons and two tests it cost me between 400-500 to learn to drive. But once I had my full licence I got a refund on my insurance, imagine all the extra people are spending on insurance with a learner permit over several years. A bit of effort and spending they could have the costs paid back paying full insurance much earlier.

wintersolstice

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.[/QAUOTE]

as a learner driver i drive way better on my own as i find that if i have someone with me i am inclined to rely on them for instructions etc.

curehead

Kev.OC wrote: »

Dravokivich wrote: »

curehead wrote: »

I'm driving on a provisional for 7 years
A couple of reasons for not having a full liscence I failed my test 3 times the reason
I have no idea like in school I was never great at tests and exams maybe it was nerves or whatever it was
When taking lessons the instructor though I was a great driver was very complimentary
Said I should pass no problems he wouldn't have let me take the test if he didn't feel I was a good driver.
I done this with him three times
And of course another reason is nobody enforces any rules I've never had an accident was never stopped and asked for anything so I just waited for my provisional to lapse before I needed a new one and applied again.
How does twenty minutes in a car with some guy qualify as a test or 20 or so one hour lessons with an equally qualified person who deems your driving to be road worthy not
I think when the actual instructor deems you good enough he should be able to give your full liscence

So you continue to pay for lessons until they are statisfied?

curehead wrote: »

Yes exactly you might pass after two lessons maybe you need ten.
Some may need twenty.
My instructor thought I was good enough after about five lessons
Yet come the day of the test no go joe.

boomtown123 wrote: »

Yes - more quality of measuring things than just leaving it to a 20 minute test.

Really? I'm sorry, but that is incredibly naive. So you pay an instructor for lessons for as long as they consider necessary? Be it two lessons or twenty? Just keep giving them money until they say stop?

Jesus, no recession around here. :pac:

You have to pay them anyway and if you happen to fail you have to pay them again.
They see you driving for maybe 10 hours an instructor 20 mins who knows your abilities better ??

Mint Sauce

boomtown123 wrote: »

What they need to do is revise the whole testing process. In fact it needs to be removed. It should be incorporated into a new learning scheme. e.g. you have to reach a certain standard agreed upon by the instructor to move on to the next level. As one person has suggested - how on earth does a 20 minute test qualify a person to drive. Its just a suggestion before the high horse brigade says anything!

It only means your deemed safe to drive unacompanied, hence the whole thing driving accompanied before hand.

JP Liz V1

Cienciano wrote: »

And everyone should have to resit the test every 5 years

+ 1

Kev.OC

curehead wrote: »

You have to pay them anyway and if you happen to fail you have to pay them again.
They see you driving for maybe 10 hours an instructor 20 mins who knows your abilities better ??

Yes, you do have to pay them anyway, and yes, they do know your abilities better, but I still think this is a terrible idea. It's far far too open to manipulation.

You're suggesting leaving it solely up to an instructor to decide when you're ready to drive by yourself. But you're paying this instructor by the hour. Surely you see the potential for abusing the system?

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

And all the self righteousness from full licence holders is laughable - how many of you drove with just provisionals in your own day ?

Never in a car as it was illegal!

boomtown123

Kev.OC wrote: »

Really? I'm sorry, but that is incredibly naive. So you pay an instructor for lessons for as long as they consider necessary? Be it two lessons or twenty? Just keep giving them money until they say stop?

Jesus, no recession around here. :pac:

But sure is the concern not over safer driving? And if you can't afford lessons how are you going keep your car running? Fairy dust??:)

boomtown123

boomtown123 wrote: »

But sure is the concern not over safer driving? And if you can't afford lessons how are you going keep your car running? Fairy dust??:)

Cart before the horse, you pass the test first then get the car.

PC CDROM

marienbad wrote: »

And all the self righteousness from full licence holders is laughable - how many of you drove with just provisionals in your own day ?

I didn't. It wasn't allowed. I had my Parents come out with me for practise so that I could be more experienced for my test.

amacca wrote: »

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

What stuff did you have to do in the test which you have now ditched? Out of interest?

sdanseo

SocSocPol wrote: »

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).

He was giving examples of things that cause some deaths, not once did he say that list was exhaustive. Down you get off the high horse there lad.

Muir

I don't really agree with it because personally, I know I failed my test the first time because i was too scared I would get into trouble for driving unaccompanied so I had no confidence when it came to the test. I had only been in the car with an instructor because my parents etc. don't drive so I had no other choice, and so when it came to my test it was my first time in the car not on a lesson, so I got nervous and made a stupid mistake.
You need to build up some confidence on your own too, it's an important part of driving. And I do think a lot of people who think this is such a great idea probably learned to drive before this rule existed and didn't drive with someone with a full licence while they were learning. Maybe the rule should apply until you've done your 12 lessons and then you get a chance to go out on your own & gain some experience being alone.

boomtown123

Deleted User wrote: »

Cart before the horse, you pass the test first then get the car.

As I did!!! But I still ended up spending money on lessons, contributing to the insurance and tax on my mothers car as well as the petrol. So how do you learn then - without spending any money? Curious

Rasmus

Shenshen wrote: »

If I recall correctly, driving tests in the US are not performed on public roads.
You drive around on an oversized parking lot made to resemble roads, and then are given your license.
A friend of mine had to take the test to get a US license when she was au pair in Colorado, and found the whole exercise laughable.
She says it also explains why Americans can't drive round corners, and why there's thos very low blanket speed limits everywhere.

It is easy, because most cars are automatic and are easier for a beginner to handle, while at the same time, roads are wider, generally well surfaced and public spaces are larger.

They want you (a qualified driver) out on the road improving your skills rather than sneaking about avoiding cops because you can't pass the test. This tend to create more problems and encourages kids to break rules.

They do take you out on public roads - but the test is only about 20 minutes. Depending on the state, the difficulty of the test will differ. A driving test in the Bronx, for example, is still hard! Also, in the American test, you have to parrallal park.

My American licence was worthless here (deemed a provisional) and I had to go through the Irish system even though I had been driving for years in cities, countryside, highways etc.

The test here is too hard - this is why some many L drivers go round unaccompanied, not because they are lazy. It is the stupidest set-up going, and as someone mentioned, at the whim of the tester. A person sitting the test will spend more time yanking their head around 'observing' in order to please the tester, rather than concentrating on driving safely and naturally.

Also, these feckin driving lessons should be subsidized - you can be sure you have a lot more licensed and safer drivers on the road as a result. It is BS to say if you can't afford the lessons, you can't afford the insurance. Whatever! You pay less in insurance annually that you would for the required driving lesson package.

As for the continuing problem with L drivers insisting on driving alone... what does the government expect with the state of our public transport insfrastructure??

PS Shensen, only the American driving test part is directed at you! Although, I don't know where your friend got the idea that Americans can't drive around corners? I have not noticed that, but perhaps Irish or Europeans are more adept at it because we are used to driving Ford Fiestas and turning on old bridges.

boomtown123

boomtown123 wrote: »

As I did!!! But I still ended up spending money on lessons, contributing to the insurance and tax on my mothers car as well as the petrol. So how do you learn then - without spending any money? Curious

I used the driving instructor's car, that was how it was done in those days (in the UK).

It's the cheapest way to learn as you can't affort to run a car and take lessons.

PC CDROM

Muir wrote: »

You need to build up some confidence on your own too, it's an important part of driving. And I do think a lot of people who think this is such a great idea probably learned to drive before this rule existed and didn't drive with someone with a full licence while they were learning. Maybe the rule should apply until you've done your 12 lessons and then you get a chance to go out on your own & gain some experience being alone.

As far as I am aware the rule has always existed in modern time. tbh you can't blame some L drivers for driving on their own. It should have been clamped down on years ago.

As for the confidence thing... that is just something that come along over years. Not a few drives.

Passing your test does not make you a good driver. Just you passed a test on the day.

Hand on heart I only became what I would call a good driver about 9 years ago. That was after about 10 years of driving.

The big change in my driving habits was actually moving back to Ireland, specifically Dublin... and realising I was surrounded by some of the worst drivers in the world. So I had to learn to be super duper aware using my mirrors etc For example it is not about the cars around you on the M50. You have to be looking ahead as far as you can see! And the same every where. NO ONE is prepared for high speed crash

DazMarz

There will never be a perfect system for testing drivers in this country. There is also this sense of "I need to drive, so fuggit, I will." And even I did that. The fact of the matter is that public transportation in this country is beyond a joke and I have the deepest sympathies for those who have to rely upon it; it is just totally unreliable and this is a country where a car is almost a necessity for life.

The system needs a complete overhaul, no arguments there. But I think that the measures taken against Learner Drivers is a bit excessive; as someone mentioned they are 'involved in' (may not have been the cause of it!!!) in or around 6.6% of all traffic accidents. This leaves 93.4% of accidents to be caused by fully-qualified drivers (yeah, this drum has been beaten before in this thread, but I think it is a pertinant point).

Also, I find it very hard to believe that people always adhered to the strict regulation of always having a fully-qualified driver alongside them while driving on a provisional at all times. Every single time? I mean, absolutely, positively every single moment you were behind the wheel of a car before you passed your test, you had a fully qualified driver in the car with you? I find that just the teensiest bit hard to believe. Maybe you did, and fair play, but the vast majority of people I know zipped around like mad while on their provisionals on their own. I know well. I was one of them.

The more the government/Gardaí tighten their grip on this, the more people will evade them and do it anyway. They know how to do it, they've been doing it for years.

Personally, I feel it is something of a waste of resources to try and crack down this heavily on Learner Drivers. Drink driving, drug driving, speeding, etc. These are the areas where the real attention should be, in all fairness. In particular, drug driving (driving while under the influence of drugs) I feel is more prevalent nowadays than anything else. I know lads that won't drink and drive at all, but will drive off without a bother while stoned off their ass.

I don't know. There has to be a better way of regulating driving than just slapping Learner drivers around the place.

DazMarz

Rasmus wrote: »

A person sitting the test will spend more time yanking their head around 'observing' in order to please the tester, rather than concentrating on driving safely and naturally.

This, times a million. I was even told by my instructor; "even if you don't look in the mirror, make sure it appears that you are".

So basically, I just make it appear I'm doing something and I'll be fine??

That observation thing is a crock. You basically just have to spin your head around to prove you're looking. I can look just fine without throwing my back out! That is one thing that made me pissed off; I always used my mirrors and I always looked around, but because I didn't violently jerk my head around to make sure that the tester saw this or swivel like a dervish to check the wing mirror... I could be failed. Have these people never swiveled their eyes in their sockets??? We are not owls. Our eyes are not static in our heads; they can move independently of our heads and we can look at something without physically moving our whole head or whole body, you know.

glennryan

jester77 wrote: »

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.

Did you have to pay 40 euro a lesson....doubt it!!!!!