Seizing learners cars

djimi

Ronan cork wrote: »

the ability of a guard to use his judgement in applying the law is not something I would ever want to see abolished and I'm sure if they pull over some 18 year old tearing about the place like an eejit on a provisional they will deal with him accordingly but I don't think a thirty odd year old driving into work in the morning and obaying the rules of the road should be dealt with in the same manner.

The problem is that there is literally no way for a Garda to tell two learners apart abililty wise, and there is no way for them to use their judgement on the matter.

Take this scenario:

Johnny and Mary both get pulled over by a Garda while driving unaccompanied on a learner permit. They both passed the theory test on the same day 18 months ago, but while Johnny has been taking lesson, has hundreds of hours of driving experience and is generally more than ready to pass the test, Mary has never actually sat behind the wheel of car until that week, has never taken a lesson or any kind of instruction and is generally a complete novice when it comes to driving.

How is the Garda supposed to use their judgement and tell these to learners apart? Neither should be on the road, but while Johnny can argue that he is a perfectly capable driver, so can Mary. There is no way for the Garda to know otherwise.

When it comes to learner drivers a Garda has to assume that every single one of them is has the absolute minumum experience and ability; anything else is just pure negligent from the Garda. If a learner is a good enough driver to be on the road unaccompanied then let them go off and get the test to prove it. Until then they do not have a drivers license and do not have a right to drive on public roads. That is quite simply the bottom line.

Ronan cork

That's a fair point but learner drivers have to complete a course book detailing the 12 lessons which is signed and stamped by the instructor after each lesson and has to be handed in and checked before you can do the practical test. This should be in the car weather accompanied or not and the Garda should be able to write notes or warnings in it to identify repeat offenders.

I just feel a more constructive solution to the issue than fine, confiscate and ban needs to be looked at. For example if a Garda notices a learner driver not signalling or whatever he marks the book and they have to redo that lesson.
I think a learner driver not displaying L plates is worse than driving unaccompanied to be honest and I can imagine people remove the L plates as they need to drive alone, get stopped and say they don't have the licence or ID on them, give their fathers name ( which is on the papers for the car) and their dad produces his licence at the Garda station within 5 days as instructed!

Alanstrainor

Ronan cork wrote: »

That's a fair point but learner drivers have to complete a course book detailing the 12 lessons which is signed and stamped by the instructor after each lesson and has to be handed in and checked before you can do the practical test. This should be in the car weather accompanied or not and the Garda should be able to write notes or warnings in it to identify repeat offenders.

I just feel a more constructive solution to the issue than fine, confiscate and ban needs to be looked at. For example if a Garda notices a learner driver not signalling or whatever he marks the book and they have to redo that lesson.
I think a learner driver not displaying L plates is worse than driving unaccompanied to be honest and I can imagine people remove the L plates as they need to drive alone, get stopped and say they don't have the licence or ID on them, give their fathers name ( which is on the papers for the car) and their dad produces his licence at the Garda station within 5 days as instructed!

Points on Learner Permits is the solution you are looking for. And 6 points instead of 12 for a ban.

I'm against banning people outright for first offenses, but points, and a lower ban limit is the way to go.

wonski

Mc Love wrote: »

:mad:

If pushing the revs up to past 3k rpm in 4th gear is such a problem for you, you will definitely need more experience.
What exactly is wrong with that???

CianRyan

wonski wrote: »

If pushing the revs up to past 3k rpm in 4th gear is such a problem for you, you will definitely need more experience.
What exactly is wrong with that???

Using the full rev range of a car uses more fuel and is there for illegal in the eyes of Irish drivers.

SPQRI

Should older drivers (60+) have to do a driving test before re-newing
their licence? Do they even have a health check?
I had an experience of an older driver cutting across a corner
rather than driving around it. Then driving across a roundabout,
cutting across two lanes while travelling at 15 kmph!

corktina

SPQRI wrote: »

Should older drivers (60+) have to do a driving test before re-newing
their licence? Do they even have a health check?
I had an experience of an older driver cutting across a corner
rather than driving around it. Then driving across a roundabout,
cutting across two lanes while travelling at 15 kmph!

may be they should, but this is used as arguement to excuse Learners driving illegally .It isn't of any relevance to the issue

Mc Love

wonski wrote: »

If pushing the revs up to past 3k rpm in 4th gear is such a problem for you, you will definitely need more experience.
What exactly is wrong with that???

Driving a car at 100km/h in 4th gear surely wont do the engine any good? And being afraid of going into 5th gear...you must have missed that part of the sentence :pac:

fasttalkerchat

I've seen it happen but this was by the PSNI.

SPQRI

corktina wrote: »

may be they should, but this is used as arguement to excuse Learners driving illegally .It isn't of any relevance to the issue

I wasn't trying to excuse anyone.

Mycroft H

Mc Love wrote: »

Driving a car at 100km/h in 4th gear surely wont do the engine any good?

Wont do it any harm either. Blow the cobwebs out. Uses a bit more fuel is all.

ABajaninCork

Is there no requirement here for drivers over 70 to prove their fitness to drive? I find that unbelievable! In the UK, you need to have a letter from your doctor and an eye test (I think) in order to get another licence...(apologies for dragging OT!)

Mycroft H

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Is there no requirement here for drivers over 70 to prove their fitness to drive? I find that unbelievable! In the UK, you need to have a letter from your doctor and an eye test (I think) in order to get another licence...(apologies for dragging OT!)

You have to get a medical cert here once you're over 70.

wonski

Mc Love wrote: »

Driving a car at 100km/h in 4th gear surely wont do the engine any good? And being afraid of going into 5th gear...you must have missed that part of the sentence :pac:

I missed it because it sounds like a BS...being afraid to go into 5th???
The arguements here are getting more and more interesting...

My engine is ok... past 3, 4k rpm still ok. I think it was designed this way.
Going uphill in 5th - this wouldn't do any good for my sluggish car.
What i am saying is that this depends o the car, and the road, and doesn't make anyone better or worse driver. So i do not see how it is relervant to the topic discussed.

djflawless

i work in forestry and gamekeeping up the mountains.30 km each way.living in the nearest town would put me roughly 12 km away.theres noone else that works near me.im not looking for any sympathetic ****e.
but my situation as it is means i cant sit my full test yet.if i was to get a taxi to work, again the end of the week came it would defeat the purpose of working.
the law needs to be put some way that dangerous/repeat offenders be prosecuted.not many people nowadays are going to have a chance of a pink amnesty.and i can guess at least 70% of full licences on this didnt have to have 12 lessons done.and at least 40% just started driving without any experience...
maybe if ye had to start all over again ye'd be singing from the same hymn sheet as me and many others.and something thats already been said, its full licence drivers mostly responsible for speeding,drink driving,driving and using phones,dangerous driving incidents,road rage.the list goes on and on and on.and another thing, seeing as yer targeting L drivers, why shouldnt fulls be retested every 5 years to prove their still capable.and if failed, are downgraded to prov licence.that might quieten down a lot of arseholes on the road

fasttalkerchat

djflawless wrote: »

i work in forestry and gamekeeping up the mountains.30 km each way.living in the nearest town would put me roughly 12 km away.theres noone else that works near me.im not looking for any sympathetic ****e.
but my situation as it is means i cant sit my full test yet.if i was to get a taxi to work, again the end of the week came it would defeat the purpose of working.
the law needs to be put some way that dangerous/repeat offenders be prosecuted.not many people nowadays are going to have a chance of a pink amnesty.and i can guess at least 70% of full licences on this didnt have to have 12 lessons done.and at least 40% just started driving without any experience...
maybe if ye had to start all over again ye'd be singing from the same hymn sheet as me and many others.and something thats already been said, its full licence drivers mostly responsible for speeding,drink driving,driving and using phones,dangerous driving incidents,road rage.the list goes on and on and on.and another thing, seeing as yer targeting L drivers, why shouldnt fulls be retested every 5 years to prove their still capable.and if failed, are downgraded to prov licence.that might quieten down a lot of arseholes on the road

If you as an unlicensed driver are driving that much every day you can't criticise others on the road! Do you have insurance and does the insurance company know that you regularly take the car out alone?

djflawless

i have my prov licence.did the insurance company ask if i would be driving on my own???no

awec

This post has been deleted.

wonski

awec wrote: »

Just because they didn't explicitly ask doesn't mean they wouldn't be very interested to know that you are driving without a valid license or ever having passed your test.

They know he didn't passed it yet. You can insure car on learner permit, and will be covered 3rd party on your own.

Gingernuts31

djflawless wrote: »

i have my prov licence.did the insurance company ask if i would be driving on my own???no

Thats like saying " did the insurance company ask me if id be speeding??" no.

djflawless

and do you speed???

Henry Ford III

djflawless wrote: »

i work in forestry and gamekeeping up the mountains.30 km each way.living in the nearest town would put me roughly 12 km away.theres noone else that works near me.im not looking for any sympathetic ****e....

What'd happen if you were stopped tomorrow by the Gardai and prosecuted?

djflawless

id have to join the dole q again thats what.then you could whinge about how i was a waste of your taxes

fasttalkerchat

djflawless wrote: »

i have my prov licence.did the insurance company ask if i would be driving on my own???no

You're gave the type of licence you hold on the application. You are insured for the purpose of learning to drive only. If you take the car out on your own you have broken the terms.

Part of the problem is because insurance companies pay out on claims for learners that go out alone.

monkeypants

djflawless wrote: »

i work in forestry and gamekeeping up the mountains.30 km each way.living in the nearest town would put me roughly 12 km away.theres noone else that works near me.

Irrelevant.

djflawless wrote: »

but my situation as it is means i cant sit my full test yet.if i was to get a taxi to work, again the end of the week came it would defeat the purpose of working.

Also irrelevant.

djflawless wrote: »

the law needs to be put some way that dangerous/repeat offenders be prosecuted.

Indeed. Starting with people who are driving with no licence, such as yourself.

djflawless wrote: »

maybe if ye had to start all over again ye'd be singing from the same hymn sheet as me and many others.

Maybe, but I doubt it. I managed to drive accompanied while on my permit.

djflawless wrote: »

its full licence drivers mostly responsible for speeding,drink driving,driving and using phones,dangerous driving incidents,road rage.

True, but that's a different discussion.

djflawless wrote: »

why shouldnt fulls be retested every 5 years to prove their still capable.

I'd make it a condition of renewing the licence, so up to every ten years until 70.

djflawless wrote: »

quieten down a lot of arseholes on the road

Perhaps, also including those who are unlicenced, but assume that they have some right to drive regardless.

Henry Ford III

djflawless wrote: »

id have to join the dole q again thats what.then you could whinge about how i was a waste of your taxes

Buy a motorbike.

p.s. I could also whinge about your awful grammar.

Gingernuts31

djflawless wrote: »

and do you speed???

I do 100 on the motorway . I live beside a 100kph rd so no need to rush through towns to get onto a big high speed rd for me.

Eric Cartman

Gingernuts31 wrote: »

The wifes niece drives a merc, a big heavy 2 litre petrol merc. Now this girl lives in dublin, buses and taxi firms around to beat the band, has a good job, plenty of money has failed her test 3 times. She won't get the bus to work and she wont get a taxi. Instead she flaunts the law to sit in traffic, with no full licence holder beside her to drive for 20 minutes to work when she could easily get a taxi or bus since shes loaded. To me that is just wrong and her car should be siezed, fined the 1,000 euro, banned from driving and made to re-take the theory test. That is only fair and I genuinly believe it would stop all these learners from flaunting the law. We were all learners at some stage but not all of us broke the law like 98% of learner drivers do now because learners know the guards won't do squat about it if they are stopped except a small fine.

does not compute, thats a fairly small car in the scheme of things.

Gingernuts31

Eric Cartman wrote: »

does not compute, thats a fairly small car in the scheme of things.

Regardless of her car, it wouldn't matter if she was driving a bently or a fiat sciento she shouldn't be driving.

Eric Cartman

awec wrote: »

That's generally why people pay taxes.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you think it's fine for people to avoid paying income tax when they don't feel like paying it. Bit unfair to expect people to obey the law, right?

If I could get away with it , Id do just that. So would most people, the abismal amount of services I actually get in exchange for my tax money is shocking.

djimi

djflawless wrote: »

i work in forestry and gamekeeping up the mountains.30 km each way.living in the nearest town would put me roughly 12 km away.theres noone else that works near me.im not looking for any sympathetic ****e.
but my situation as it is means i cant sit my full test yet.if i was to get a taxi to work, again the end of the week came it would defeat the purpose of working.

With all due respect your sob story about needing the car for work or whatever is totally and utterly irrelevant. You dont have a drivers license. That means you either find another way to get to work or you find a job closer to where you live. Make any excuse you want to justify breaking the law; the bottom line is that you do not have a drivers license and you have no business being on a road without an instructor/fully licensed driver alongside you.

djflawless wrote: »

the law needs to be put some way that dangerous/repeat offenders be prosecuted.not many people nowadays are going to have a chance of a pink amnesty.and i can guess at least 70% of full licences on this didnt have to have 12 lessons done.and at least 40% just started driving without any experience...
maybe if ye had to start all over again ye'd be singing from the same hymn sheet as me and many others.and something thats already been said, its full licence drivers mostly responsible for speeding,drink driving,driving and using phones,dangerous driving incidents,road rage.the list goes on and on and on.and another thing, seeing as yer targeting L drivers, why shouldnt fulls be retested every 5 years to prove their still capable.and if failed, are downgraded to prov licence.that might quieten down a lot of arseholes on the road

Bringing up the failings of fully licensed drivers is again just making excuses and is trying to deflect away from the issue at hand. There are many problems with fully licensed drivers, noone will deny that, but at least they have at some point in their lives displayed the necessary competancy to show that they are capable of being on the road. A learner has not, and as such much be treated as if they are a complete novice who has never touched a steering wheel before that day.

On the idea of restesting drivers I dont think it would be necessary if driving laws were enforced properly, and if the driver education system was sorted so that its actually effective in producing drivers who are capable to a high standard. Maybe a retest at 70 or something could be argued. Introduce bigger incentives for people to take advanced driving courses would be a better solution (an awful lot of people would go for it if they thoght it would reduce their insurance by 50% for instance).

challengemaster

CianRyan wrote: »

I've honestly known absolutely no one that's stuck the the accompanied driver rule and none of the learners I've known have been charged by the Garda or been in an accident.
It's mad to expect some one pay for a lesson everytime they want to drive if they've no one to sit in with them, they'll never get to their test at that rate.

And you'd swear people were going out with no experience, that's not the case.
You go get your lessons for a few months, build up the skills and confidence and when you're ready and insurered you do a few small runs to the shops and that to get the hang of driving alone. And as I've said, what difference does it make having someone sitting beside you? Unless it's an instructors car with the extra pedals they can do nothing bar distract the driver.

I stuck to the accompanied driving rule for the entire time (~1 year) until I got my license. Not once did I even take a spin to the shops without one. So you can forget your excuses. Yes, it is inconvenient, but driving isn't an entitlement and you're expected to obey the rules. If that doesn't suit, don't drive.

Also you're missing one point about having an accompanying driver with you. They have more experience, so should you end up in a situation where you have no clue what to do, you've got someone to lean on, and learn from.

CianRyan wrote: »

I never said it was 100% but that doesn't mean I'm not a compitent driver.
You act like I'm heading out to drive a tank. I'll be repsectfull and carefull like anyone else.

Competency is proven in a driving test, and while that test might not be the most flawless thing in the world, it is the only current proof of competency in terms of driving this country has.

And FYI, you're not driving a tank, but you are in a 1+ ton piece of metal that regularly travels at 60mph, and is just as capable of killing people.

zenno wrote: »

2013 and it should be a right.

Lose the celtic tiger attitude of being entitled to everything. If anything, it should be emphasized much more how much of a privilege driving actually is.


It's rather funny that mostly the only people on the side of the leaner drivers driving unaccompanied, are the learner drivers who are driving unaccompanied.

dar83

challengemaster wrote: »

Lose the celtic tiger attitude of being entitled to everything. If anything, it should be emphasized much more how much of a privilege driving actually is.


It's rather funny that mostly the only people on the side of the leaner drivers driving unaccompanied, are the learner drivers who are driving unaccompanied.

I think most of the people arguing their point on this are too young to actually remember/know any different...

djimi

CianRyan wrote:

It's mad to expect some one pay for a lesson everytime they want to drive if they've no one to sit in with them, they'll never get to their test at that rate.

Its not mad at all and if driving laws were actually enfored then youd find that everyone would find the money if thats what it took. Driving is not a right, and obtaining a license is not supposed to be easy. There are countries that make it a lot harder to get a license than we do, yet people seem to manage just fine. We just seem to throw our toys out of the pram because we cant have it the easy way. Typically Irish "ah sure itll be grand attitude" and it really needs to change.

Mc Love

Why doesnt that logger fella get a bike through the bike to work scheme?

Eric Cartman

Gingernuts31 wrote: »

Regardless of her car, it wouldn't matter if she was driving a bently or a fiat sciento she shouldn't be driving.

no she shouldnt, but just the way you phrased it all calling her 'loaded' and calling a 2 litre merc 'big and heavy' , seems like your more upset about what she has / earns than her driving unacompanied.

ABajaninCork

Mc Love wrote: »

Why doesnt that logger fella get a bike through the bike to work scheme?

Because that or organising lifts to work would be FAR too logical, silly!

areyawell

I am on a provisional. I drive on the road with no L plates displayed and no fully licensed driver approximately 500km a week. I choose to drive on the road even though its against the law. Whatever people say on this thread makes no difference to me. If I get caught eventually by the gaurds I will pay whatever fine I get and continue to drive again on it again. I will eventually get the full. The benefits outweigh the risk!

Also people telling a person to quit there job because they have to drive 30KM to work need to get off there high horse! You do realize we're in a recession. I hope the poster who said this loses there job and see how you like it!

I will continue to drive on my own until the risk outweigh the benefits. I heard they are bringing in a new system next summer that if a learner driver is stopped by a garda, its 1 penalty point and a 70 euro fine. That's even making it better to drive on your own lol!

Henry Ford III

areyawell wrote: »

I am on a provisional. I drive on the road with no L plates displayed and no fully licensed driver approximately 500km a week. I choose to drive on the road even though its against the law. Whatever people say on this thread makes no difference to me. If I get caught eventually by the gaurds I will pay whatever fine I get and continue to drive again on it again. I will eventually get the full. The benefits outweigh the risk!

Also people telling a person to quit there job because they have to drive 30KM to work need to get off there high horse! You do realize we're in a recession. I hope the poster who said this loses there job and see how you like it!

I will continue to drive on my own until the risk outweigh the benefits. I heard they are bringing in a new system next summer that if a learner driver is stopped by a garda, its 1 penalty point and a 70 euro fine. That's even making it better to drive on your own lol!

You deserve to be caught and fined/prosecuted.

monkeypants

areyawell wrote: »

I am on a provisional. I drive on the road with no L plates displayed and no fully licensed driver approximately 500km a week. I choose to drive on the road even though its against the law. Whatever people say on this thread makes no difference to me. If I get caught eventually by the gaurds I will pay whatever fine I get and continue to drive again on it again. I will eventually get the full. The benefits outweigh the risk!

Also people telling a person to quit there job because they have to drive 30KM to work need to get off there high horse! You do realize we're in a recession. I hope the poster who said this loses there job and see how you like it!

I will continue to drive on my own until the risk outweigh the benefits. I heard they are bringing in a new system next summer that if a learner driver is stopped by a garda, its 1 penalty point and a 70 euro fine. That's even making it better to drive on your own lol!

This is why your car should be seized. Thanks for making the best argument in the thread so far.

corktina

areyawell wrote: »

I am on a provisional. I drive on the road with no L plates displayed and no fully licensed driver approximately 500km a week. I choose to drive on the road even though its against the law. Whatever people say on this thread makes no difference to me. If I get caught eventually by the gaurds I will pay whatever fine I get and continue to drive again on it again. I will eventually get the full. The benefits outweigh the risk!

Also people telling a person to quit there job because they have to drive 30KM to work need to get off there high horse! You do realize we're in a recession. I hope the poster who said this loses there job and see how you like it!

I will continue to drive on my own until the risk outweigh the benefits. I heard they are bringing in a new system next summer that if a learner driver is stopped by a garda, its 1 penalty point and a 70 euro fine. That's even making it better to drive on your own lol!

but the point of this thread is that it is proposed to take your car off you if caught and crush it. Maybe that would concentrate your mind....

mark renton

areyawell wrote: »

I am on a provisional. I drive on the road with no L plates displayed and no fully licensed driver approximately 500km a week. I choose to drive on the road even though its against the law. Whatever people say on this thread makes no difference to me. If I get caught eventually by the gaurds I will pay whatever fine I get and continue to drive again on it again. I will eventually get the full. The benefits outweigh the risk!

Also people telling a person to quit there job because they have to drive 30KM to work need to get off there high horse! You do realize we're in a recession. I hope the poster who said this loses there job and see how you like it!

I will continue to drive on my own until the risk outweigh the benefits. I heard they are bringing in a new system next summer that if a learner driver is stopped by a garda, its 1 penalty point and a 70 euro fine. That's even making it better to drive on your own lol!

This is actually thre norm and there are many thousands who see it this way, they wont actually post on threads like this due to the attitude of others who are in no way affected by unaccompanied drivers.
Thanks for being humble enough to add your reality to this thread as it is part of every day living for many others too...

Henry Ford III

john47832 wrote: »

This is actually thre norm and there are many thousands who see it this way, they wont actually post on threads like this due to the attitude of others who are in no way affected by unaccompanied drivers.
Thanks for being humble enough to add your reality to this thread as it is part of every day living for many others too...

Humble? You are joking surely?

That post was arrogant, and brazen in it's disregard for the law.

p.s. The reality is that these drivers either need to either do the test, or be accompanied at all times. If they flout the law, they deserve everything the legal system can throw at them.

OldmanMondeo

areyawell wrote: »

I am on a provisional. I drive on the road with no L plates displayed and no fully licensed driver approximately 500km a week. I choose to drive on the road even though its against the law. Whatever people say on this thread makes no difference to me. If I get caught eventually by the gaurds I will pay whatever fine I get and continue to drive again on it again. I will eventually get the full. The benefits outweigh the risk!

Also people telling a person to quit there job because they have to drive 30KM to work need to get off there high horse! You do realize we're in a recession. I hope the poster who said this loses there job and see how you like it!

I will continue to drive on my own until the risk outweigh the benefits. I heard they are bringing in a new system next summer that if a learner driver is stopped by a garda, its 1 penalty point and a 70 euro fine. That's even making it better to drive on your own lol!

In fairness I done the same when I learnt to drive nearly 15 years ago, and if people are honest here, right or wrong, a lot have done the same.

Personally I think they should allow learner drivers that have completed a certain amount of proper driver training be allowed to drive on their own. I would feel safer with a trained novice driver on the road than someone who has no driver training at all.

corktina

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

In fairness I done the same when I learnt to drive nearly 15 years ago, and if people are honest here, right or wrong, a lot have done the same.

Personally I think they should allow learner drivers that have completed a certain amount of proper driver training be allowed to drive on their own. I would feel safer with a trained novice driver on the road than someone who has no driver training at all.

yeah they should allow them on the road after a suitable amount of training, they do now, it's called PASSING THE TEST

mark renton

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Humble? You are joking surely?

That post was arrogant, and brazen in it's disregard for the law.

p.s. The reality is that these drivers either need to either do the test, or be accompanied at all times. If they flout the law, they deserve everything the legal system can throw at them.

Have you noticed how yourself and many others are posting their opinion, whereas some are actually posting their experience?

ninty9er

I had so many posts quoted that it would have made my post unreadable.

1. It is illegal to drive unaccompanied on a public road as a holder of a learner permit
2. A learner had a means of transport before getting their permit
3. All sorts of laws are poorly enforced in Ireland
4. It is possible not to drive unaccompanied until you pass your test
5. If €500 is the cost of learning to drive, then it's €500 well spent
6. It should be illegal for learner permit holders to be insured, either on their own or as named drivers

Learning to drive is not rocket science, the test is not difficult, if you fail it it speaks volumes of your inability to control a car.

Take lessons
Pass test
Get car
Drive to your your heart's content

Don't come crying when the law is applied.

djimi

john47832 wrote: »

This is actually thre norm and there are many thousands who see it this way, they wont actually post on threads like this due to the attitude of others who are in no way affected by unaccompanied drivers.
Thanks for being humble enough to add your reality to this thread as it is part of every day living for many others too...

If I came in here and said that I regularly drive when pissed, but I dont give a **** that I am breaking the law and will continue to do so until I cause a serious accident, would you praise me for being humble enough to admit to it?

djimi

john47832 wrote: »

Have you noticed how yourself and many others are posting their opinion, whereas some are actually posting their experience?

People are posting the law, not their opinion. Its not opinion that learners drivers should not be driving freely on public roads unaccompanied; thats just plain common sense and its backed up by the law. I always find it so bemusing how learners in these debates seem to think that they have some kind of valid counter-arguement; they dont. Break the law all you want but do not try and justify doing so, do not try and vilify those who say that what you are doing is wrong, and do not come whinging when you do eventually come across the one Garda who bothers to prosecute and slap a heavy fine.

ABajaninCork

The law SHOULD be enforced. But it isn't for some unfathomable reason.

I still think the Gards should do what the police do in the UK. Seize and crush the cars, court and a nice little fine to concentrate minds. I should also point out you'll be done for no insurance as well, since UK insurance does not cover learners.

Like I've already said. Where I come from, driving unaccompanied is as socially unacceptable as drinking and driving. The keys would be taken from you at the very least. If you still insisted on driving, the police would be informed as soon as you left. The same attitude should be taken here.

My husband's a learner. He's insured to drive our car, but I do not let him drive alone. I've been told by his family and some of his friends that I SHOULD let him drive by himself. They were given very short shrift. When they pay the insurance, they can tell him whatever they like. Whilst the insurance is in my name, he'll obey the law!!