do you think the present law on learner permits is hypocritical

miss no stars

creep wrote: »

So 14/15 full license drivers cause road deaths, that stat makes no sense. Rations of learners to full is way more than 1 to 15. Full license drivers should be off the road if thats the stat

You reckon 1 in 15 drivers is a learner? I'd have said less. Meaning that even though, for arguments sake, 29/30 drivers have a full license they're responsible only for 28/30 accidents. Learners are more dangerous than fully licensed drivers. Novice but fully licensed drivers are more dangerous than experienced drivers.

How difficult is that to understand?

tim3000

miss no stars wrote: »

You reckon 1 in 15 drivers is a learner? I'd have said less. Meaning that even though, for arguments sake, 29/30 drivers have a full license they're responsible only for 28/30 accidents. Learners are more dangerous than fully licensed drivers. Novice but fully licensed drivers are more dangerous than experienced drivers.

How difficult is that to understand?

No the stat in question is that 1/15 road deaths involve a learner driver.

TimeToShine

I got my license last year but I remember being told that you should have something like 60 hours behind the wheel before you're tested. Now how anyone expects a learner to find someone willing to sit beside them for 60 hours is beyond me.

bucketybuck

I guess we should just get rid of the driving test then. The only barrier to anybody piloting a lump of metal at 70mph should be whether they feel comfortable or not.

creep

miss no stars wrote: »

You reckon 1 in 15 drivers is a learner? I'd have said less. Meaning that even though, for arguments sake, 29/30 drivers have a full license they're responsible only for 28/30 accidents. Learners are more dangerous than fully licensed drivers. Novice but fully licensed drivers are more dangerous than experienced drivers.

How difficult is that to understand?

I see plenty of 50 year old drivers doing 160 KM/H an hour on the motorway, no clue which lane to go into on a roundabout, They are dangerous.

It doesn't matter how experienced they are plenty of reckless drivers on the road

joebloggs32

creep wrote: »

I've been driving over 2 years on a provisional with no L plates displayed doing around 400KM a week. I find the danger on the road is not the learner drivers but the people who speed, overtake in dangerous areas and do not use their indicators. If a person feels comfortable to drive then no harm driving.

How do you know wether or not these dangerous drivers are not like yourself; learners without L plates displayed!

miss no stars

creep wrote: »

I drive 400Km a week, I know how to check my mirrors, check my blindspot tyvm. How is my attitude wreckless and dangerous? I drive within with the speed limit unlike most full license drivers doing 160 KM/H on the motorway,

It's a reckless attitude because as you say yourself, you don't do the lessons (so who's checking that you're checking correctly?), you're on motorways where the speeds involved are very high without a full license and think you're a grand driver but won't do the one, single thing that would prove that you're okay at driving - the test.

tim3000 wrote: »

No the stat in question is that 1/15 road deaths involve a learner driver.

Yup, and I'm saying that I doubt so many as 1 in 15 drivers are learners, therefore, learners are disproportionately high in the figures.

Fluorescence

I have been driving for little less than 1 year now. I passed my test last week, after never, not even once, driving unaccompanied.

Getting adequate practise in was a problem. Finding the time when both myself and another person were free to get out was very difficult. But I never, ever, ever would have considered driving alone for the sake of more practise. Even though I would have passed my test months ago if I could have driven myself around everywhere without being reliant on other people's schedules.

I've only done 2 short 10 min drives since, unaccompanied, and it is pretty scary. I had become so used to having a second pair of eyes in the car. I feel now like I'm learning all over again. I'm forcing myself to be 10 times more cautious and observant. Driving alone is difficult.

So no, I don't think it's hypocritical at all. The RSA have ballsed up plenty of things but this, IMO, is not one of them. I'm actually very pleased with the accompaniment rule as well as the EDT system. I think we're going to experience a new generation of better trained drivers. That can only be a good thing.

tim3000

miss no stars wrote: »

Yup, and I'm saying that I doubt so many as 1 in 15 drivers are learners, therefore, learners are disproportionately high in the figures.

Oh I see. Well as is 1/15 road deaths involves a learner driver. But I haven't looked for stats detailing accidents caused by them. I imagine this would again be a lower stat perhaps 1/30 given a fifty/fifty split of liability. This then isn't a disproportionate amount of road deaths caused by learner drivers.

Granted these are rough estimates but even if the liability shifts to 75:25 against the learner this isn't even a disproportionate amount of fatalities caused.

miss no stars

tim3000 wrote: »

Oh I see. Well as is 1/15 road deaths involves a learner driver. But I haven't looked for stats detailing accidents caused by them. I imagine this would again be a lower stat perhaps 1/30 given a fifty/fifty split of liability. This then isn't a disproportionate amount of road deaths caused by learner drivers.

You need to brush up on your stats. If that's true for the cases involving learners then it's true for those not involving learners. Meaning that the stats stay the same.

creep

tim3000 wrote: »

Oh I see. Well as is 1/15 road deaths involves a learner driver. But I haven't looked for stats detailing accidents caused by them. I imagine this would again be a lower stat perhaps 1/30 given a fifty/fifty split of liability. This then isn't a disproportionate amount of road deaths caused by learner drivers.

Granted these are rough estimates but even if the liability shifts to 75:25 against the learner this isn't even a disproportionate amount of fatalities caused.

I find that people with learner permits up are getting haraased by other drivers simply by having L plates, dangerous overtaking, beeping at them for no reason, tailgaiting them, cutting them off. I'd say thats a cause of some of them accidents

creep

miss no stars wrote: »

You need to brush up on your stats. If that's true for the cases involving learners then it's true for those not involving learners. Meaning that the stats stay the same.

No they do not, if it was the learner was the one who caused the crash then thats one side. This stat shows a learner driver that was involved in a accident which was more than likely caused by a full license trying to dangerously overtake or what not.

miss no stars

creep wrote: »

I find that people with learner permits up are getting haraased by other drivers simply by having L plates, dangerous overtaking, beeping at them for no reason, tailgaiting them, cutting them off. I'd say thats a cause of some of them accidents

Yeah, sometimes. Yet most people I've driven with (as a passenger or driver) get annoyed when there's a learner going slow/being an idiot but will hang back and take the approach of "everyone had to learn". Sure, there'll be a few. But those are the idiots that will do that for whatever reason they come up with next and, having driven with L plates up and without (after passing the test), I find that some people are just idiots and you might as well learn to deal with them and not let them affect your driving.

tim3000

miss no stars wrote: »

You need to brush up on your stats. If that's true for the cases involving learners then it's true for those not involving learners. Meaning that the stats stay the same.

Well I cant find the stats detailing the accidents actually and unequivocally caused by learners, not involving them. Thats why I had to estimate the split of liability in fatal road crashes.

Based on the stat that 1/15 deaths involve a learner driver then it is fair to guess that 1/30 deaths was caused directly by a learner driver, do you agree?

The point I'm trying to make is given that this percentage of 3.33% of accidents caused by learner drivers isn't a statistically significant amount given the volume of learners actually on the road. Now I must find stats for the amount of learners on the road. But I am getting a little off topic :pac:

miss no stars

creep wrote: »

No they do not, if it was the learner was the one who caused the crash then thats one side. This stat shows a learner driver that was involved in a accident which was more than likely caused by a full license trying to dangerously overtake or what not.

They do. 1/15 involve a learner. Lets say 50% are caused by party A (the learner). That means that 1 in 30 involve and are caused by a learner. Out of the 14 of 15 not involving a learner, party A (fully licensed) is responsible 50% of the time. This is the crux of having to apply the same assumption across the board. You can't say that for the 14 out of 15 both parties are responsible yet for the 1 of 15 only one is responsible. So in 14 out of 30 instances not involving a learner party A is responsible.

Now take a look at where party A was to blame - 15 out of 30 instances. For 1 in 15 of those instances, party A is a learner.

creep

miss no stars wrote: »

They do. 1/15 involve a learner. Lets say 50% are caused by party A (the learner). That means that 1 in 30 involve and are caused by a learner. Out of the 14 of 15 not involving a learner, party A (fully licensed) is responsible 50% of the time. This is the crux of having to apply the same assumption across the board. You can't say that for the 14 out of 15 both parties are responsible yet for the 1 of 15 only one is responsible. So in 14 out of 30 instances not involving a learner party A is responsible.

Now take a look at where party A was to blame - 15 out of 30 instances. For 1 in 15 of those instances, party A is a learner.

What? Where are you picking those magic numbers from. Can anyone make sense of what No License means here? Seems 30,000 learners get points and 450,000 full license drivers get points in August oh the irony.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Penalty-Point-Statistics/

Cedrus

f you want to talk the talk, then walk the walk, do the test and pass or admit you don't know it all and obey the law.

Taking down your L plates because you can't cope with a few assh0les beeping at you is an admission that you can't cope and are not ready to do your test.

Yes, there are loads of people out there who can't drive (unless there's a Guard standing on the corner), but why would you want to join them? Have you NO pride? Get better, learn more, read Roadcraft, do advanced training.

Anyone who thinks they know everything is a fool, the village idiot thinks the world ends at the horizon, smart people know that there is always another horizon beyond each and every horizon.

hognef

To those discussing the 1 in 15 accidents, keep in mind that it doesn't simply refer to 1 in 15 accidents involving learner drivers, it says that 1 in 15 involves <b> unaccompanied </b> learner drivers. That is, 1 in 15 accidents involves a particular category of drivers who aren't even allowed to be on the road in the first place.

Even if one does assume only half of those accidents (1 in 30) were indeed caused by the learner, I seriously doubt as as many as 1 in 30 drivers are in fact unaccompanied, illegal, learner drivers, even less so if one accounts for fully licensed drivers most likely doing higher average mileage.

And to those who believe learners should be allowed to drive unaccompanied, check out the laws in other European countries, and you'll find that Ireland was a very special case (and seemingly still is, given the apparent lack of penalty for being caught unaccompanied).

A learner permit is a permission to learn, not an actual driver's license. And if you don't have friends or family who can accompany you, tough ****, you'll have to pay an instructor. That's no different from having to pay someone to fix your computer in the absence of friends or family who can be bothered to help you.

Faith+1

creep wrote: »

I've been driving over 2 years on a provisional with no L plates displayed doing around 400KM a week. I find the danger on the road is not the learner drivers but the people who speed, overtake in dangerous areas and do not use their indicators. If a person feels comfortable to drive then no harm driving.

Yes, if they have a full licence Creep.

Cedrus

I think there is drink being consumed by some of these untrained, unlicensed, incompetent 'drivers'.

Media999

Just another example of the auld ***** in charge who destroyed the country treating youth like ****. Money scams left right and center.

tim3000

Following on from the tough sh1T comment regarding drivers not having an accompanying full licensed driver. I would rather sit in a car with a learner drive that had copious amounts of experience (gained without a an accompanying driver) than a full licensed driver that literally did his/her 12 lessons, sat the test all the time without practicing due a a lack of a full licensed driver to accompany them.

Cedrus

Media999 wrote: »

Just another example of the auld ***** in charge who destroyed the country treating youth like ****. Money scams left right and center.

Mwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This post is proof that the youth deserve to be treated as slow to learn children. Arrogant, pompous, and yet unknowing.

Media999

Cedrus wrote: »

Mwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This post is proof that the youth deserve to be treated as slow to learn children. Arrogant, pompous, and yet unknowing.

Im not youth. Full driver with 10 years claims free. never a scratch.

let me guess. your 40 plus and never went through any learning process i suppose.

tim3000

Cedrus wrote: »

Mwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This post is proof that the youth deserve to be treated as slow to learn children. Arrogant, pompous, and yet unknowing.

Judging by your post all older drivers are sage, conceited, "experts".

Cedrus

Media999 wrote: »

Im not youth. Full driver with 10 years claims free. never a scratch.

let me guess. your 40 plus and never went through any learning process i suppose.

40+ yes, but I can't see your reasoning for "never went through any learning process". I have full motorbike and car licences, after which I continued with advanced training. I've already posted a link for advanced driving training in Roadcraft. There was no driving test when my father started driving but that didn't stop him doing the advanced training and test, the skills he learned as a young man meant that he could still drive better after his stroke than some of the teens he shared the road with.

If you're referring to the amnesty when provisional licenses were converted without a test, you'd be looking for people older than me, and that was totally wrong. Just as the OP on this thread and her supporters are.

creep

Advanced driving ha, Seems like your getting scammed there

Cedrus

tim3000 wrote: »

Judging by your post all older drivers are sage, conceited, "experts".

Applied to me personally, I'd take sage as a compliment, I'd have to accept a fair dose of conceit (as many of the younger posters here will eventually). Expert is something I am always aspiring to, learning is a continuous process, anyone who thinks they have nothing more to learn is just a half arsed quitter.

creep

I'd bet most of the younger drivers are better and safer drivers than you judging by your posts. You really have no clue.

Cedrus

creep wrote: »

Advanced driving ha, Seems like your getting scammed there

How so?