L drivers, cars taken

The Lost Sheep

doolox wrote: »

400 is a tiny number in comparison.

The only guess I can arrive at is that there are approx 50,000 people learning to drive each year on Irish roads, given that 50,000 people sit the leaving cert each year.

You're assuming a lot there. Huge number of leaving certs havent learned to drive and dont for several years later.

At a 50% failure rate you could guess that 100,000 tests are carried out each year. So that 400 apprehensions for lone driving without a full licence is 1/2 of 1 per cent of the total number of drivers learning on our roads.

When a car is seized it does not necessarily mean it is totally lost. A fine and recovery fee may restore the car to its owner. If the owner does not have a driver to accompany him this could be a problem but a recover truck could take the car to the owners house until he gets a driver.

I think your maths is well off though i do agree about when a car is seized it doesnt mean the car is completely lost.

The country will have to look into how other countries manage to finance driver education and training in order to overcome the difficulty of young people being able to conform legally and practically to the new rules.

This is key and completely true. It should be part of secondary education compulsory in Transition year and done where possible in other years.

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

i think the long wait times for test and retest need to be looked at, a lot of drivers are just to impatience to wait, still surprised at the response of Garda to this new law and the rate of prosecution, but i suppose because with L plates on the car, big red flag. (not advising to take off L plates before going out unaccompanied).but at the end of of the day its a piece of paper and one tester saying your ok to drive, the day before you were not,you were just a Criminal breaking the law.
but it must be keeping the Guards busy.

Yes long wait times to need to be looked at but how do you change it/improve it?

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Lots of young people face the same dilemma. They get a part time job and house share.

It can be done.

Its far from that simple

kazamo wrote: »

Just a pity Shane Ross started with a good idea but wasted an opportunity to really improve road safety.

Instead of targeting one group, apply the same principle to all.

Driving using a mobile phone......confiscate the car and hefty fine
Speeding more than 20km above limit.....confiscate the car and hefty fine
Park dangerously outside shop and stick on the hazard lights....confiscate and fine

Those are just three examples of dangerous driving behaviour that we all see on a daily basis. But it will never happen as the culprits have a big enough voice unlike the L drivers.

Thats a very different argument though and confiscating cars for all those is just a waste of resources/time.

lbc2019

emilymemily wrote: »

I lived in the country too, there was no bus route in my area, they were cut during the recession. The closest bus stop was an hour and a half walk and the bus only stopped twice a day, one at 7.30 am going into town, a second coming back 6.30 pm.
Walking dark country roads in the Winter is hardly a safer alternative?

Where did you leave that the nearest bus was 1 1/2 hours away???

cbreeze

Woman on live line today said her car was struck and written off by a solo learner driver who had removed her 'L' plates.

The Chair of the Road Safety Authority was also on and she said that there are about 100,000 learner driver permit holders in the state - many of them in their 20s. But there has been a 30% increase in applications for the driving test.

So something is working ...

gerryirl

I heard from a good source today that Minister Ross is bringing in a new law in that anyone learning to ride a bike from March onwards will need to be accompanied by someone that can ride a bike without stabilizers

elperello

I think it is important that all drivers driving alone on our roads hold a full licence.

The delay in getting a test appointment seems to be a problem.

Would it make sense to give priority to people living in remote areas so they get a test appointment earlier?

Nekarsulm

lbc2019 wrote: »

Where did you leave that the nearest bus was 1 1/2 hours away???

Thats not unusual. Tbe nearest bus to me is Cavan town.
12 miles away.
An average person walks at about 4 miles per hour, so that's 3 hours away, unless I cycle or thumb.

endacl

gerryirl wrote: »

I heard from a good source today that Minister Ross is bringing in a new law in that anyone learning to ride a bike from March onwards will need to be accompanied by someone that can ride a bike without stabilizers

They generally are.

I’d say there was rarely a dad running along beside a wobbly kid on a bike who couldn’t pedal one himself.

Therefore, funny post fail.

Eggs For Dinner

gerryirl wrote: »

I heard from a good source today that Minister Ross is bringing in a new law in that anyone learning to ride a bike from March onwards will need to be accompanied by someone that can ride a bike without stabilizers

This is key to those whinging about having a qualified driver with you. It's the total lack of comprehension of the carnage a vehicle can cause if not operated safely. It was probably an attempt at humour, but I'm sure some actually see a comparison

Henry Ford III

The Lost Sheep wrote:

Its far from that simple

Yes getting to work or college can be difficult if you live in the country.

The inconvenience still doesn't entitle a L driver break the law though.

Dravokivich

elperello wrote: »

I think it is important that all drivers driving alone on our roads hold a full licence.

The delay in getting a test appointment seems to be a problem.

Would it make sense to give priority to people living in remote areas so they get a test appointment earlier?

Then you'll just get everyone putting a relative's address on the application.

Naos

There is a thread on After Hours right now which relates to this and is exactly the reason why learners should not be driving unaccompanied - not linking as the chap is having a hard enough time.

"Hi all,

I know i done wrong and drove my car unacompanied.
I also got involved in colission with another car.
No one was injured thank god.
Thats were basically my life ends i supposse.

What are my options?
I have insurance and all but i dont think ill be covered since i was on my own.

Havent got thousands in bank to pay so what will happen ?

Henry Ford III

Naos wrote: »

There is a thread on After Hours right now which relates to this and is exactly the reason why learners should not be driving unaccompanied - not linking as the chap is having a hard enough time.

Insurance may pay for 3rd party damage caused.

After that though the driver is in world of trouble - They'll get a fine, penalty points, and a world of trouble getting insurance in the future.

What they did is really stupid tbh.

elperello

Dravokivich wrote: »

Then you'll just get everyone putting a relative's address on the application.

Good point.
You would probably have to confine people to using the address on their licence and/or car insurance.

gerryirl

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

This is key to those whinging about having a qualified driver with you. It's the total lack of comprehension of the carnage a vehicle can cause if not operated safely. It was probably an attempt at humour, but I'm sure some actually see a comparison

No I actually agree with you. Wasn't really meant as humor more sarcasm but the sad reality is the same person that needs a person with them in a car does not them in tractor when driving. Think of the carnage you can do with a tractor and Ive seen that first hand the damage a tractor can do. the whole law is a joke and that includes people with full license. My van has to tested every year to make sure its roadworthy but I never get tested to see if I'm fit to drive it . If you get where I'm coming from.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Niall Boylan’s show was dominated by discussion on the Clancy amendment today. Not sure if there’s a podcast or not.

Purple Mountain

Marina Young Lodging wrote: »

Niall Boylan’s show was dominated by discussion on the Clancy amendment today. Not sure if there’s a podcast or not.

What was the general consensus?

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Purple Mountain wrote: »

What was the general consensus?

Many people were in favour of it, there was one person on who while in favour of it has said that the Gleeson family have complained about the ad itself, a typical example of it being on a recent trip to the cinema and it came on during the opening credits.

The question being asked of callers 'did you not drive unaccompanied on a provisional licence' and the 'how will we get to work/college when we live in rural areas' stuff.

Also the stats showing that learners are involved in less fatal accidents than full licensed drivers.

What can a qualified driver do from the passenger seat etc.

The big thing that most don't realise is the law was there for years, but it took this accident for a change of the law to be triggered.

As of last week there were 337 cars seized from learners in little more than 6 weeks since the law was introduced.


Here is the link to the podcast
https://www.classichits.ie/podcasts/niall-boylan/episode/do-you-think-the-new-rsa-crashed-lives-advert-campaign-is-fair/

ayux4rj6zql2ph

The RSA have commented:

The Road Safety Authority has said it will respond to the Gleeson family in the coming days over its 'Crashed Lives' campaign on unaccompanied drivers - but that it will also stick to its commitment to screen the advert.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/rsa-will-address-familys-concerns-but-will-continue-to-screen-controversial-crashed-lives-advert-905960.html

Dravokivich

elperello wrote: »

Good point.
You would probably have to confine people to using the address on their licence and/or car insurance.

They don't have a licence. And would be most likely a named driver on a policy.

elperello

Dravokivich wrote: »

They don't have a licence. And would be most likely a named driver on a policy.

They would have a learner permit (provisional licence).
The policy will have an address on it.

Dravokivich

elperello wrote: »

They would have a learner permit (provisional licence).
The policy will have an address on it.

I did not have my own policy when I was a learner.

elperello

Dravokivich wrote: »

I did not have my own policy when I was a learner.

That would be normal enough but most are a named driver on an existing policy.

The main policy holder would have to give an address and confirm that the car is normally kept there.

In order to get around a location based test priority one would need the main policy holder to collude to break the law.

I suppose no matter what system you devised some people would try it on but the vast majority would comply.

Dravokivich

elperello wrote: »

That would be normal enough but most are a named driver on an existing policy.

The main policy holder would have to give an address and confirm that the car is normally kept there.

In order to get around a location based test priority one would need the main policy holder to collude to break the law.

I suppose no matter what system you devised some people would try it on but the vast majority would comply.

So... they can be named on a policy for someone in a rural area. We go around again.

To be honest. The queue isn't made up solely of first timers. You've repeaters and people going for additional categories. Who I'd think are a higher make up of the queue. So why push the pennies and leave the pounds to sit back?

elperello

Dravokivich wrote: »

So... they can be named on a policy for someone in a rural area. We go around again.

To be honest. The queue isn't made up solely of first timers. You've repeaters and people going for additional categories. Who I'd think are a higher make up of the queue. So why push the pennies and leave the pounds to sit back?

I still think it could help to prioritise people who have no other transport options.
Just because a system could be abused is not a reason for not doing it.
If you look at the Hardship Licence system in the US as an example you will see some ideas that could work here.

iguana

Marina Young Lodging wrote: »

What can a qualified driver do from the passenger seat etc.

In the case of the Clancy deaths, a qualified driver could have made all the difference. The learner driver really was very inexperienced and one of her parents would in all likelihood have told her to slow down as she approached the bend as she did not have right of way and had to yield.

That said a fully licensed sibling or friend may not have felt comfortable telling her what to do, being able to drive yourself does not make you a good teacher. While an unlicensed person who was observant and familiar with the roads may have been able to tell her to slow down and yield. When I was a learner my non-driving mother was the best person to give me advice in the car (apart from my instructor, obv) while my husband and my former professional driver, with a full clean license in every category, father were the two worst and on more than one occasion I had to stop driving because they left me so rattled.

maddy1026

iguana wrote: »

Marina Young Lodging wrote: »

What can a qualified driver do from the passenger seat etc.

In the case of the Clancy deaths, a qualified driver could have made all the difference. The learner driver really was very inexperienced and one of her parents would in all likelihood have told her to slow down as she approached the bend as she did not have right of way and had to yield.

That said a fully licensed sibling or friend may not have felt comfortable telling her what to do, being able to drive yourself does not make you a good teacher. While an unlicensed person who was observant and familiar with the roads may have been able to tell her to slow down and yield. When I was a learner my non-driving mother was the best person to give me advice in the car (apart from my instructor, obv) while my husband and my former professional driver, with a full clean license in every category, father were the two worst and on more than one occasion I had to stop driving because they left me so rattled.

What can be done is why can't learners who cleared 12 lessons with driving instructor not get the permission to drive unaccompanied. I completely accept that a person who sits next to a driver cannot control the car. The arguments that learners should have a full licensed driver accompanying them is therefore ridiculous. Also 12 lessons qualify you for a driving test which if you pass makes you legally qualified to drive alone. So why can't people who complete these 12 classes not have the right to practice their driving and drive on the road ?

brightspark

maddy1026 wrote:

What can be done is why can't learners who cleared 12 lessons with driving instructor not get the permission to drive unaccompanied. I completely accept that a person who sits next to a driver cannot control the car. The arguments that learners should have a full licensed driver accompanying them is therefore ridiculous. Also 12 lessons qualify you for a driving test which if you pass makes you legally qualified to drive alone. So why can't people who complete these 12 classes not have the right to practice their driving and drive on the road ?

About 50% of those who sit the test fail, so obviously qualifying to sit the test is not the same as passing the test!
I would prefer system where the instructor had to approve before the learner could sit the test. That should improve pass rates which would reduce waiting lists.
Instructors should also have to display the pass rates of their students.

pablo128

maddy1026 wrote: »

What can be done is why can't learners who cleared 12 lessons with driving instructor not get the permission to drive unaccompanied. I completely accept that a person who sits next to a driver cannot control the car. The arguments that learners should have a full licensed driver accompanying them is therefore ridiculous. Also 12 lessons qualify you for a driving test which if you pass makes you legally qualified to drive alone. So why can't people who complete these 12 classes not have the right to practice their driving and drive on the road ?

Because someone could do the 12 lessons and completely ignore them or not absorb what they have been instructed to do. A test will prove they are competent enough to drive unaccompanied.

Would you let a doctor near you who had gone to medical school but not completed any exams?

iguana

maddy1026 wrote: »

What can be done is why can't learners who cleared 12 lessons with driving instructor not get the permission to drive unaccompanied. I completely accept that a person who sits next to a driver cannot control the car. The arguments that learners should have a full licensed driver accompanying them is therefore ridiculous. Also 12 lessons qualify you for a driving test which if you pass makes you legally qualified to drive alone. So why can't people who complete these 12 classes not have the right to practice their driving and drive on the road ?

Someone could do 12 lessons and still be an absolutely shíte driver with no real clue how to drive. I can hand on heart say that after my first 12 lessons I was in no way ready to drive alone. The system is totally imperfect though and if there was a better way to create stages of accomplishment with increasing driving rights I'd be in favour. Getting 90% on a short multiple choice test shouldn't qualify anyone to drive on nearly any road with any random driver with a license of over 2 years. The first day you get your permit you can legally be hurtling up the N7 in a camper van with no rear view and 6 children as long as your granny who got a license 40 years ago hasn't driven since the 80s, is sitting beside you. It's actually kind of bonkers.

maddy1026

iguana wrote: »

maddy1026 wrote: »

What can be done is why can't learners who cleared 12 lessons with driving instructor not get the permission to drive unaccompanied. I completely accept that a person who sits next to a driver cannot control the car. The arguments that learners should have a full licensed driver accompanying them is therefore ridiculous. Also 12 lessons qualify you for a driving test which if you pass makes you legally qualified to drive alone. So why can't people who complete these 12 classes not have the right to practice their driving and drive on the road ?

Someone could do 12 lessons and still be an absolutely shíte driver with no real clue how to drive. I can hand on heart say that after my first 12 lessons I was in no way ready to drive alone. The system is totally imperfect though and if there was a better way to create stages of accomplishment with increasing driving rights I'd be in favour. Getting 90% on a short multiple choice test shouldn't qualify anyone to drive on nearly any road with any random driver with a license of over 2 years. The first day you get your permit you can legally be hurtling up the N7 in a camper van with no rear view and 6 children as long as your granny who got a license 40 years ago hasn't driven since the 80s, is sitting beside you. It's actually kind of bonkers.

Totally agree with you that a multiple choice question is no indicator for getting to drive on the road. But instructors do say you are qualified to pass but the testers don't seem to agree. Total disconnect and a money making scheme if that's the case. Most people who go to give the test do so only after they do multiple mock tests and their instructors give them the green light.

meeeeh

We were only allowed to drive with instructor present. My cousin who grew up on a farm passed his test after 18 lessons, it took me 40 (which was a lot). I was nervous learner and needed longer and was only allowed to do the test when instructor signed it off. I passed in second attempt, nerves in the first one meant I didn't even make it from the car park properly. To let someone on the road unaccompanied just because they had 12 lessons is complete madness.

Posy

brightspark wrote: »

Instructors should also have to display the pass rates of their students.

If they had to do this, instructors would be far less likely to take on nervous pupils or those who are rattled under pressure during mock-tests, as it would make their numbers look bad. I don't think pass rates alone make an instructor good or bad.

pablo128 wrote: »

Would you let a doctor near you who had gone to medical school but not completed any exams?

Is that not why it's called practicing medicine? :pac:

The Lost Sheep

Posy wrote: »

If they had to do this, instructors would be far less likely to take on nervous pupils or those who are rattled under pressure during mock-tests, as it would make their numbers look bad. I don't think pass rates alone make an instructor good or bad.

Is that not why it's called practicing medicine? :pac:

Totally agree with that. It took 3 attempts for me to pass and it was nothing to do with ability. I have anxiety which were prime factors in my failing.
Pass rates are far from being alone in what makes instructor good/bad

goat2

watching the news today
There is one teenager killed and 3 injured in a car crash, the driver was 16 yr old and he is dead.
I thought a person cannot apply for a driver licence until they turn 17,

The Lost Sheep

goat2 wrote: »

watching the news today
There is one teenager killed and 3 injured in a car crash, the driver was 16 yr old and he is dead.
I thought a person cannot apply for a driver licence until they turn 17,

You can drive from 16 as if you pass theory test and get provisional you can drive with a full licenced driver beside you.

amcalester

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

You can drive from 16 as if you pass theory test and get provisional you can drive with a full licenced driver beside you.

You can drive a work vehicle from 16 but not a car, have to be 17 to drive a car.

goat2

amcalester wrote: »

You can drive a work vehicle from 16 but not a car, have to be 17 to drive a car.

I had been thinking that, but thought the law might have changed unbeknown to me

CrabRevolution

It's amazing how not one person has ever failed the driving test due to not being good enough, it's always due to an arsehole of a tester, feeling nervous, too many small faults (which apparently aren't faults) etc.

doolox

Would it be possible to restrict learners to quieter roads for a set period in order to build up experience gradually?

I remember restricting myself to quiet, rural areas near my home for a few weeks until I built up enough confidence to drive in more densely trafficked areas.

Whatever people now may think about it, young learner drivers in my days were never checked for their licences and never stopped unless they engaged in some egregiously bad driving, attracting the attention of the often scarce traffic guards.

My father got his first licence just after the second world war in 1945 when he was 20 yrs old. Driving wasn't allowed except in extreme need and transport reasons because petrol was severely rationed and scarce. He simply bought the licence with no picture ID, no address and no date of birth on it. Anyone could have presented the licence at a check point and got away not having a licence since there was no way to tell who it applied to.

The story goes that Dad and his older brother were out driving when Dad was stopped at a checkpoint and asked to produce his licence within 7 days at the local barracks ( Garda Station ). He produced his brothers licence and claimed that his name was really his brothers name. With no picture or date of birth to go by he got away with it.

After a decent interval he bought his own licence in his own name and nothing more happened, no test, no picture or birth cert or proof of address needed, a gangsters paradise, but people were not that way inclined in those days, most were very honest. His licence allowed him to drive ANYTHING, HGV's, busses etc. which wouldn't happen today.

The driving test was introduced in 1964 but the licences did not have picture ID until the mid 90's. This led to some merriment and puzzlement when I was assigned to work related duties in the US in the early 90's. The police could not believe that Irish licences had no picture ID. We were strongly advised to carry our passports with us at all times when driving over there to have definitive proof of identity.

I remember two of my workmates could not drive at the time but they got US driving licences which allowed them to drive automatic cars after a very brief test in a supermarket car park adjacent to the local test driving center. DMV (department of motor vehicles) had a very short waiting list, a very polite and courteous tester and a very simple test. Unlike the driver testers at home at that time. In 1979 an amnesty exempting holders of second or subsequent provisional driving licences and already having done or applied to do at least one driving test could get a full licence without having passed a driving test.

I had done but failed one driving test at that time but still got a full licence.
As far as I recall my sister had applied for but did not actually sit her first test but still got the full licence. My two older sisters did not get full licences, one does not drive at all and never did after a few attempts trying to learn which did not turn out well. The other sister drove locally for 30 years on a learners permit. She never sat a test and gave up driving after that time when she retired.

My mother never learned to drive and never expressed an interest in doing so although her two sisters learned to drive in their mid-70's when their husbands died. My family must be one of the very few in this country where not one member has ever passed a driving test.

My lack of a passed driving test makes me very cautious to read up and update my road rule knowledge as best as I can on a regular basis. I find the online theory test very useful for keeping up to date and would not be against sitting such a test as a condition for licence renewal especially if a driver was trying to plead ignorance as a mitigating circumstance for some traffic offence. I know that in the States some traffic offenders can be made to resit drivers education classes in the event of committing some road traffic offences. others may have to resit the complete test, practical and all in some serious cases.

Hopefully, if Ireland gets its test waiting times down to some reasonable level, such measures could be introduced here for more experienced but out of date drivers.

JP Liz V1

goat2 wrote: »

watching the news today
There is one teenager killed and 3 injured in a car crash, the driver was 16 yr old and he is dead.
I thought a person cannot apply for a driver licence until they turn 17,

Would increasing the driving age to 21 be a solution?

pablo128

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Would increasing the driving age to 21 be a solution?

I fail to see how that would be a solution.

amcalester

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Would increasing the driving age to 21 be a solution?

No, the laws we have are fine. We just need more enforcement.

This poor kid was already underage, further increasing the age won’t change that.

brightspark

doolox wrote: »

Would it be possible to restrict learners to quieter roads for a set period in order to build up experience gradually?

I remember restricting myself to quiet, rural areas near my home for a few weeks until I built up enough confidence to drive in more densely trafficked areas.

Whatever people now may think about it, young learner drivers in my days were never checked for their licences and never stopped unless they engaged in some egregiously bad driving, attracting the attention of the often scarce traffic guards..

I think you should look at some historical photos of Irish cities to get an idea of just how few cars were on the road even up until the early 1980s.

When I was in college in the mid 80's I remember being just one of numerous hitch-hikers, young drivers couldn't afford a car, much less drive unaccompanied on a daily basis. Unlike now, households didn't even possess a single car.

Less cars meant less chance of accidents.

Even the recent recession led to a reduction in traffic and a consequential reduction in accidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_traffic_accidents_deaths_in_Republic_of_Ireland_by_year

Isambard

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Would increasing the driving age to 21 be a solution?

I can't see how that would stop an underage unlicensed driver

Dravokivich

goat2 wrote: »

watching the news today
There is one teenager killed and 3 injured in a car crash, the driver was 16 yr old and he is dead.
I thought a person cannot apply for a driver licence until they turn 17,

The only thing physically stopping anyone is the starter. Once ignition has been achieved. Away they go.

Dakota Dan

A radio station Facebook page in cork has lots of posters baffled as to how a full licenced driver could prevent an accident. A few posters explained it to them that the full licenced driver can tell them to slow down keep in the right position on the road, brake In time etc. yet they still don’t get it.

Isambard

Dakota Dan wrote: »

A radio station Facebook page in cork has lots of posters baffled as to how a full licenced driver could prevent an accident. A few posters explained it to them that the full licenced driver can tell them to slow down keep in the right position on the road, brake In time etc. yet they still don’t get it.

they don't want to get it, they want to keep driving unaccompanied.

Eggs For Dinner

Isambard wrote: »

they don't want to get it, they want to keep driving unaccompanied.

Entitled generation

emilymemily

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Entitled generation

Its nothing to do with entitlement and thats rich coming from a generation who could learn how to drive for a fraction of what it costs now and didnt have a hundred and one regulations and hoops to jump through just to get a car on the road.
There are allot of new drivers that dont have anyone to sit with them in the car while they go about their day. Im in my early 30's and only now learning how to drive because its taken me this long to be able to afford to do it. Now I cant even drive my car to practice or get from A to B because of more regulations.
I would be more on board with this if they even tried to make the whole process of learning to drive, getting a car insured and taxed a little easier and less expensive and sorted out the extensive waiting times that it takes to get the full license after passing the driving test but theyre just making it harder and harder. Its an uphill battle trying to get the basics like a car that your generation got with ease compared to how it is now.

pablo128

emilymemily wrote: »

Its nothing to do with entitlement and thats rich coming from a generation who could learn how to drive for a fraction of what it costs now and didnt have a hundred and one regulations and hoops to jump through just to get a car on the road.
There are allot of new drivers that dont have anyone to sit with them in the car while they go about their day. Im in my early 30's and only now learning how to drive because its taken me this long to be able to afford to do it. Now I cant even drive my car to practice or get from A to B because of more regulations.
I would be more on board with this if they even tried to make the whole process of learning to drive, getting a car insured and taxed a little easier and less expensive and sorted out the extensive waiting times that it takes to get the full license after passing the driving test but theyre just making it harder and harder. Its an uphill battle trying to get the basics like a car that your generation got with ease compared to how it is now.

When I was 18, my car insurance on a Fiat 127 900cc was 1500 pounds. My wage then was 100 pounds a week. That worked out at nearly 4 months wages. Needless to say I couldn't afford it.

It's probably never been cheaper to get on the road in relation to income now.