L drivers, cars taken

Plumbthedepths

Jim Gazebo wrote:

I think there should be a program in schools. Lots of people can't afford to learn to drive which leads to the issues you see learning later. Learning younger always proves better.

Schools are under enough financial pressure as it. Plus what do you sacrifice off the syllabus to accommodate this. Before religion is suggested not all pupils take religion. My son doesn't for eg. 12 mandatory lessons from a local instructor I know of is 350 euro hardly outrageously expensive considering the costs of running a car and it's a once off if you pass whereas as other car related costs are ongoing.

Rechuchote

Mount Temple school in Dublin had a career guidance teacher who found (back in the day) that kids leaving school with no driving licence couldn't get jobs. So he got his car modified for dual controls, got special insurance and set up as a driving instructor for 5th-year students. The number of kids who left school and were immediately employed shot up.

GhostyMcGhost

I dont know about the actual driving part but surely the theory can be thought
Everyone leaving school would have basically completed the theory test

There's more to driving than just gears and pedals. Soooooooo many drivers on the road who have a licence but haven't a fecking clue how roundabouts, or motorways actually work etc

_Brian

If I have a BE learner permit and stopped driving with a trailer.

Rather than take both could I unhitch the trailer and leave that with them and continue in my car ?

Hurrache

Rechuchote wrote: »

Mount Temple school in Dublin had a career guidance teacher who found (back in the day) that kids leaving school with no driving licence couldn't get jobs. So he got his car modified for dual controls, got special insurance and set up as a driving instructor for 5th-year students. The number of kids who left school and were immediately employed shot up.

I don't really believe that, unless they were all looking for jobs as drivers, not likely at all relative to the school being Mount Temple. I've never been asked if I could drive in any job I applied or interviewed for since the very early 90s. Going back further I doubt the requirements were any different, particularly since less people would have been driving anyway.

Rechuchote

Hurrache wrote: »

I don't really believe that, unless they were all looking for jobs as drivers, not likely at all relative to the school being Mount Temple. I've never been asked if I could drive in any job I applied or interviewed for since the very early 90s. Going back further I doubt the requirements were any different, particularly since less people would have been driving anyway.

They weren't; this was in the 1990s. Mount Temple is a very varied school, or was then - kids from Coolock and Sutton, Rialto (the 20B bus crossed over) and the city centre and Malahide, kids from extremely well-off and ultra-poor background.

Virtually all job adverts at that time (when the papers would have pages of ads for jobs) included the phrase "Must hold valid driving licence".

zepman

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Some need to stop this nonsense about needing to drive unaccompanied because of jobs or college etc. This law is rightly here to stay. Get your permit as soon as you're eligible, take the lessons and pass your test before it becomes an issue

Precisely. I failed my first test over 5 years ago and it looked like I would never be able to learn how to drive since I was nervous about the whole thing due to a past incident. All these years, I have used public transport to get to work and back home - over an hour in each direction, involving a change of bus midway and some walking. It was hardly an issue.

Had a baby last year and realised that a few years down the line, things might get a bit difficult if we need to get to places that wouldn't be easily accessible by public transport. So, moved closer to work, bought a car, started taking driving lessons again, and enlisted the help of a workmate (who also helped buy the car by test driving it etc) to accompany me on practice sessions during our lunch hours, about twice a week. Passed my test 2 months later.

If there was no way to change my circumstances this drastically, I would merely have started by taking lessons near where I work. If I still wasn't able to learn, I would have survived just fine without a car.

Squatter

crossman47 wrote: »

Schools have enough on their plate with the constant pressure to add new subjects without adding one that comes with added complications such as appropriate insurance for one.

Teach it in Transition Year. Problem solved.

Plumbthedepths

Squatter wrote:

Teach it in Transition Year. Problem solved.

You assume every school operates transition year and every pupil is suitable to do it.

BarryD2

Rechuchote wrote: »

I know of two people who were knocked off bicycles by unaccompanied L drivers; one was in a coma for weeks and has had a long, slow, difficult recovery; the other was also seriously injured.

You shouldn't be driving alone until you've passed a test to prove that you're competent to be in charge of a couple of tons of machinery on a public road. In fact, if I had my way drivers would take a retest every five years.

Around 150 people are killed by drivers every year in Ireland, never mind the thousands that are maimed and crippled.

That's tragic for people involved. Can you also though advise if you know of people knocked off bicycles by licensed drivers? For comparison.

Retest every five years would be no harm, but can you imagine the chaos? Personally I think every driver should be obliged annually to walk or cycle on a narrow country road, whilst a car whizzes past at speed.

You last para implies that drivers set out to kill people. Of course they don't, people get injured and die as a result of accidents. You could take all cars off the road but people would still die in cycling accidents or falls off horses etc.

Hurrache

Rechuchote wrote: »

Virtually all job adverts at that time (when the papers would have pages of ads for jobs) included the phrase "Must hold valid driving licence".

Just strikes me as odd, as I was in the job market then both part time in college and full time afterwards. I suppose it depends on the type of job you were looking for.

iamwhoiam

Squatter wrote: »

Teach it in Transition Year. Problem solved.

My daughter did a course in safe driving in Transition year .They gave them three lessons for a small fee .But you need staff and a qualified instructor and a car and admin . Its not as simple as it sounds

KatyMac

I'm accompanying my daughter at the moment. The number of times I have to pull her up on her speed is ridiculous and normally she is fairly sensible. but there is no way she would be safe alone in a car so L drivers need someone with a sensible head on them. We had just changed back to me driving and a car jumped lights and we just managed to avoid each other. If she'd been driving we'd have been toast.

3DataModem

Car ownership will drop like a stone in about 10/15 years or so as people begin using 'car-on-demand' services. As these will probably be restricted to full licence holders only, car ownership will be the preserve of car enthusiasts, rural people, and those wanting to drive on a provisional. Insurance for these people will ROCKET.

Squatter

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You assume every school operates transition year and every pupil is suitable to do it.

Actually, I merely suggested that it be provided as a Transition Year option.

The rest is a product of your fertile imagination!

Squatter

iamwhoiam wrote: »

My daughter did a course in safe driving in Transition year .They gave them three lessons for a small fee .But you need staff and a qualified instructor and a car and admin . Its not as simple as it sounds

Even if it's taught in another year, those resources will still be required.

Plumbthedepths

Squatter wrote:

The rest is a product of your fertile imagination!

You said do it in transition year, problem solved. Still a problem if a school has no transition year programme or if all students for several reasons are not suitable for transition year. No fertile imagination just pointing out an obvious flaw in your problem solving ability.

iamwhoiam

Squatter wrote: »

Even if it's taught in another year, those resources will still be required.

Eh yes ?

Rechuchote

BarryD2 wrote: »

You last para implies that drivers set out to kill people. Of course they don't, people get injured and die as a result of accidents. You could take all cars off the road but people would still die in cycling accidents or falls off horses etc.

You inferred it; I didn't imply it.

I don't see that five-yearly driving tests would produce 'chaos' - the roads would be far safer, and the standards of driving would obviously rise.

BarryD2

Rechuchote wrote: »

Around 150 people are killed by drivers every year in Ireland

You inferred it; I didn't imply it.

I don't see that five-yearly driving tests would produce 'chaos' - the roads would be far safer, and the standards of driving would obviously rise.

I believe in Plain English - if you baldly state that 'Around 150 people are killed by drivers every year in Ireland' - well that's just what it means! You could observe that 'around 150 people die in road accidents each year in Ireland' - nobody sets out to kill anybody on the roads except in the rarer circumstances of suicides.

Garzard

The law, while harsh I'll say is a necessary evil, but I think there's some wider issues that need addressing here.

I recently passed the test; even after accumulating a high level of experience thanks to regularly taking lessons with sponsors, instructors and averaging 3 hours a week in driving practice I'd have never even driven 100 meters up the road unaccompanied out of respect for the law, and knowing the repercussions of being caught by the Gardai, being possibly reported by someone and voiding the insurance if something went wrong. I'm lucky enough though to be living in a location with almost 24-hour public transport and always had my workplaces and social haunts close enough that I could always grab a bus, cycle or walk without any difficulty.

However I'll always have raw feelings from the whole ordeal that being a learner was - I received more than my fair share of nasty, illegal and often dangerous treatment from other motorists during my time as a learner, including aggressive tailgating, beeping, being blatantly cut off, receiving glares and headshakes at the mere sight of my L plate, being shouted at to get off the road, and generally being made feel like I was bottom of the **** heap. It once took me much mental restraint to not physically confront one cow in a huge SUV behind me who decided it'd be a good idea / fun prank to lay on the horn at me when taking off at a steep traffic light, causing me to panic, stall and miss the light - this was in my early learning days and I could see her pointing and laughing in my mirror.

My point is that while we might have huge issues with entitlement and laid-back attitudes towards driving legislation in this country, we equally have an awful attitude towards L-drivers - a mentality that learners are to be seen and not heard. It's disappointing how many people forget that they were once that soldier. I decided to email the RSA recently and suggest some type of TV ad that would highlight the anxieties and stress learners go through, since they've safety awareness ads for almost everything else. They couldn't make any promises but agreed that it needed addressing.

The Clancy Amendment and the evermore restrictive legislation may have grounds; I'm not condoning unaccompanied driving by learners, but nor am I comfortable with the way in which they've been increasingly boxed into a corner - not enough effort in good faith is being made to address the major issues with waiting lists and improving public transport in rural areas which I'm sure would go a long way in taking the sting out of the new restrictions.

Rechuchote

Yeah, I remember being carved up by drivers when flying an L plate. Attitude totally changed the next day when the L was gone. Same attitude that I sometimes see from drivers when I'm riding my bike.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Rechuchote wrote: »

Yeah, I remember being carved up by drivers when flying an L plate. Attitude totally changed the next day when the L was gone. Same attitude that I sometimes see from drivers when I'm riding my bike.

A family member uses my car, albeit very very rarely, only recently the L plates have gone back up, the attitude is definitely different. It's almost as if the L plate is a target to treat horribly.

Red Lightning

Marina Young Lodging wrote:

A family member uses my car, albeit very very rarely, only recently the L plates have gone back up, the attitude is definitely different. It's almost as if the L plate is a target to treat horribly.

Some people are dicks. If I see a L plate, I go out of my way to be extra considerate for them. It's hard enough learning without someone acting like a bollix.

dennyk

I never noticed much flack when driving with my L plates up, but I suppose I might have been jaded from a decade of driving in Atlanta (and another of dodging narcoleptic blue-hairs and lost tourists around Orlando before that... :pac: ).

zepman

Red Lightning wrote: »

If I see a L plate, I go out of my way to be extra considerate for them. It's hard enough learning without someone acting like a bollix.

Fortunately, this is the attitude I faced when I was an L driver. People being really considerate. Sometimes though, it put me in more pressure. For example, there's a steep uphill driveway coming out my basement car park with a Stop line at the brow where there is a blind junction with the surface driveway. Moving off from here, I have rolled back a lot of times, and also stalled a few times so it's a point where I was always nervous as it is. One day, a car from the left on the surface approached the junction at the same time that I was coming out. As usual, I stopped at the top, but this guy also stopped and intended to let me go through which made me more nervous. I rolled back and stalled a couple of times. The guy was being patient but wasn't seeing my sponsor sitting next to me signalling him to go. Finally, he moved off after my sponsor waved at him while pointing to the L plate and motioning him to go.

However, I am seeing bad attitudes since I became an N driver about a couple of weeks ago. For example, once on approaching a roundabout which I wanted to go straight through (2nd exit), I was in the left-hand lane. A van which was behind me moved into the right-hand lane, making it seem like it was about to take the 3rd exit. We entered the roundabout at the same time, and while on the roundabout, the van cut me off and went straight through out the 2nd exit. No signal. Fortunately, whenever I see a car behind me for a while, I always expect it to overtake me, with the expectation becoming stronger if the car moves into the right-hand lane. So, this kicked in when the van moved into the right-hand lane and I was unconsciously prepared for it to overtake me even though I didn't expect it to happen on the roundabout.

Another time was when I came to a stop at a Stop sign before turning left. The car behind me pulled out, overtook me, and turned left in front of me into the opposing lane on the new road. I stayed put until he was gone and maintained my distance after making the turn as he continued to stay in the opposing lane for quite a few seconds. He moved back in just before our approach to traffic lights. I was stopped right behind him at the lights and saw the passenger from the car behind me get off and walk past my car to have a word with the guy ahead. I'd imagine this guy was being a dick to everyone even before he cut me off at the Stop sign.

Rechuchote

BarryD2 wrote: »

I believe in Plain English - if you baldly state that 'Around 150 people are killed by drivers every year in Ireland' - well that's just what it means! You could observe that 'around 150 people die in road accidents each year in Ireland' - nobody sets out to kill anybody on the roads except in the rarer circumstances of suicides.

I stated that 150 people are killed by drivers. I didn't say drivers "set out to kill".

But the fact that drivers kill dozens of people means that driving is not at a high enough standard.

Dravokivich

Rechuchote wrote: »

I stated that 150 people are killed by drivers. I didn't say drivers "set out to kill".

But the fact that drivers kill dozens of people means that driving is not at a high enough standard.

Your are assuming absolute blame towards the driver 100% of the time. That is just nonsense.

Rechuchote

It's very, very rare for a fatal car crash not to be the fault of the driver. Even in the rare cases when the fault is in the vehicle, it is almost always faulty because the driver has failed to maintain it.

Isambard

Rechuchote wrote: »

It's very, very rare for a fatal car crash not to be the fault of the driver. Even in the rare cases when the fault is in the vehicle, it is almost always faulty because the driver has failed to maintain it.

Nonsense, there's a 50% chance it was the other driver(s) involved.

pablo128

Rechuchote wrote: »

It's very, very rare for a fatal car crash not to be the fault of the driver. Even in the rare cases when the fault is in the vehicle, it is almost always faulty because the driver has failed to maintain it.

I had a read of your last few posts in the thread, and then looked at your posting history. What a surprise it was to find out you're a regular poster in the cycling forum.

We are all people regardless of if we are walking, cycling or driving. Trying to pitch us against each other is wrong. It's not the first time I've noticed cycling fans do this on Motors threads.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

pablo128 wrote: »

I had a read of your last few posts in the thread, and then looked at your posting history. What a surprise it was to find out you're a regular poster in the cycling forum.

We are all people regardless of if we are walking, cycling or driving. Trying to pitch us against each other is wrong. It's not the first time I've noticed cycling fans do this on Motors threads.

Had a look myself, 430 posts in the Cycling forum -V- 8 in the Learning to Drive forum. Sick of the bickering not just here or on social media but in actual real life.

Rechuchote

And why am I surprised that if I suggest something uncomfortable, it's myself that is the target of the answers, and not what I say?

(Incidentally, if it's "the other driver/s involved", that's still drivers causing crashes!)

And yes, I've long since given up driving and cycle or take the bus. I'd like to feel safer on the roads, but with the standard of driving that is the norm, I don't. Every day I see cars drifting because their drivers are using phones when they should be concentrating on the road; I see drivers whizz at speed through lights that have turned red; I hear drivers blaring their horns at each other; I get out of the way of terribly unsafe and stupid drivers.

swarlb

Isambard wrote: »

Nonsense, there's a 50% chance it was the other driver(s) involved.

Which means it was the fault of the driver....

pablo128

Rechuchote wrote: »

And why am I surprised that if I suggest something uncomfortable, it's myself that is the target of the answers, and not what I say?

(Incidentally, if it's "the other driver/s involved", that's still drivers causing crashes!)

And yes, I've long since given up driving and cycle or take the bus. I'd like to feel safer on the roads, but with the standard of driving that is the norm, I don't. Every day I see cars drifting because their drivers are using phones when they should be concentrating on the road; I see drivers whizz at speed through lights that have turned red; I hear drivers blaring their horns at each other; I get out of the way of terribly unsafe and stupid drivers.

Driver's drivers drivers drivers. Yet you don't refer to yourself as a cyclist, but a person who drives or a person who cycles or a person who gets the bus.

Rechuchote

pablo128 wrote: »

Driver's drivers drivers drivers. Yet you don't refer to yourself as a cyclist, but a person who drives or a person who cycles or a person who gets the bus.

Yes, you're right. I should have said that virtually all crashes are caused by people who drive.

And if I had my way, the ads for cars on TV and radio would be replaced by reports of crashes, with the circumstances of the crash: "The person at the wheel had a blood alcohol level three times the permitted meterage; the person driving had sent or received 17 text messages in the half-hour preceding the collision; the person in charge of the truck had not checked the mirrors in the three minutes preceding the crushing; the owner of the van was not insured, and it had significant mechanical faults including broken headlight and taillight, faulty brakes; the unaccompanied L driver failed to distinguish between the accelerator and the brake pedal…"

dennyk

Rechuchote wrote: »

the unaccompanied L driver failed to distinguish between the accelerator and the brake pedal…"

In fairness, that's more of an OAP issue than a learner driver issue (and wouldn't be much helped by having an accompanying driver in any case, other than to increase the victim count...).

Rechuchote

dennyk wrote: »

In fairness, that's more of an OAP issue than a learner driver issue (and wouldn't be much helped by having an accompanying driver in any case, other than to increase the victim count...).

Not really. One L driver that made a hames of the person she hit was a very young woman.

And would having an accompanying driver help? Yes, because these mistakes often happen through panic.

spurious

Good to see the laws being enforced, if only they would do it in other areas, not just road safety.

I was a multi-test adult learner and it cost me a fortune having to pay the instructor for lessons that were really just practicing, but that's how it was.

The day of my (final!) test I met a woman who was on her 11th test. I said to her it must be costing her a fortune in lessons. She laughed and said she doesn't take lessons anymore, every time she needs to renew the licence she just rocks up to a test, fails it and carries on. She is quite possibly still at it. That sort of nonsense needs to be stopped.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

spurious wrote: »

Good to see the laws being enforced, if only they would do it in other areas, not just road safety.

I was a multi-test adult learner and it cost me a fortune having to pay the instructor for lessons that were really just practicing, but that's how it was.

The day of my (final!) test I met a woman who was on her 11th test. I said to her it must be costing her a fortune in lessons. She laughed and said she doesn't take lessons anymore, every time she needs to renew the licence she just rocks up to a test, fails it and carries on. She is quite possibly still at it. That sort of nonsense needs to be stopped.

Between that lady on her 11th (or more) and the guy in Cork on 17,should there come a point when authorities step in and say enough is enough? Again driving is not a right or entitlement, it is a privilege or luxury, that's just for those who are actually sitting the test, what about those who are endlessly renewing and not showing up, i look forward to the RSA proposals to stop all of this.

pablo128

Marina Young Lodging wrote: »

Between that lady on her 11th (or more) and the guy in Cork on 17,should there come a point when authorities step in and say enough is enough? Again driving is not a right or entitlement, it is a privilege or luxury, that's just for those who are actually sitting the test, what about those who are endlessly renewing and not showing up, i look forward to the RSA proposals to stop all of this.

Guys isn't this thread proof that the authorities are cracking down on exactly what you are talking about?

SCOOP 64

pablo128 wrote: »

Guys isn't this thread proof that the authorities are cracking down on exactly what you are talking about?

was thinking same thing, people doing this now are just living on borrowed time until they are caught, surely it would easy to implement that if you do not seat in test in a 2 year period you don't get a new learner permit.

iguana

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

was thinking same thing, people doing this now are just living on borrowed time until they are caught, surely it would easy to implement that if you do not seat in test in a 2 year period you don't get a new learner permit.

I don't think you can take the learner permit away entirely and say, "that's it, no driving for you ever." But if someone needs a third permit maybe another course of lessons would be a prerequisite for it and every subsequent renewal. Nobody will deliberately keep renewing indefinitely if they have to spend at least €300 on a driving course every two years.

SCOOP 64

iguana wrote: »

I don't think you can take the learner permit away entirely and say, "that's it, no driving for you ever." But if someone needs a third permit maybe another course of lessons would be a prerequisite for it and every subsequent renewal. Nobody will deliberately keep renewing indefinitely if they have to spend at least €300 on a driving course every two years.

No didn't mean take it away for ever ,people booking test not turning up and renewing permit time and time again (never understood the logic behind this), law should be you have to actually sit test in the 2 year period then renew permit if fail, don't think it matters how many times you take it, you could be a great driver on your lessons but a complete bag of nerves on test day and fail.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

pablo128 wrote: »

Guys isn't this thread proof that the authorities are cracking down on exactly what you are talking about?

Insurers need to seek production of a permit/licence at each renewal. People are renewing insurance without having either of the above.

As Fianna Fáil once said during an election “Let’s take the next steps”

pablo128

Marina Young Lodging wrote: »

Insurers need to seek production of a permit/licence at each renewal. People are renewing insurance without having either of the above.

As Fianna Fáil once said during an election “Let’s take the next steps”

You can say mass to an insurance company and they will sell you insurance. If you are caught lying in the event of a claim your insurance is void, so by lying you are handing them money for nothing.

Anyway you can't expect a private insurance company to be policing the roads. That's a job for Gardai.

Which they are currently actively doing.

JohnMc1

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

No didn't mean take it away for ever ,people booking test not turning up and renewing permit time and time again (never understood the logic behind this), .

Being in Kilkenny where the pass rate is permanently below 50% [43 the last time I checked a few weeks ago] I can see where they're coming from and why they do that.

When your testing centre is constantly below 50% year after year it can kill your confidence and make you wonder what's the point. That's why I'm looking to getting to get some lessons here and then book somewhere with a better pass rate. Go up there a few days before hand and get some lessons with their local instructors. Taking it at a location/County with a higher pass rate might help my confidence and help me feel like I have an actual chance.

brightspark

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Being in Kilkenny where the pass rate is permanently below 50% [43 the last time I checked a few weeks ago] I can see where they're coming from and why they do that.

When your testing centre is constantly below 50% year after year it can kill your confidence and make you wonder what's the point. That's why I'm looking to getting to get some lessons here and then book somewhere with a better pass rate. Go up there a few days before hand and get some lessons with their local instructors. Taking it at a location/County with a higher pass rate might help my confidence and help me feel like I have an actual chance.

A while ago now, but I failed the test twice in a town with a 52% pass rate, moved to another town (due to work) with a pass rate of 48% and passed the test.

Passing the test had nothing to do with the town, luck or anything else except becoming a competent driver (thanks to an excellent driving instructor)

Rechuchote

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

was thinking same thing, people doing this now are just living on borrowed time until they are caught, surely it would easy to implement that if you do not seat in test in a 2 year period you don't get a new learner permit.

You think? But look at the situation with uninsured drivers:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/fewer-than-10-of-uninsured-drivers-caught-annually-agsi-members-told-1.3863754

Fewer than 10% of uninsured drivers caught annually, Agsi members told
Garda representative group seeks devices to check vehicles via real-time database
Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 18:05 Updated: Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 18:41
Conor Lally Ballyconnell, Co Cavan

Fewer than 10 per cent of motorists driving without insurance on the State’s roads are caught every year and Garda middle managers say efforts to raise the rate are being scuppered by a lack of technology.

The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (Agsi) says access to a real-time database of insured drivers is badly needed to help the force identify uninsured vehicles when they are stopped at checkpoints.

Agsi says that if the database was available and Garda members were given devices linked to it, every vehicle could be checked at the roadside and uninsured drivers could be detected and have their vehicles seized on the spot

https://www.thejournal.ie/uninsured-drivers-mibi-dangers-3147326-Dec2016/

'A very high stakes game': Over 150,000 cars on the road without insurance
The Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) said it was deeply concerned with the spike in numbers.
Dec 19th 2016, 8:18 AM

THE NUMBER OF uninsured cars on Irish roads has nearly doubled to over 150,000 in the space of five years.

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) this morning said it was deeply concerned about the spike in those driving without the proper documentation.

The MIBI warned that drivers face serious penalties which include having their vehicles seized on the spot, an automatic court appearance, five penalty points and a significant fine if they are caught.

I assume the figures have probably doubled again by now, but haven't seen figures.)

In Britain, they're rather more tough on driving without insurance:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5518315/Soul-destroying-moment-200-000-Ferrari-458-Spider-destroyed.html

How crushing! Soul-destroying moment £200,000 Ferrari 458 Spider was destroyed after police seized uninsured vehicle from millionaire owner

Zahid Khan's supercar was confiscated by police last April in Birmingham
Police initially believed the car was stolen but Mr Zhan insisted he'd bought it
The uninsured car was then crushed after it was found to be unroadworthy
It was previously spotted parked outside Birmingham Crown Court when Mr Zhan attended a hearing about how he treated some of his tenants
By CHARLOTTE DEAN FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 14:00, 19 March 2018

This footage shows the moment a £200,000 Ferrari 458 Spider was crushed in a scrapyard after it was confiscated from its owner.

Zahid Khan's supercar was confiscated by police last April as he drove into Birmingham, and officers told him they suspected it had been stolen when he failed to provide paperwork.

He claims police wrongfully crushed the car as he went through the courts to try and prove his ownership - and today he posted a video of the destruction on his Facebook page.

Meanwhile in Ireland, people can't even get test dates…

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/driving-test-ireland-waiting-times-14071092

Over 28,600 Irish people still awaiting scheduled driving test date

Dravokivich

What are you trying to say between all those articles you copied? Its hard to follow you.