L drivers, cars taken

Rechuchote

Dravokivich wrote: »

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

I'm sorry you find it difficult. The articles say how large a number of people in Ireland are uninsured.

Dravokivich

Well that begs to question, what's your point then? This thread isn't about insurance.

creedp

brightspark wrote: »

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)

Taking that view to the nth degree would mean that a competent driver would never have an accident... who knows maybe only incompetent drivers have accidents!!

Driving involves interacting with real people in the real world, be they pedestrians, cyclists or motorists, and that brings an element of luck to the equation. One day everybody acts properly and your driving test is a dream come true. Another day some job ****e runs across the road in front of you or a car cuts you off on a roundabout, etc, etc. One day you pass and the next day you fail such is life. And that's before we take into account the vast inconsistencies found among individual testers.

brightspark

creedp wrote: »

Taking that view to the nth degree would mean that a competent driver would never have an accident... who knows maybe only incompetent drivers have accidents!!

Driving involves interacting with real people in the real world, be they pedestrians, cyclists or motorists, and that brings an element of luck to the equation. One day everybody acts properly and your driving test is a dream come true. Another day some job ****e runs across the road in front of you or a car cuts you off on a roundabout, etc, etc. One day you pass and the next day you fail such is life. And that's before we take into account the vast inconsistencies found among individual testers.

So when someone passes the test it is just because they were lucky, not because they have demonstrated their driving skills during the test?

Being able to react properly to people running across the road or cutting you off on a roundabout is part of that skill set.

Is bad luck the reason so many people fail the theory test too?

Isambard

it's easier to blame another road user for your failure than admit maybe you aren't up to the required standard.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Have a read of this article from 2011 and tell me who is in the right.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/motorist-who-failed-10-driving-tests-loses-appeal-1.602561

Rechuchote

Dravokivich wrote: »

Well that begs to question, what's your point then? This thread isn't about insurance.

If so many people are driving without insurance, then why be surprised that many are driving without having even done a test.

Dravokivich

Rechuchote wrote: »

If so many people are driving without insurance, then why be surprised that many are driving without having even done a test.

They are 2 different issues. Let's add a third, why do so many disqualified people still drive. Need a 4th, the abundance of untaxed cars on the road... they don't make any difference to someone driving with a learners permit, who is not adhering to the requirements of one.

Rechuchote

And they all add up to the same thing: a totally scofflaw attitude, largely accepted by society.

Dravokivich

ehm... whatever so.

KatyMac

I saw an 'N' driver over the weekend. He was in the wrong lane turning left. He drove out in front of a garda car and was waved back by the Guard. He then turned onto a main road going down facing the oncoming traffic on the wrong side of the road. Was awful lucky there wasn't much coming towards him. He then did a U-turn in the middle of the road and roared off in the opposite direction (thankfully this time on the correct side) spinning the wheels as he did so. I got it all on dash-cam and watched it back later - it would make your toes curl!
Now if he'd passed his test he'd gone to hell in the interim.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

KatyMac wrote: »

I saw an 'N' driver over the weekend. He was in the wrong lane turning left. He drove out in front of a garda car and was waved back by the Guard. He then turned onto a main road going down facing the oncoming traffic on the wrong side of the road. Was awful lucky there wasn't much coming towards him. He then did a U-turn in the middle of the road and roared off in the opposite direction (thankfully this time on the correct side) spinning the wheels as he did so. I got it all on dash-cam and watched it back later - it would make your toes curl!
Now if he'd passed his test he'd gone to hell in the interim.

Oddly I know of someone on a learner permit and they are displaying N plates.

JP Liz V1

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.

I thought you could only cancel the test twice

Posy

-Cancel test once- you don't forfeit your fee. Test rescheduled. A new date is given after a waiting period.
-Cancel test twice- you don't forfeit your fee. Test rescheduled. A new date is given after a waiting period.
-Cancel test third time- you forfeit your fee. No reschedule.
-Reapply for test because it's time to renew your permit and you need proof of a scheduled test. Pay fee again.
-Cancel test fourth time- you don't forfeit your fee. Test rescheduled.
-Cancel test fifth time- you don't forfeit your fee. Test rescheduled.
-Cancel test sixth time- you forfeit your fee. No reschedule.
-Reapply for test when it's time for another learner permit and proof of a scheduled test is required. Pay fee again.

Rinse and repeat. :pac:

JP Liz V1

Posy wrote: »

-Cancel test once- you don't forfeit your fee. Test rescheduled. A new date is given after a waiting period.
-Cancel test twice- you don't forfeit your fee. Test rescheduled. A new date is given after a waiting period.
-Cancel test third time- you forfeit your fee. No reschedule.
-Reapply for test because it's time to renew your permit and you need proof of a scheduled test. Pay fee again.
-Cancel test fourth time- you don't forfeit your fee. Test rescheduled.
-Cancel test fifth time- you don't forfeit your fee. Test rescheduled.
-Cancel test sixth time- you forfeit your fee. No reschedule.
-Reapply for test when it's time for another learner permit and proof of a scheduled test is required. Pay fee again.

Rinse and repeat. :pac:

:eek:

Can the RSA not check who does not sit the test within so many years?

pablo128

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

:eek:

Can the RSA not check who does not sit the test within so many years?

Well the thing is they are still considered a learner so must be accompanied at all times when driving. (Which I doubt the long termers are.)

So this crackdown should catch them too. Hopefully.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

:eek:

Can the RSA not check who does not sit the test within so many years?

It’s not illegal to not sit the test.

It is illegal to drive unaccompanied unless you pass the test or pass IBT in the case of a bike.

Rechuchote

Marina Young Lodging wrote: »

It’s not illegal to not sit the test.

Perhaps it should be.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Rechuchote wrote: »

Perhaps it should be.

There are proposals to force people to sit the test I understand

Posy

They can just show up with no insurance disc/valid NCT and then the test won't go ahead anyway. Although if you're driving (illegally) for years I don't know why you wouldn't just sit the feckin' test!

Dravokivich

Posy wrote: »

They can just show up with no insurance disc/valid NCT and then the test won't go ahead anyway. Although if you're driving (illegally) for years I don't know why you wouldn't just sit the feckin' test!

Easier to hop off a bus and show up without a car.

Rechuchote

Let's get real and have qualified people driving on our roads.

Or of course let everyone get out of cars and use bikes (which I'd prefer, naturally).

pablo128

Rechuchote wrote: »

Let's get real and have qualified people driving on our roads.

Or of course let everyone get out of cars and use bikes (which I'd prefer, naturally).

And how would people get qualified to drive without practicing on the roads? The issue here is people driving unaccompanied, which is being cracked down on.

Cars are here to stay. If you want to cycle, go ahead but this is the learning to drive forum.

Rechuchote

pablo128 wrote: »

And how would people get qualified to drive without practicing on the roads? The issue here is people driving unaccompanied, which is being cracked down on.

Cars are here to stay. If you want to cycle, go ahead but this is the learning to drive forum.

People would get qualified (in my ideal world) by taking classes with professionals, and when they finish that first course, practising accompanied by a qualified driver, and then sitting and passing the test at the end of their six-month provisional licence period.

elperello

Rechuchote wrote: »

People would get qualified (in my ideal world) by taking classes with professionals, and when they finish that first course, practising accompanied by a qualified driver, and then sitting and passing the test at the end of their six-month provisional licence period.

Sounds reasonable to me.
Most cyclists I know who are old enough to drive do so as well as enjoying their bikes.

E (cyclist and motorist)

iamwhoiam

pablo128 wrote: »

And how would people get qualified to drive without practicing on the roads? The issue here is people driving unaccompanied, which is being cracked down on.

Cars are here to stay. If you want to cycle, go ahead but this is the learning to drive forum.

The same way they do in most EU countries .Official driving lessons in official driving schools until you pass the test .

JohnMc1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

:eek:

Can the RSA not check who does not sit the test within so many years?

The RSA don't care. That's €90 in their pocket one way or another.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The RSA don't care. That's €90 in their pocket one way or another.

I sat the car test for €38. how times change

J_R

Marina Young Lodging wrote: »

I sat the car test for €38. how times change

That's nothing, I got my full licence, all categories for £1.00, took perhaps 10 minutes.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

J_R wrote: »

That's nothing, I got my full licence, all categories for £1.00, took perhaps 10 minutes.

when was that? pre 1964?

J_R

Marina Young Lodging wrote: »

when was that? pre 1964?

Hi,

Yes.

actually got two licences. First one, gave my proper age (18) and was therefore restricted to cars. About year later tried to hire a car in Dublin and was refused, was told needed to be 23. So trotted off to nearest motor tax office, . gave Dublin address of old ex girl friend, ticked the box for "over 21", I could then tick the boxes for all the categories, which I did and was handed my full licence.

Went to another car hire company, gave my age as 25, hired a car, a mini, had never sat behind the wheel of a car before, but of course knew how to drive as watched my father and brothers. By time I got home. 120 miles later, reckoned was an experienced driver.

Times have definitely changed

JohnMc1

J_R wrote: »

That's nothing, I got my full licence, all categories for £1.00, took perhaps 10 minutes.

Back when you just had to fill out a form at the post office?

J_R

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Back when you just had to fill out a form at the post office?

Hi,

Yes, necessary to only fill in name and address, if under 21 had to input DOB, otherwise tick box for "Over 21" no ID whatsoever required.

Then tick few more boxes to a few simple questions, tender completed sheet with £1 and be given your licence there and then.

But think it was in Motor tax office

JohnMc1

J_R wrote: »

Hi,

Yes, necessary to only fill in name and address, if under 21 had to input DOB, otherwise tick box for "Over 21" no ID whatsoever required.

Then tick few more boxes to a few simple questions, tender completed sheet with £1 and be given your licence there and then.

But think it was in Motor tax office

You're more likely right than me. I only knew about that from my Mom. She's 80 so ofcourse she might be off about it. The tests was implemented by the time i moved here.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You're more likely right than me. I only knew about that from my Mom. She's 80 so ofcourse she might be off about it. The tests was implemented by the time i moved here.

Testing came in during 1964

ayux4rj6zql2ph

J_R wrote: »

Hi,

Yes.

actually got two licences. First one, gave my proper age (18) and was therefore restricted to cars. About year later tried to hire a car in Dublin and was refused, was told needed to be 23. So trotted off to nearest motor tax office, . gave Dublin address of old ex girl friend, ticked the box for "over 21", I could then tick the boxes for all the categories, which I did and was handed my full licence.

Went to another car hire company, gave my age as 25, hired a car, a mini, had never sat behind the wheel of a car before, but of course knew how to drive as watched my father and brothers. By time I got home. 120 miles later, reckoned was an experienced driver.

Times have definitely changed

I can't even imagine what that system would be like, could you imagine something like that in this day and age

J_R

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You're more likely right than me. I only knew about that from my Mom. She's 80 so ofcourse she might be off about it. The tests was implemented by the time i moved here.

Hi,

she could have posted the application form ?

But now not 100% certain myself. Was a few years ago and now that I am in my fifties memory not what it used to be

horse7

It would be great to see some stats on L drivers unaccompanied and accidents. I don't think all L drivers are unsafe to drive unaccompanied but I did have one crash into me straight out from a sideroad who was unaccompanied, the Garda were not interested as there was no one injured.

brightspark

horse7 wrote:

It would be great to see some stats on L drivers unaccompanied and accidents. I don't think all L drivers are unsafe to drive unaccompanied but I did have one crash into me straight out from a sideroad who was unaccompanied, the Garda were not interested as there was no one injured.

The L drivers who are not "unsafe" should logically take and pass the driving test.

creedp

brightspark wrote: »

So when someone passes the test it is just because they were lucky, not because they have demonstrated their driving skills during the test?

Being able to react properly to people running across the road or cutting you off on a roundabout is part of that skill set.

Is bad luck the reason so many people fail the theory test too?

I didn't say that - Driving involves interacting with real people in the real world, be they pedestrians, cyclists or motorists, and that brings an element of luck to the equation.

But listen I know some drivers are perfect in every way

brightspark

creedp wrote: »

I didn't say that - Driving involves interacting with real people in the real world, be they pedestrians, cyclists or motorists, and that brings an element of luck to the equation.

But listen I know some drivers are perfect in every way

The only "element of luck" is that you might pass the test if you are not faced with a situation that you are not sufficiently competent to handle.

But as you say driving involves interacting with real people in the real world so not everyone gets tested as comprehensively as needed.

Perhaps a simulation element should be added to the process, that could test how a learner permit holder reacts to what as you say are real life situations.


Until then some will be "lucky" and pass even thought they don't really have all the skills required to avoid accidents.

creedp

brightspark wrote: »

The only "element of luck" is that you might pass the test if you are not faced with a situation that you are not sufficiently competent to handle.

But as you say driving involves interacting with real people in the real world so not everyone gets tested as comprehensively as needed.

Perhaps a simulation element should be added to the process, that could test how a learner permit holder reacts to what as you say are real life situations.


Until then some will be "lucky" and pass even thought they don't really have all the skills required to avoid accidents.

I don't want to get into a fruitless tit for tat on this but the most competent of drivers have 'accidents' which may or may not be caused by other drivers. If you are lucky you will avoid such 'accident'.

brightspark

creedp wrote: »

I don't want to get into a fruitless tit for tat on this but the most competent of drivers have 'accidents' which may or may not be caused by other drivers. If you are lucky you will avoid such 'accident'.

True,

I was involved in an accident some years ago.

On a national road the traffic ahead of me came to a stop, I stopped as did the cars behind me. A couple of minutes later the traffic started moving again, but soon afterwards for whatever reason it again stopped (cars ahead of me on a bend so I couldn't see what was causing the traffic ahead to stop)
I stopped without hitting the car in front of me (as did ALL the cars ahead of me), the driver behind me didn't stop and wrote off my car.

My stopping in time wasn't due to "luck", the driver failing to stop behind me wasn't due to "bad luck" it was due to lack of attention.

Now perhaps you could say I was unlucky to have an inattentive driver behind me (I did see in my rear view mirror that he wasn't slowing but I had no option of moving anywhere so I could not prevent the accident).

Or you could say the other driver was lucky that he hit a cheap old Honda and not a new BMW.

However the accident was caused by lack of attention, not luck.

Rechuchote

horse7 wrote: »

It would be great to see some stats on L drivers unaccompanied and accidents. I don't think all L drivers are unsafe to drive unaccompanied but I did have one crash into me straight out from a sideroad who was unaccompanied, the Garda were not interested as there was no one injured.

Some stats here https://www.thejournal.ie/learner-drivers-unaccompanied-3893515-Mar2018/

Unaccompanied learner drivers were involved in 35 fatal car crashes in past four years

(Actually a low proportion of fatal crashes)

but looky here:

According to figures provided to RTÉ by the Road Safety Authority, 5.8% of all fatal crashes between 2014 to 2017 involved a learner driver.

However, just under 9% of all drivers in Ireland hold a learners permit.

My own hard line is that if you kill people with a car/bus/truck/van you should never be allowed to drive again. That would certainly and definitively bring down the number of crashes.

Henry Ford III

It really doesn't matter what the stats say. If a Learner driver wants to do so solo they must prove their ability to do so by passing the test.

Yes preparing for the test is expensive, waiting times can be long, and there may well be inferior drivers with full licenses out there, but unfortunately the system, as in many elements of our lives, isn't perfect and sometimes isn't even fair.

Maurice Yeltsin

brightspark wrote: »

The L drivers who are not "unsafe" should logically take and pass the driving test.

Hardly.

The driving test is effectively like asking someone to demonstrate how to walk. Nobody, absolutely nobody, drives around residential streets in a similar manner to the test. It's unatural. Not to mention conflicting information and opinions between your instructor and the tester.

It would be interesting to see what the pass rates would be if testers were to be made wear body cams.

I was amazed to find that around 1 in 12 motorists are still on a learner permit. While L plates displayed were never nearly as high as 1 in 12 they've become like hens teeth since the laws were brought in, all the young drivers are taking them down (I'm guessing the people on it years never displayed them)

I've yet to see a Garda twitter or televised car seizure which involved a car with L plates displayed, they seem to only target people they deem taking the piss by being evasive. Not set in stone obviously, but even driving unaccompanied kids are better off displaying them, get caught without and what is it, four points instead of a possible two? A single speeding citation in the following two years and off the road for what, six months?.

Government really need to meet half way, perhaps extend it to allowing unaccompanied driving after completing the 12 lessons? (although that in itself is a bit counter productive. I did my 12 lessons before I had a car and could barely pull out into traffic without stalling what with him shouting at me and aghast I'd learned nothing. I essentially taught myself how to drive, and looking back it would have been more ideal to start completely on my own, and THEN take the lessons, as rather than ticking off the basics it would be 12 attempts at driving to the ludicrous test standard)

pablo128

Maurice Yeltsin wrote: »

Hardly.

The driving test is effectively like asking someone to demonstrate how to walk. Nobody, absolutely nobody, drives around residential streets in a similar manner to the test. It's unatural.

No it's not unnatural. If everyone drove the same way as they passed their test, there would be very few problems on our roads. Things like stay left, don't stop in a yellow box unless turning right, indicate in plenty of time EVERY TIME you intend to turn or change lane, check mirrors regularly, stop at red lights, give way at roundabouts, and many more.

Please point out which of those are unnatural.

Eggs For Dinner

Maurice Yeltsin wrote: »

Government really need to meet half way, perhaps extend it to allowing unaccompanied driving after completing the 12 lessons? (although that in itself is a bit counter productive. I did my 12 lessons before I had a car and could barely pull out into traffic without stalling )

Do you not see the contradiction there?

Isambard

It's amazing how many learner drivers think they are wonderful drivers and yet are unable to pass the test.

There is no way they will be back-pedalling now to allow unaccompanied driving, just get on and get through the test or stay off the road.

Varik

Just copy the A licence, can drive unaccompanied after getting a cert of Satisfactory Completion after doing a proper ibt course.

How the 12 lessons are run is just box ticking as it is.

Chances are the EU will do the same to the B license eventually.