19 years on a provisional licence.

seagull

paleoperson wrote: »

My dad showed me how to drive.

He never took the test himself because there was no test at that time. He was driving for over 50 years without incident that I know of. In his opinion I was a really safe driver.

Here's the thing, When you're taught to drive by someone who has never been taught how to drive, they pass on their bad habits. So he thinks he's a good driver, and you drive in the same way.

Not if you know 100% there is no car there. When you are older you may get a lack of mobility in the neck area making it much harder to turn around. It will pay to have better awareness at that time rather than turning every time which I know you do not do.

You have heard of a blind spot? You check just to make sure there's nothing there. And yes, I do check it every time. It's a habit from how I was taught to drive - mirrors, indicate, mirrors, blind spot check, manoeuvre.

punisher5112

paleoperson wrote: »

How about the fact that not a single person driving on the roads today as they would normally would pass? Driving normally and safely will fail you the test. Plenty of the actions you have to do for the test such as mirror, wing-mirror, turn over the shoulder is overly elaborate and less safe than if you were paying more attention to what was happening ahead. Same with using the gears to decelerate which is a carry on from cars made back in the 1950s or previous.

When I took the test first I went into it in good faith. I was advised to look in the mirrors a lot, that I knew. I had no idea about strictly keeping to speed limits, must go into lower gears gradually to slow down, must look in side mirror every time you're turning left (even if there's no bike lane), must look over the shoulder when pulling away from a curb even if you know there's no cars there, and so on.

Keeping as close to the lefthand side of the road as possible, hugging the outside of the corners as tightly as possible, can't short-cut a turn off even if there's no other car there. Not entering unexpected bus lanes when the whole place is deserted. It's really a bit of a scam.



Not only am I suitable, I am I bet at least 100 times safer than you on the roads.

I fell off my horse while sipping tea.... Laughable...

Cheers for cheering me up.


Yes people drive like sh1t but they were able to show awareness for the test so that's obviously better then you could do.

I'm not dangerous as I keep telling others it's not my fault I've had around 20 crashes or so.
Others have hit while I was stopped and even through red lights.

There ain't a cure for stupid I'm afraid...

fritzelly

Saying you have never had a crash is not an indicator that you are a good driver
Many bad drivers cause crashes that they are not involved in - causing someone to have to do an emergency break and end up getting rear ended while you go on your merry way for example.

paleoperson

punisher5112 wrote: »

I fell off my horse while sipping tea.... Laughable...

Cheers for cheering me up.


Yes people drive like sh1t but they were able to show awareness for the test so that's obviously better then you could do.

I'm not dangerous as I keep telling others it's not my fault I've had around 20 crashes or so.
Others have hit while I was stopped and even through red lights.

There ain't a cure for stupid I'm afraid...

You're a danger on the road and should be banned from it.

punisher5112

paleoperson wrote: »

You're a danger on the road and should be banned from it.

Very true, but I have a Driver's licence for most vehicles one can drive, funny that isn't it.....

ohnonotgmail

paleoperson wrote: »

How about the fact that not a single person driving on the roads today as they would normally would pass? Driving normally and safely will fail you the test. Plenty of the actions you have to do for the test such as mirror, wing-mirror, turn over the shoulder is overly elaborate and less safe than if you were paying more attention to what was happening ahead. Same with using the gears to decelerate which is a carry on from cars made back in the 1950s or previous.

When I took the test first I went into it in good faith. I was advised to look in the mirrors a lot, that I knew. I had no idea about strictly keeping to speed limits, must go into lower gears gradually to slow down, must look in side mirror every time you're turning left (even if there's no bike lane), must look over the shoulder when pulling away from a curb even if you know there's no cars there, and so on.

Keeping as close to the lefthand side of the road as possible, hugging the outside of the corners as tightly as possible, can't short-cut a turn off even if there's no other car there. Not entering unexpected bus lanes when the whole place is deserted. It's really a bit of a scam.



Not only am I suitable, I am I bet at least 100 times safer than you on the roads.

you thought it was ok to exceed the speed limit in a driving test? is this a windup?

paleoperson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you thought it was ok to exceed the speed limit in a driving test? is this a windup?

It's not always clear what the speed limit is. Also in Ireland literally nobody goes the 30km/h or whatever it is speed limit seen in some deserted roads.

fritzelly

paleoperson wrote: »

It's not always clear what the speed limit is. Also in Ireland literally nobody goes the 30km/h or whatever it is speed limit seen in some deserted roads.

There are speed limit signs everywhere and regardless there is a default speed limit based on the road type
Everything you say just goes to show someone not knowing anything about driving.

irishgeo

The test is easy. It doesn't test motorway driving.
Nighttime driving.
Some basic car maintenance.

DebDynamite

irishgeo wrote: »

The test is easy. It doesn't test motorway driving.
Nighttime driving.
Some basic car maintenance.

Not a parallel park, which is something I wish I had to learn!

endacl

DebDynamite wrote: »

Not a parallel park, which is something I wish I had to learn!

You do have to learn it. You’re just not tested on it.

Also, it’s easy.

[IMG]/https://i.giphy.com/media/pD6JT47e9ta0M/giphy.gif[/IMG]

corks finest

endacl wrote:

You do have to learn it. You’re just not tested on it.

Obligatory in the 6 counties it was when I did mine 36 years ago

Dr. Bre

Why don’t they make the test a bit cheaper and force people into sitting a test more regularly? My missus on a learner permit 5 years now and recently renewed it and was told she has 2 years to sit a test again - ridiculous should be every 3 months . Like the NCT if you fail you comeback quickly

endacl

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Why don’t they make the test a bit cheaper and force people into sitting a test more regularly? My missus on a learner permit 5 years now and recently renewed it and was told she has 2 years to sit a test again - ridiculous should be every 3 months . Like the NCT if you fail you comeback quickly

Doesn’t matter what it costs. People will still moan about it being too expensive.

jmreire

Rodin wrote: »

I can assure you that using downshifting of gears to decelerate is very useful when needing to stop quickly.

I've driven truck's, Rigid's, Artic's, Truck Trailer's and 4 x 4's, and you have to use the gear's in those ( there are newer gearbox's out now, semi-automatics etc but that's different.) In icy/ snow / slippery condition's give me a manual gearbox in a car any day over an automatic transmission. With the automatic, you have only the choice of the brake's and accelerator...not good in slippery conditions. I've always use the gearbox to slow down, speed up, and to adapt to the condition's I find myself in.It was an integral part of the test when I did it, be in the right gear at the right time and if you did the test in an automatic, then you only got a limited licence, and could not drive a manual car. It will be interesting down the road, when ( and if ) electric cars become popular how the Licence will work out as they are all automatics. I guess do the test ina manual, and you will be covered for both.

punisher5112

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Why don’t they make the test a bit cheaper and force people into sitting a test more regularly? My missus on a learner permit 5 years now and recently renewed it and was told she has 2 years to sit a test again - ridiculous should be every 3 months . Like the NCT if you fail you comeback quickly

It is cheap....

endacl

punisher5112 wrote: »

It is cheap....

Especially cheap if you pick up the relatively basic skills required, practise them, master them, and then take and pass the test.

splinter65

McGaggs wrote: »

Gardaí should be stopping every car with an L plate and no passenger.

Because they’ve nothing else to do.

u140acro3xs7dm

splinter65 wrote: »

Because they’ve nothing else to do.

They have time to hide behind bus stops with a speed gun.

Eggs For Dinner

Layne Raspy Condor wrote: »

They have time to hide behind bus stops with a speed gun.

Catching lawbreakers,......

inforfun

McGaggs wrote: »

Gardaí should be stopping every car with an L plate and no passenger.

splinter65 wrote: »

Because they’ve nothing else to do.

And there we have in exactly 2 posts why this entire "L-driver" thing is bull **** and should be binned asap.

dsmythy

Jesus I wonder how I am judged according to the best driver in the thread. I think it was 6 years between my first permit and passing the test. I had been on/off with my driving "career" over that time hence the length of time. Working long hours and still being broke each week not helpful either.

When I finally did the test for the first time I passed it. My refresher was watching an instructor on Youtube to see if there's any peculiarities I had to do for the test. Despite my stop start driving time I just built up the experience over time which must have been useful.

I was nervous for the test, this nervousness caused me to get marked on my steering, it was like I suddenly couldn't do it right... But now looking back at it if I did it today again, knowing all that is required and having experienced it, I'd be shocked if I failed.

I might agree with a limit of years before you have to do a test and more again before you have to pass it. I might have passed a lot sooner if it was forced. Nervousness and the sometimes counterintuitive driving style that's expected might hide perfectly good drivers.
Conversely having a license doesn't guarantee anything either. You ever see someone and wonder how they passed the test? Because they're capable of driving to a minimum standard but just don't feel like it. It's like getting that pass in Irish knowing you've zero intention on keeping it up. You do what the test requires then disregard.

So it has limitations but I can't think of any other way of doing it. But some of the proclamations here of who is and is not a killer driver are ridiculous. Especially one who thinks no bike lane means no bike after spending their time not arsed with too many mirror checks. I'm fairly happy with what it going on behind me too but only through many mirror checks. Quick glances and a constant peripheral view of the rearview mirror.

But 19 years I mean......

rgossip30

Anyone remember the amnesty in 1979 where anyone could get a licence all classes without a test .The good oul days .

alias no.9

paleoperson wrote: »

I didn't pass it within 5 years and am a perfectly safe driver. I have never had any incidents.

It's not a fair test, it's a load of bollocks.

The test is one of basic competence, can this person demonstrate enough discipline for 20 minutes to show that they're competent to drive unaccompanied.

Nobody drives like they do in the driving test on a daily basis but it's a great fallback way of driving if you're ever outside your comfort zone, say in an unfamiliar car, or driving on the other side of the road in another country, a city driver on rural roads or vice versa.

creedp

rgossip30 wrote: »

Anyone remember the amnesty in 1979 where anyone could get a licence all classes without a test .The good oul days .

My sister passed her driving test in a car in London in the mid 1990s and was immediately issued a full driving licence for every class of vehicle up to and including an artic. Not sure that approach has caused mayhem on UK roads. Its laughable as she is the only one in the family who can legally drive an artic (or even tow a trailer) in this country.

Eggs For Dinner

I've a full motorcycle licence and have never even sat on one

The J Stands for Jay

inforfun wrote: »

And there we have in exactly 2 posts why this entire "L-driver" thing is bull **** and should be binned asap.

No idea what point you're trying to make here.

endacl

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

I've a full motorcycle licence and have never even sat on one

Trials bike purist, eh?

hognef

creedp wrote: »

she is the only one in the family who can legally drive an artic (or even tow a trailer) in this country.

Anybody with a class B licence can legally tow a trailer.

blueshade

I don't drive so maybe I'm out of touch, but I genuinely don't believe that anyone should be allowed to drive for years without passing a test. Not sitting a test is an easy way of avoiding failing. If you haven't a full licence you shouldn't be on the road. This craic of getting a car and driving regardless is insane. It's no wonder we've young lads haring around the back roads and crashing. There's too much of a culture of turning a blind eye.

tayto lover

blueshade wrote: »

I don't drive so maybe I'm out of touch, but I genuinely don't believe that anyone should be allowed to drive for years without passing a test. Not sitting a test is an easy way of avoiding failing. If you haven't a full licence you shouldn't be on the road. This craic of getting a car and driving regardless is insane. It's no wonder we've young lads haring around the back roads and crashing. There's too much of a culture of turning a blind eye.

Agree.
Insurance companies should insist on seeing the full licence before covering them too. No full licence - no certificate.

corks finest

blueshade wrote:

I don't drive so maybe I'm out of touch, but I genuinely don't believe that anyone should be allowed to drive for years without passing a test. Not sitting a test is an easy way of avoiding failing. If you haven't a full licence you shouldn't be on the road. This craic of getting a car and driving regardless is insane. It's no wonder we've young lads haring around the back roads and crashing. There's too much of a culture of turning a blind eye.

Correct

corks finest

tayto lover wrote:

Agree. Insurance companies should insist on seeing the full licence before covering them too. No full licence - no certificate.

Yes indeed,but the greedy bast***s won't obviously

inforfun

McGaggs wrote: »

No idea what point you're trying to make here.

The "cant drive unaccompanied"-rule is pretty much useless.
There is not enough manpower to check every car with an "L" on display with just the driver in it.

And then there are the cars with just the driver that dont have the L on display. Need to check those too in case they only have a provisional but think they can get away with driving without the L.

ohnonotgmail

inforfun wrote: »

The "cant drive unaccompanied"-rule is pretty much useless.
There is not enough manpower to check every car with an "L" on display with just the driver in it.

And then there are the cars with just the driver that dont have the L on display. Need to check those too in case they only have a provisional but think they can get away with driving without the L.

using that logic we should do away with speed limits. there just isnt enough manpower to check that every car isn't speeding.

inforfun

No, not really.
Every heard of speed camera's?

Dont think a system like that exists for checking what piece of paper someone is carrying on him or her, is there?

So i reckon that chances you ll be caught for doing a bit of speeding are higher than being caught for doing a bit of "i dont have a real driver's license"

ohnonotgmail

inforfun wrote: »

No, not really.
Every heard of speed camera's?

Dont think a system like that exists for checking what piece of paper someone is carrying on him or her, is there?

So i reckon that chances you ll be caught for doing a bit of speeding are higher than being caught for doing a bit of "i dont have a real driver's license"

even with speed cameras we still only catch a tiny percentage of people who speed so what is the point?

Charles Babbage

inforfun wrote: »

The "cant drive unaccompanied"-rule is pretty much useless.
There is not enough manpower to check every car with an "L" on display with just the driver in it.

And then there are the cars with just the driver that dont have the L on display. Need to check those too in case they only have a provisional but think they can get away with driving without the L.

Firstly, they should introduce a fine for anyone displaying an L plate who is not a learner, so that anyone displaying one wih one driver in the car could be checked.
They could identify all vehicles insured for L drivers and check them from time to time.



Can't is not the same as couldn't be arsed.

Eggs For Dinner

corks finest wrote: »

Yes indeed,but the greedy bast***s won't obviously

Nothing to do with insurers. If you are legally allowed drive on a learners permit, insurers have to comply. Take your gripe up with Shane Ross

creedp

hognef wrote: »

Anybody with a class B licence can legally tow a trailer.

Sorry for not being specific enough .. I meant a double horsebox

Dr. Bre

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Firstly, they should introduce a fine for anyone displaying an L plate who is not a learner, so that anyone displaying one wih one driver in the car could be checked.
They could identify all vehicles insured for L drivers and check them from time to time.



Can't is not the same as couldn't be arsed.

More fines . Great..

fritzelly

When seizing cars off learner drivers instead of giving the car back to the learner driver when they pay the impound fees (and go about doing the exact same thing again) they should sell the cars off and give the money to the MIB
Make a lot of people have second thoughts about spending thousands on a brand new car to drive the kids to school when they don't even have a full licence but of the mindset you can't expect them to walk 10 minutes.

Charles Babbage

Dr. Bre wrote: »

More fines . Great..

Easily avoided fines.

ednwireland

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Firstly, they should introduce a fine for anyone displaying an L plate who is not a learner, so that anyone displaying one wih one driver in the car could be checked.
They could identify all vehicles insured for L drivers and check them from time to time.



Can't is not the same as couldn't be arsed.

considering the problem is not enforcing the learner permit laws how will this make any difference more laws that will be unenforced