[article] Judge Throw 'L' Cases Out Of Court

Alun

Angry_Penguin wrote:

Does this mean that:
on your first provisional you have to be accompanied
on your third/fourth/etc provisional you have to be accompanied
but on your second provisional you dont have to be accompanied

Rather perversely, yes.

Alun

gs39t wrote:

The incredibly high failure rate in a lot of the test centers should surely be a sign that the test is too comprehensive and too badly judged. In the USA most people get their license at about 16, much higher here i assume due to cost etc, and yet we have about HALF the applicants fail? Driving isnt rocket science. YES, there are some people who cant drive worth a damn but i hardly think they account for 40-50% of applicants.

The Irish test ... "too comprehensive" ????? You're joking, right?

I'd say it's mainly down to bad teaching by people who hardly know how to drive themselves and lack of preparation. How often do you see people on here, literally hours before their test, asking for "handy hints"?

Indeed, driving isn't "rocket science", but conversely it's about a helluva lot more than the mere mechanics of getting the car moving, and isn't therefore something you just pick up as you go along. It needs to be taught, and taught properly.

Funniest part is, legally, if you DO pass your test, only THEN can you go onto a motorway, with no motorway driving experience whatsoever. :rolleyes:

This contradicts what you said in your first paragraph. The test should be more comprehensive, not less, with both teaching (by a qualified instructor) on motorways, and having it (along with night driving) as part of the test.

Someone stuck up yer arse on the M50? Chances are its a full license holder...

Chances are the person in front is dawdling along at 80km/h in the overtaking lane without a care in the world while the driving lane is free. Given the number of L drivers on the motorways, I'd say its a 50/50 chance it's one of them.

ballooba

I think there should be a week or two week course you go on with a test at the end.

They could even spread it out over a few weeks with a day a week. The course could be carried out by private independent instructors with the examiner coming in on the last day to examine the students.

BME

Well done to the Judge, the entire driving system is flawed, I mean they gave out licenses in an amnesty ffs!:eek:

As an "L" driver, you will NEVER see me with road-rage inducing L Plates on my vehicle, for reasons too numerous to mention

Alun

BME wrote:

Well done to the Judge, the entire driving system is flawed, I mean they gave out licenses in an amnesty ffs!:eek:

Right, so giving away diving licences in an amnesty is not OK, but generally turning a blind eye to inexperienced L drivers driving unaccompanied is OK?

As an "L" driver, you will NEVER see me with road-rage inducing L Plates on my vehicle, for reasons too numerous to mention

Go on then, mention them ... I'm intrigued as to why you think you're immune from the same laws as the rest of us are.

ballooba

L plates won't induce rage unless you make a mistake. Generally people have a lot more patience when you have L plates. Unless they're assholes.

layke

I'm on my 3rd provisional 1 for bike 2 for car.

I do it too. Unacompanied, or carrying passengers that may/may not be fully licensed.

If you want to force me not to drive'
Get my test sorted out having applied nearly 6 months ago.... still waiting.
Fix the public transport system.

On another note, I have been stopped at a few checkpoints and oly once was my license questioned by a young guard who was actually quite sound. He asked was it my 1st or second provisional as it's not stamped. Once I told him it was my second he said "safe home and have a nice day".

For the record Ste, I agree that 'fresh' learners should be made do a certain number of lessons before getting into a car. Lets face it some freshies are BAD drivers but you know right well there are a hell of a lot of us who can drive better then aul'wans or aul'fellas.

To add, the majority of our road deaths come from people arseing about on the road. I doubt the Full license test teaches you how handle your car when you skid off somewhere aimed at a lampost.

gs39t

ballooba wrote:

I think there should be a week or two week course you go on with a test at the end.

They could even spread it out over a few weeks with a day a week. The course could be carried out by private independent instructors with the examiner coming in on the last day to examine the students.

This is the best idea so far.

The opinion some of you have that learners shouldnt be on the road until they learn how to drive......well, where CAN you learn how to drive? Nowhere, except on a public road. There is no answer to that unless they build a little mock-up city somewhere :rolleyes:

The test should be more comprehensive, not less, with both teaching (by a qualified instructor) on motorways,

Thats what i was implying. Your not even allowed to learn to drive on a motorway!

Alun

gs39t wrote:

The opinion some of you have that learners shouldnt be on the road until they learn how to drive......well, where CAN you learn how to drive? Nowhere, except on a public road. There is no answer to that unless they build a little mock-up city somewhere :rolleyes:

Don't be silly, nobody here is suggesting that you shouldn't learn to drive on the public roads, just that you have an experienced driver with you at all times, or preferably a qualified driving instructor. Anyway, in some countries (Netherlands for example) they do have small "mock up cities" where you take your first baby-steps in a car, so it's not as stupid as you make out.

Alun

layke wrote:

If you want to force me not to drive'
Get my test sorted out having applied nearly 6 months ago.... still waiting.
Fix the public transport system.

A totally separate issue, and no excuse for breaking the law and potentially putting my, and other road users' lives in danger.

For the record Ste, I agree that 'fresh' learners should be made do a certain number of lessons before getting into a car. Lets face it some freshies are BAD drivers but you know right well there are a hell of a lot of us who can drive better then aul'wans or aul'fellas.

OK, so who decides when you're no longer a 'fresh' learner? You? Your dad? Some guy you met in a pub? Or someone who's actually qualified to assess your capabilities?

This debate, if you can call it that, gets sillier by the moment.

Guy:Incognito

gs39t wrote:

The opinion some of you have that learners shouldnt be on the road until they learn how to drive......well, where CAN you learn how to drive? Nowhere, except on a public road. There is no answer to that unless they build a little mock-up city somewhere :rolleyes: !

Ahh the wealth of yuor knowledge knows no bounds. This is the only country you are allowed to do it in so I'm going to guess every other country finds a way.

morlan

ballooba wrote:

Turning your head around like the excorcist kid every 12 seconds hardly helps safe driving either.

PMSL

commited

No matter how much you all argue about how good certain provisional drivers are, the law is that under your first provisional and 3rd & all provs thereafter you dont drive unaccompanied. I never did. It's not that hard.
There are a ridiculous amount of incompetant L drivers driving around unaccompanied.
Wait until you pass your test like you should and stop trying to justify your law breaking.

John R

_raptor_ wrote:

your arguing a completely retundant point, i said FROM THE OUTSET that i DONT believe theres a quota system in operation, so stop flogging a dead horse

YOU are the only one on the thread that mentioned it, if you don't believe it then why use it to justify your point?

_raptor_ wrote:

theres plenty of people who would pass the test but have to wait a year odd for their test, should they be banned from driving as well???? cop on will ye

I'm terribly sorry for thinking that the safety of every road user is less importance than the inconvenience of unqualified drivers.

I never said they should be banned from driving, just not allowed unsupervised.

ballooba

I'm hoping to get a job in the U.S. soon. It will be great because i will be able to go and do a test that makes sense and then when I move back home i can swap it for an Irish licence.

declanoneill

I hate to dissapoint you, but you do know that in many US states the driving tests are far more simple then the test here, right?

Also, there is no direct swap from US >> Ireland. Though I've been told you can swap US >> Engerland >> Ireland, but I don't know how accuarate that is.

ballooba

D'oh! Just noticed that USA is not one of the recognised states.

Seth Brundle

_raptor_ wrote:

I take it you have a full license, did it ever cross your mind that alot of people on provisionals failed their tests on something stupid (some people say to fill quotas im not so sure on that one) and are actually very competent drivers, hell i'd even go so far as to say that IMO theres an AWFUL alot of L drivers who are miles better drivers on the road than fully licensed drivers, you should be done for wasting my time :-)

Comparing prov. licenced drivers to crap licenced drivers is not that straight forward.
Those with prov licences have not shown that they have the basic competency to drive (which in reality isn't much). However licenced drivers have shown a skill (excluding those under the amnesty) to drive. However their skills may have worsened over the years. Thats a different matter though.
My opinion is that everyone should be tested every 3 to 5 years. If you don't pass then you don't drive in public - full stop!

_raptor_ wrote:

theres plenty of people who would pass the test but have to wait a year odd for their test, should they be banned from driving as well???? cop on will ye

just because someone is waiting for a test doesn't mean they are any good!

_raptor_ wrote:

right i'm going to ask you some simple direct questions and id like a simple YES or NO direct answer.

1: Do you not think that there are fully licensed drivers on the road who are more of a danger than provisional license holders?

2: Do you think that just because someone hasn't sat a test for a full license means that they incompent to safely drive a car?

1. yes but read my above point.
2. no but they have not officially shown this compentency so do we then just assume all prov drivers are competent or do we take the unpopular but safe route?

Angry_Penguin wrote:

Does this mean that:
on your first provisional you have to be accompanied
on your third/fourth/etc provisional you have to be accompanied
but on your second provisional you dont have to be accompanied

as said - yes, but remember that this is Ireland!

In reality, the Government has promised road safety strategies and various other forms of bullshít PR.

• Theyrevised the speed limits yet didn't conduct an assessment of the appropriatness of each limit and currently there are 80 or 100kmph limits outside some schools.
• they did not revise the basic training material that is necessary for those learning to drive - therefre newbie drivers are learning mph and being tested in kmph - the 'k' makes a big difference!
• reducing driver testing waiting periods
• points system - what can I not say?
• poor and inappropriate enforcement of current laws
• too many delays in introducing new laws, e.g. random breath testing

Before people start criticising me, remember that my points are also mentioned by the judiciary, the NSC and the insurance industry.
I could go on and on. What it comes down to is a basic reluctance to invest proper money in driver training, testing and onging assesment. Financial shortages are also experienced by the gardai who basically haven't the resources to enforce the current laws. There are also the delays caused by both the unions and the civil servants resulting in the long times getting laws drawn up and getting drivers tested.
However, the blame for all of this lays firmly at the feet of the government who are too shítless to try and save lives over votes!

[rant over]

Slutmonkey57b

I thouhrogly agree with mandatory retests every 5 years. My driving instructors have all said the same thing - that being in an L car makes you into a total road rage target. What's interesting to me is that Motorway driving is considered more dangerous than driving on "normal" roads. Most errors made by learner drivers are to do with co-ordinating gear changes, mirrors, observation. Motorway driving effectivly eliminates gear changes, and the only time it's necessary to change lanes is when you're entering or leaving the motorway - a situation where there is always plenty of notice. Compared with trying to negotiate short-tempered traffic and pedestrians in somewhere like Blackrock or Bray, and its a piece of piss. Where do most road fatalities occur - on motorways, or on twisting country roads at night? Learners can drive all they like at speeds of up to 80 or 100km/h down some of the most dangerous roads in Ireland, but can't travel the strech of the M11 from shankill to bray - a road which is precicely no different, to all intents and purposes from the N11 either side of it. Motorways were originally designed to be _safer_ than driving on normal roads, don't forget.

I'm not sitting here saying that L drivers should be allowed to do what they want - but if half the people who were of the "keep them off the roads" variety were forced to be retested on their own behavior, they'd soon be whistling a different tune. As for Ireland having the most contempt for the rules of the road or safe driving, you've clearly never spent much time in France or Spain. Or Italy. Or Greece. Or.... ah pick a country.

Jumpy

_raptor_ wrote:

im sorry but that is one of the most retarded ideas i've ever heard, EVER

I take it you have a full license, did it ever cross your mind that alot of people on provisionals failed their tests on something stupid (some people say to fill quotas im not so sure on that one) and are actually very competent drivers, hell i'd even go so far as to say that IMO theres an AWFUL alot of L drivers who are miles better drivers on the road than fully licensed drivers, you should be done for wasting my time :-)

If they have an L they are not deemed competent. That is the point of the 'Learner' plate.
As far as the comment about 'miles better drivers on the road' its the attitudes like that that cause the problems. If you are still on L's after a test then you did not pass 'basic' road skills, there is no 'failing on something stupid' its a very basic test, you also havent had the years of driving experience.
Therefore if you drive without the plates you dont give drivers warning to keep their distance, and therefore you have increased the risk of an accident situation. I would not blame a single insurer for denying you an insurance claim.
In australia (NSW) it is 1 year of 'L' plates in which a single strike is a loss of said license. It used to be 1 year of 'P' or 'Provisional' plates after that in which you can use any road but never pass 80kmh, you are also limited to 4 demerit points. I think they have now increased the 'P' plates to now be held for three years.
Not displaying is a loss of license for a learner, and 1 point per non-visible plate for a 'P'.
Many people removed their P's so they could reach the national speed limit of 110kmh, got caught twice and promptly lost their license.

Supercell

Well, I have L plates up and so far have found that people generally seem to give me a bit more space (sensibly..I used to always steer well clear of learner drivers when I used a mbike) than others..I hope its not just because my driving is so obviously learnerish!!

Perhaps its the perpetual scowl of concentration on my face and skinhead haircut that prevents them acting the bóllix !

I certainly feel having them up gives me a little more room for error than would be the case with them down, so wont be taking them off any time soon.

Jumpy

Longfield wrote:

I certainly feel having them up gives me a little more room for error than would be the case with them down, so wont be taking them off any time soon.

Yay, somone with some responsibility.

This is exactly what they are for.

Still they should take note from other countries and have two sets, like my description of P and L plates above.

L plates are strictly for newbies, to get them you need to pass a written exam (touchscreen exam now) then a year later you can sign for your test and if you pass you get your P's.

You dont need to be hugely careful of P platers, because you know they passed the test, but they occasionally do seem to be full of invincible confidence.

hawker

I would like to add a small couple of points to the conversation.

I do think L plated drivers are treated a lot differently on the roads than full licence drivers. I believe drivers are more agressive towards L plated drivers. Remember folks we were all L plated drivers at one stage.

Secondly this rule of having a provisional driver accompanied is very confusing. In a split second situation on a dual carriageway how is a fully licensed person going to help a provisional driver while sitting in the passenger seat?

jlang

In my opinion, the only sensible answer to most of the problems of L-drivers will be to test them and reduce the waiting time for a test. Until the wait is down to not more than a month, the same complaints will be heard. Then, the L-plates will signal exactly what they should - someone who is learning, not someone who's in their fourth year driving, waiting for their second test because they failed the first on a technicality (or, and I know this happens - good drivers who perversely wait to apply for their test because they're afraid to fail and be put to the back of the 14 month queue).

Seth Brundle

hawker wrote:

Secondly this rule of having a provisional driver accompanied is very confusing. In a split second situation on a dual carriageway how is a fully licensed person going to help a provisional driver while sitting in the passenger seat?

good point and Im not sure of the logic. I think it was meant to allow a licenced driver take someone out for lessons rather than to go touring Ireland.
However, the role of the licenced driver I believe is to help the prov driver avoid situations where a split second decision is necessary.

Alun

hawker wrote:

I do think L plated drivers are treated a lot differently on the roads than full licence drivers. I believe drivers are more agressive towards L plated drivers. Remember folks we were all L plated drivers at one stage.

The problem is, though, that an L-plate means absolutely nothing here any more. In the UK, if you see an L-plate, it's pretty much a certainty that (shock, horror) it's actually a learner driver, who is out there with someone who is qualified, actually engaged in the process of learning to drive.

Here it can mean anything from someone who is taking their very first foray out onto the roads, to someone who has just had two lessons and feels he is "just grand" to be out driving alone, to someone who just can't be @arsed to take a test and has been driving on a provisional licence for 10 years or more.

Personally, I'll honk my horn or stick a finger up (if that's what you call being aggressive) at absolutely anyone who acts like a complete maggot and puts my life at risk by his actions, whether they're displaying an L-plate or not ... no distinction there.

Seth Brundle

Alun wrote:

Here it can mean anything...
<snip>

you forgot those who drive with L plates up but are not in fact learners, e.g. a prov drivers parent who couldn't be arsed taking the sticker down.
This is also illegal!

Alun

hawker wrote:

Secondly this rule of having a provisional driver accompanied is very confusing. In a split second situation on a dual carriageway how is a fully licensed person going to help a provisional driver while sitting in the passenger seat?

How is it confusing? The licenced person is supposed to be actively engaged in the process of teaching the learner (I dislike the term "provisional driver") how to drive, not just sit there and stare out of the window, or fall asleep. In short, they're supposed to be one step ahead of you, and preventing you getting in a situation like that in the first place.

They are also supposed to be closely observing what you do, giving you advice, looking around for potential hazards that you may have overlooked and drawing your attention to them, etc. etc. In short, just what a professional driving instructor would do. A lot of people who accompany learner drivers possibly aren't capable of doing this properly, in which case maybe they should think twice about doing it, and hand the job over to someone who is.

hawker

Alun wrote:

How is it confusing? The licenced person is supposed to be actively engaged in the process of teaching the learner (I dislike the term "provisional driver") how to drive, not just sit there and stare out of the window, or fall asleep. In short, they're supposed to be one step ahead of you, and preventing you getting in a situation like that in the first place.

They are also supposed to be closely observing what you do, giving you advice, looking around for potential hazards that you may have overlooked and drawing your attention to them, etc. etc. In short, just what a professional driving instructor would do. A lot of people who accompany learner drivers possibly aren't capable of doing this properly, in which case maybe they should think twice about doing it, and hand the job over to someone who is.

I don't disagree with any of your points. However in a split second decision, I would think that a learner driver does the first thing that enters their head, which is brake. This is not always the best option as you know.

I was once a learner driver and really believe that others drivers attitudes towards learners are more aggresive. I also belive the big car/small car syndrome is rampant in this country. I have a two car household (essential with kids) where one is a small car and other is a medium sizedfamily car. Whenever I am driving the small car I notice that others drivers tend to give you less space. Anyone else noticed this?

sutty

Ok, after reading this, I can see that some people are areguring over samantics and word play.

First of. I am a prov driver. I'm on my second Prov licence. I have been driving a bike for my two licence's. However I have started driving a car there 2 months ago. (Only taken 5 lessons so far as I dont have my own car to drive)

I have often drive my bike on the M50, things I have noticed are this. Yes L plate drivers do drive on the M50. Yes EVERYONE on a motor way tends to drive to close to the person infront of them. For those of you that say "I am a full driver and I know what I am doing" Here is a two part question. 1 what disatance should you leave between you and the car infront when traviling at motorway speeds. 2.. Do you and how do you know you are the correct distance.

Stopping distances in them-selfs are a joke. Seeing as all cars have different stopping distances. However the driver also needs time to react to the danger ahead.

Next, the fact that a prov licence driver can go into the testing center, not aloud to drive on a motorway, and then leave being aloud is a joke. This person will have no experance on the motorway and will be more of a danger than a "L" driver who has driven on them before.

As for Experacned drivers (I'll call them that, but I mean fully licenced drivers) having to accompany a "L" driver. on their 1st prv licence is also a bit foolish. I dont know one fully licenced driver that has sliped into some very bad habits of driving after getting their test done.

In my opinon, I think new prov drivers should be made sit the Theroy test as well as take a introduction course that they need to pass in order to get a prov licence for the first time.