do you think the present law on learner permits is hypocritical

ann13 · 27-10-2013 3:05pm #1

no point debating with a bunch of know it all stick to the law lick arses who make me feel now as if i'm not paranoid enough that I am going to kill someone with bad driving thanks

miss no stars · 27-10-2013 11:44pm

ann13 wrote: »

I've been reading some threads about people on learner permits going unaccompanied and not displaying their l plates. A lot of people are against people on L plates going unaccompanied and are saying that the deserve to be caught by the guards. So my question is do you think that this is slightly hypocritical. The reason I think this is that these people who are saying this and also the guards that are enforcing this law are people who when they were learning to drive didn't have this law put upon them. They didn't have to work as hard to get their licence did not have to take twelve lessons and fill out a log book and did not live in fear every time they drove that they would be stopped by cops and fined. I was stopped at a check point and when the cop saw that I didn't have a accompanied driver with me gave out stink to me and let me off with a warning. I felt like asking him did you get half the lessons I have already got and what did you have to do to get your licence. I don't have anyone to come with me in a car because my parent died when I was a child and my other parent doesn't have a licence and no one I know will come with me and I just find the law very hypocritical. I can now drive very well after two months of driving and my driving instructor says I will pass the test just waiting for a date. I actually see more dangerous driving from older drivers I can't drive down the street or drive for that long without seeing drivers on their phone. Also all the time not indicating right on roundabouts. It's crazy that certain people from the older generation actually ****ed up our economy for the younger generation and now are putting new laws upon this generation which they never had who ever is making these laws have some audacity learner drivers have enough to concentrate on driving safe besides having to worry if their breaking the law driving unaccompanied. And who says having a licensed driver will make you more safe when my mum comes in the car with me her licence is not valid she would be more likely to cause an accident as she unnerves me because she is a back seat driver. I think it's best to go to a driving instructor as they know how to deal with learner drivers and practice on your own. rant over

I passed my test less than a month ago, so I had all the restrictions in place.

I never drove unaccompanied.

I always had L plates up.

It's not unfair.

Lemme guess, you also think it's grand to go on motorways as a learner?

Ken. · 27-10-2013 11:48pm

Back in my day you could have 10 pints and drive home. The new law shouldn't apply to me. Laws change. Tough sh!t.

sonny jim bob jones · 27-10-2013 11:50pm

Yes, they should properly punish learner drivers that are caught driving unaccompanied.

27-10-2013 11:52pm

I had to have an accompanied driver, and not friends with licences less than 2 years, either
I obeyed the law and I probably did get 12 lessons at least all told
So, eh, no

tim3000 · 27-10-2013 11:52pm

I think its a pointless law. As a current learner it severely limits the amount of experience you can get. I agree with L plates though but not with constantly having a fully licensed driver accompany you. Not a lot of good thats gonna do you if some fool speeding hits into you. Pointless law.

Mars Bar · 27-10-2013 11:52pm

had to get my Dad and my cousin to split the time between them for me to practice first and that was highly inconvenient for everyone but it really has to be done. I learned a lot from my cousin because he was less about instructing and letting me ask the questions than my Dad was.
When I was confident enough, I drove unaccompanied around town and to the local gym and back for a good few months.
That small amount of driving made a huge difference to my driving and my confidence.

You'd nearly get a dose of the ****s when you see a garda car in the vicinity though when ya have L plates and you're on your own!

sonny jim bob jones · 27-10-2013 11:55pm

tim3000 wrote: »

I think its a pointless law. As a current learner it severely limits the amount of experience you can get. I agree with L plates though but not with constantly having a fully licensed driver accompany you. Not a lot of good thats gonna do you if some fool speeding hits into you. Pointless law.

So you are basically saying anyone should be able to drive unaccompanied with or without any form of license or permit.

bucketybuck · 27-10-2013 11:57pm

No, you should not be allowed to drive unaccompanied if you have not passed your driving test. Thats, you know, kinda the whole point of having a test.

creep · 27-10-2013 11:57pm

I've been driving over 2 years on a provisional with no L plates displayed doing around 400KM a week. I find the danger on the road is not the learner drivers but the people who speed, overtake in dangerous areas and do not use their indicators. If a person feels comfortable to drive then no harm driving.

miss no stars · 27-10-2013 11:58pm

tim3000 wrote: »

As a current learner it severely limits the amount of experience you can get damage you can do through lack of experience reading the road. I agree with L plates.

fyp

miss no stars · 27-10-2013 11:59pm

creep wrote: »

I've been driving over 2 years on a provisional with no L plates displayed doing around 400KM a week. I find the danger on the road is not the learner drivers but the people who speed, overtake in dangerous areas and do not use their indicators. If a person feels comfortable to drive then no harm driving.

do your test if you're such a great driver

tim3000 · 27-10-2013 11:59pm

sonny jim bob jones wrote: »

So you are basically saying anyone should be able to drive unaccompanied with or without any form of license or permit.

I am saying that once you have obtained your permit and are engaged in driving lessons then its a bit pointless to have a licensed driver beside you in the car at all times. It severely inhibits the amount of time you can practice outside your lessons and also inhibits the freedom driving a car confers on you.

creep · 28-10-2013 12:00am

miss no stars wrote: »

do your test if you're such a great driver

Never said I was "such a great driver". It's my choice.

bitburger · 28-10-2013 12:02am

I drove around for around 4 years unaccompanied, got my license last year, no guard ever got onto me for it, stupid thing is im going onto my 4th motorbike permit now and i never have or will have to be accompanied as it is illegal for me to carry a pillion. out of all of my friends who now have a full license the ones that drove around unaccompanied were the ones who passed their tests on the first attempt,

does the qualified driver have to be awake and completley sober?

bucketybuck · 28-10-2013 12:02am

creep wrote: »

If a person feels comfortable to drive then no harm driving.

Plenty of idiots feel perfectly comfortable driving with five pints in them too.

Paco Rodriguez · 28-10-2013 12:03am

I started off driving as a learner with a qualified driver. But following that rule there would be a week or more inbetween lessons, and I found my skills would fade.

So now I drive unaccompanied as at the end of the day, my skills are better with regular practice Not everyone has a wide range of friends and family to rely on.

creep · 28-10-2013 12:05am

bucketybuck wrote: »

Plenty of idiots feel perfectly comfortable driving with five pints in them too.

Drink driving, speeding, using a mobile phone are completely different to driving unaccompanied. Having a pink license does not automatically make you a good and safe driver. In fact most people with learner drivers don't break the speed limit, no how to use indicators.

miss no stars · 28-10-2013 12:08am

creep wrote: »

Never said I was "such a great driver". It's my choice.

So now you're not such a great driver that you could pass the test?

If you can't pass the test then you lack the skills required to drive safely by yourself. If you lack those skills... You shouldn't be driving by yourself.

So which is it? You're a safe driver who should just do the test and be done with it or you're not able to pass the test and so are unsafe to be on your own?

Either way, I hope you don't kill/injure someone.

tim3000 · 28-10-2013 12:09am

creep wrote: »

Drink driving, speeding, using a mobile phone are completely different to driving unaccompanied. Having a pink license does not automatically make you a good and safe driver. In fact most people with learner drivers don't break the speed limit, no how to use indicators.

Id agree. I am an overly cautious driver I don't speed or drive recklessly. This comes for beng a learner.

Its a stupid law to be accompanied at all times. Reading there, apparently learner drivers have been involved in 700 fatal road crashes accounting for roughly 1/15 deaths. Its hardly a dis-proportionate amount of fatalities from a sub set of driver. I wonder how many of those were the learners fault.

sonny jim bob jones · 28-10-2013 12:11am

creep wrote: »

I've been driving over 2 years on a provisional with no L plates displayed doing around 400KM a week. I find the danger on the road is not the learner drivers but the people who speed, overtake in dangerous areas and do not use their indicators. If a person feels comfortable to drive then no harm driving.

So you think that the other learner drivers are using L plates...strange logic given that you admit to not using them yourself.

miss no stars · 28-10-2013 12:11am

tim3000 wrote: »

Id agree. I am an overly cautious driver I don't speed or drive recklessly. This comes for beng a learner.

Its a stupid law to be accompanied at all times. I would love to see the stats (if any) detailing the amount of learner drivers accompanied or otherwise involved in car accidents.

People driving during the first 2 years of being fully licensed cause proportionately the most accidents. Why not learners? Learners are accompanied by someone who can read the road and (without necessarily being conscious of doing so) will say things like "hang back while they do x" or "hang on, don't change lane you've a car in your blind spot"...

creep · 28-10-2013 12:12am

miss no stars wrote: »

So now you're not such a great driver that you could pass the test?

If you can't pass the test then you lack the skills required to drive safely by yourself. If you lack those skills... You shouldn't be driving by yourself.

So which is it? You're a safe driver who should just do the test and be done with it or you're not able to pass the test and so are unsafe to be on your own?

Either way, I hope you don't kill/injure someone.

Never applied for the test or bothered to do the lessons, my insurance is only 200 euro more without the full license. I don't have a piece of pink paper to say I have a full license OH NO! It wouldn't bother me which license I had if I killed someone which hopefully will never happen anyone

28-10-2013 12:13am

creep wrote: »

Having a pink license does not automatically make you a good and safe driver..

But not having one makes it likely you aren't.

Highest proportion of accidents are for recent qualifiers... who have to drive on their own.

creep · 28-10-2013 12:15am

tim3000 wrote: »

Id agree. I am an overly cautious driver I don't speed or drive recklessly. This comes for beng a learner.

Its a stupid law to be accompanied at all times. Reading there, apparently learner drivers have been involved in 700 fatal road crashes accounting for roughly 1/15 deaths. Its hardly a dis-proportionate amount of fatalities from a sub set of driver. I wonder how many of those were the learners fault.

So 14/15 full license drivers cause road deaths, that stat makes no sense. Rations of learners to full is way more than 1 to 15. Full license drivers should be off the road if thats the stat

tim3000 · 28-10-2013 12:18am

miss no stars wrote: »

People driving during the first 2 years of being fully licensed cause proportionately the most accidents. Why not learners? Learners are accompanied by someone who can read the road and (without necessarily being conscious of doing so) will say things like "hang back while they do x" or "hang on, don't change lane you've a car in your blind spot"...

Sorry I was editing my previous post to reflect the stats I have looked up. According to these stats reported on the Independent.ie website 1/15 road deaths are caused involve learner drivers. If at least half of these were the fault of other drivers and not the learners then its not a disproportionate cause of accidents. Especially when compared to fully licensed drivers.

creep · 28-10-2013 12:18am

bluewolf wrote: »

But not having one makes it likely you aren't.

Highest proportion of accidents are for recent qualifiers... who have to drive on their own.

Link to that? I usually thought it was young idiotic male drivers that caused the most accidents in their suped up cars

Dravokivich · 28-10-2013 12:18am

You can rant all you want but its there for a reason. Driving should never be about you, but always about others on the road. A learner needs time to understand and get used to that. Its not good for'em to be unaccompanied. Theres more to it then shifting gears and applying the brakes correctly. Any monkey can do that.

miss no stars · 28-10-2013 12:19am

creep wrote: »

Never applied for the test or bothered to do the lessons, my insurance is only 200 euro more without the full license. I don't have a piece of pink paper to say I have a full license OH NO! It wouldn't bother me which license I had if I killed someone which hopefully will never happen anyone

Never bothered. Bother with mirrors? Blind spots? I hope you get caught by causing a fairly minor accident, go to court and get banned for 5 years because your attitude is reckless and dangerous.

tim3000 · 28-10-2013 12:20am

creep wrote: »

So 14/15 full license drivers cause road deaths, that stat makes no sense. Rations of learners to full is way more than 1 to 15. Full license drivers should be off the road if thats the stat

Thats the stat i found on http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/concern-at-number-of-solo-learner-drivers-in-fatal-crashes-26863179.html

creep · 28-10-2013 12:21am

miss no stars wrote: »

Never bothered. Bother with mirrors? Blind spots? I hope you get caught by causing a fairly minor accident, go to court and get banned for 5 years because your attitude is reckless and dangerous.

I drive 400Km a week, I know how to check my mirrors, check my blindspot tyvm. How is my attitude wreckless and dangerous? I drive within with the speed limit unlike most full license drivers doing 160 KM/H on the motorway,

miss no stars · 28-10-2013 12:23am

creep wrote: »

So 14/15 full license drivers cause road deaths, that stat makes no sense. Rations of learners to full is way more than 1 to 15. Full license drivers should be off the road if thats the stat

You reckon 1 in 15 drivers is a learner? I'd have said less. Meaning that even though, for arguments sake, 29/30 drivers have a full license they're responsible only for 28/30 accidents. Learners are more dangerous than fully licensed drivers. Novice but fully licensed drivers are more dangerous than experienced drivers.

How difficult is that to understand?

tim3000 · 28-10-2013 12:25am

miss no stars wrote: »

You reckon 1 in 15 drivers is a learner? I'd have said less. Meaning that even though, for arguments sake, 29/30 drivers have a full license they're responsible only for 28/30 accidents. Learners are more dangerous than fully licensed drivers. Novice but fully licensed drivers are more dangerous than experienced drivers.

How difficult is that to understand?

No the stat in question is that 1/15 road deaths involve a learner driver.

TimeToShine · 28-10-2013 12:27am

I got my license last year but I remember being told that you should have something like 60 hours behind the wheel before you're tested. Now how anyone expects a learner to find someone willing to sit beside them for 60 hours is beyond me.

bucketybuck · 28-10-2013 12:27am

I guess we should just get rid of the driving test then. The only barrier to anybody piloting a lump of metal at 70mph should be whether they feel comfortable or not.

creep · 28-10-2013 12:27am

miss no stars wrote: »

You reckon 1 in 15 drivers is a learner? I'd have said less. Meaning that even though, for arguments sake, 29/30 drivers have a full license they're responsible only for 28/30 accidents. Learners are more dangerous than fully licensed drivers. Novice but fully licensed drivers are more dangerous than experienced drivers.

How difficult is that to understand?

I see plenty of 50 year old drivers doing 160 KM/H an hour on the motorway, no clue which lane to go into on a roundabout, They are dangerous.

It doesn't matter how experienced they are plenty of reckless drivers on the road

joebloggs32 · 28-10-2013 12:29am

creep wrote: »

I've been driving over 2 years on a provisional with no L plates displayed doing around 400KM a week. I find the danger on the road is not the learner drivers but the people who speed, overtake in dangerous areas and do not use their indicators. If a person feels comfortable to drive then no harm driving.

How do you know wether or not these dangerous drivers are not like yourself; learners without L plates displayed!

miss no stars · 28-10-2013 12:29am

creep wrote: »

I drive 400Km a week, I know how to check my mirrors, check my blindspot tyvm. How is my attitude wreckless and dangerous? I drive within with the speed limit unlike most full license drivers doing 160 KM/H on the motorway,

It's a reckless attitude because as you say yourself, you don't do the lessons (so who's checking that you're checking correctly?), you're on motorways where the speeds involved are very high without a full license and think you're a grand driver but won't do the one, single thing that would prove that you're okay at driving - the test.

tim3000 wrote: »

No the stat in question is that 1/15 road deaths involve a learner driver.

Yup, and I'm saying that I doubt so many as 1 in 15 drivers are learners, therefore, learners are disproportionately high in the figures.

Fluorescence · 28-10-2013 12:31am

I have been driving for little less than 1 year now. I passed my test last week, after never, not even once, driving unaccompanied.

Getting adequate practise in was a problem. Finding the time when both myself and another person were free to get out was very difficult. But I never, ever, ever would have considered driving alone for the sake of more practise. Even though I would have passed my test months ago if I could have driven myself around everywhere without being reliant on other people's schedules.

I've only done 2 short 10 min drives since, unaccompanied, and it is pretty scary. I had become so used to having a second pair of eyes in the car. I feel now like I'm learning all over again. I'm forcing myself to be 10 times more cautious and observant. Driving alone is difficult.

So no, I don't think it's hypocritical at all. The RSA have ballsed up plenty of things but this, IMO, is not one of them. I'm actually very pleased with the accompaniment rule as well as the EDT system. I think we're going to experience a new generation of better trained drivers. That can only be a good thing.

tim3000 · 28-10-2013 12:39am

miss no stars wrote: »

Yup, and I'm saying that I doubt so many as 1 in 15 drivers are learners, therefore, learners are disproportionately high in the figures.

Oh I see. Well as is 1/15 road deaths involves a learner driver. But I haven't looked for stats detailing accidents caused by them. I imagine this would again be a lower stat perhaps 1/30 given a fifty/fifty split of liability. This then isn't a disproportionate amount of road deaths caused by learner drivers.

Granted these are rough estimates but even if the liability shifts to 75:25 against the learner this isn't even a disproportionate amount of fatalities caused.

miss no stars · 28-10-2013 12:42am

tim3000 wrote: »

Oh I see. Well as is 1/15 road deaths involves a learner driver. But I haven't looked for stats detailing accidents caused by them. I imagine this would again be a lower stat perhaps 1/30 given a fifty/fifty split of liability. This then isn't a disproportionate amount of road deaths caused by learner drivers.

You need to brush up on your stats. If that's true for the cases involving learners then it's true for those not involving learners. Meaning that the stats stay the same.

creep · 28-10-2013 12:44am

tim3000 wrote: »

Oh I see. Well as is 1/15 road deaths involves a learner driver. But I haven't looked for stats detailing accidents caused by them. I imagine this would again be a lower stat perhaps 1/30 given a fifty/fifty split of liability. This then isn't a disproportionate amount of road deaths caused by learner drivers.

Granted these are rough estimates but even if the liability shifts to 75:25 against the learner this isn't even a disproportionate amount of fatalities caused.

I find that people with learner permits up are getting haraased by other drivers simply by having L plates, dangerous overtaking, beeping at them for no reason, tailgaiting them, cutting them off. I'd say thats a cause of some of them accidents

creep · 28-10-2013 12:47am

miss no stars wrote: »

You need to brush up on your stats. If that's true for the cases involving learners then it's true for those not involving learners. Meaning that the stats stay the same.

No they do not, if it was the learner was the one who caused the crash then thats one side. This stat shows a learner driver that was involved in a accident which was more than likely caused by a full license trying to dangerously overtake or what not.

miss no stars · 28-10-2013 12:47am

creep wrote: »

I find that people with learner permits up are getting haraased by other drivers simply by having L plates, dangerous overtaking, beeping at them for no reason, tailgaiting them, cutting them off. I'd say thats a cause of some of them accidents

Yeah, sometimes. Yet most people I've driven with (as a passenger or driver) get annoyed when there's a learner going slow/being an idiot but will hang back and take the approach of "everyone had to learn". Sure, there'll be a few. But those are the idiots that will do that for whatever reason they come up with next and, having driven with L plates up and without (after passing the test), I find that some people are just idiots and you might as well learn to deal with them and not let them affect your driving.

tim3000 · 28-10-2013 12:51am

miss no stars wrote: »

You need to brush up on your stats. If that's true for the cases involving learners then it's true for those not involving learners. Meaning that the stats stay the same.

Well I cant find the stats detailing the accidents actually and unequivocally caused by learners, not involving them. Thats why I had to estimate the split of liability in fatal road crashes.

Based on the stat that 1/15 deaths involve a learner driver then it is fair to guess that 1/30 deaths was caused directly by a learner driver, do you agree?

The point I'm trying to make is given that this percentage of 3.33% of accidents caused by learner drivers isn't a statistically significant amount given the volume of learners actually on the road. Now I must find stats for the amount of learners on the road. But I am getting a little off topic :pac:

miss no stars · 28-10-2013 12:53am

creep wrote: »

No they do not, if it was the learner was the one who caused the crash then thats one side. This stat shows a learner driver that was involved in a accident which was more than likely caused by a full license trying to dangerously overtake or what not.

They do. 1/15 involve a learner. Lets say 50% are caused by party A (the learner). That means that 1 in 30 involve and are caused by a learner. Out of the 14 of 15 not involving a learner, party A (fully licensed) is responsible 50% of the time. This is the crux of having to apply the same assumption across the board. You can't say that for the 14 out of 15 both parties are responsible yet for the 1 of 15 only one is responsible. So in 14 out of 30 instances not involving a learner party A is responsible.

Now take a look at where party A was to blame - 15 out of 30 instances. For 1 in 15 of those instances, party A is a learner.

creep · 28-10-2013 12:58am

miss no stars wrote: »

They do. 1/15 involve a learner. Lets say 50% are caused by party A (the learner). That means that 1 in 30 involve and are caused by a learner. Out of the 14 of 15 not involving a learner, party A (fully licensed) is responsible 50% of the time. This is the crux of having to apply the same assumption across the board. You can't say that for the 14 out of 15 both parties are responsible yet for the 1 of 15 only one is responsible. So in 14 out of 30 instances not involving a learner party A is responsible.

Now take a look at where party A was to blame - 15 out of 30 instances. For 1 in 15 of those instances, party A is a learner.

What? Where are you picking those magic numbers from. Can anyone make sense of what No License means here? Seems 30,000 learners get points and 450,000 full license drivers get points in August oh the irony.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Penalty-Point-Statistics/

Cedrus · 28-10-2013 1:12am

f you want to talk the talk, then walk the walk, do the test and pass or admit you don't know it all and obey the law.

Taking down your L plates because you can't cope with a few assh0les beeping at you is an admission that you can't cope and are not ready to do your test.

Yes, there are loads of people out there who can't drive (unless there's a Guard standing on the corner), but why would you want to join them? Have you NO pride? Get better, learn more, read Roadcraft, do advanced training.

Anyone who thinks they know everything is a fool, the village idiot thinks the world ends at the horizon, smart people know that there is always another horizon beyond each and every horizon.

hognef · 28-10-2013 1:21am

To those discussing the 1 in 15 accidents, keep in mind that it doesn't simply refer to 1 in 15 accidents involving learner drivers, it says that 1 in 15 involves <b> unaccompanied </b> learner drivers. That is, 1 in 15 accidents involves a particular category of drivers who aren't even allowed to be on the road in the first place.

Even if one does assume only half of those accidents (1 in 30) were indeed caused by the learner, I seriously doubt as as many as 1 in 30 drivers are in fact unaccompanied, illegal, learner drivers, even less so if one accounts for fully licensed drivers most likely doing higher average mileage.

And to those who believe learners should be allowed to drive unaccompanied, check out the laws in other European countries, and you'll find that Ireland was a very special case (and seemingly still is, given the apparent lack of penalty for being caught unaccompanied).

A learner permit is a permission to learn, not an actual driver's license. And if you don't have friends or family who can accompany you, tough ****, you'll have to pay an instructor. That's no different from having to pay someone to fix your computer in the absence of friends or family who can be bothered to help you.

Faith+1 · 28-10-2013 1:27am

creep wrote: »

I've been driving over 2 years on a provisional with no L plates displayed doing around 400KM a week. I find the danger on the road is not the learner drivers but the people who speed, overtake in dangerous areas and do not use their indicators. If a person feels comfortable to drive then no harm driving.

Yes, if they have a full licence Creep.

Cedrus · 28-10-2013 1:46am

I think there is drink being consumed by some of these untrained, unlicensed, incompetent 'drivers'.

do you think the present law on learner permits is hypocritical

Comments