New Rules for Learner Drivers

murphaph · 30-10-2007 9:55am

Stark wrote: »

I would imagine nerves in a lot of people's cases. I know was extremely nervous doing my tests. This could be alleviated through a bit of people skills, maybe a smile or a handshake or something on the tester's part, but not through dumbing down the test.

Good point. The testers are, in my experience, unpleasant individuals (save for the nice fellow who did my bike test).

The test itself is technically not difficult. It has no parallel or reverse parking. The only 'difficult' manouvre is the reverse around a corner and is something an expperienced driver does without fret. The nerves get to people.

Also, perhaps it's time to allow the learner's instructor to sit in the back of the car during the test as is done in the UK. The nonsense situation we have here at the moment often leaves the failed test candidate with no actual idea where they messed up.

tomED · 30-10-2007 10:12am

Red Alert wrote: »

As a result of all four of these I'm still an 'L' driver, but I've every desire to site the test again and pass it by sorting out the remaining problems in my driving. Does the previous poster think I should never be allowed improve & sit the test again in a reasonable timeframe?

No I don't think you should never be allowed to resit your test, but I certainly don't think you should be on the road by yourself.

I'm sorry but failing your driving test four times isn't bad luck.

There's obviously something wrong with your driving ability. And like everyone else that has failed, they blame the person that was testing them.

Even if it is minor mistakes you are failing on, you are failing. It only takes a minor mistake to cause an accident.

green rover · 30-10-2007 12:30pm

murphaph wrote: »

Good point. The testers are, in my experience, unpleasant individuals (save for the nice fellow who did my bike test).

The test itself is technically not difficult. It has no parallel or reverse parking. The only 'difficult' manouvre is the reverse around a corner and is something an expperienced driver does without fret. The nerves get to people.

Also, perhaps it's time to allow the learner's instructor to sit in the back of the car during the test as is done in the UK. The nonsense situation we have here at the moment often leaves the failed test candidate with no actual idea where they messed up.

that can be very frustrating for someone as they might not know why there observing or lack of it, warranted a grade 2 fault.

Chris_533976 · 30-10-2007 12:39pm

murphaph wrote: »

The test itself is technically not difficult. It has no parallel or reverse parking. The only 'difficult' manouvre is the reverse around a corner and is something an expperienced driver does without fret. The nerves get to people.

Thats one problem with it. I got my test first time with no major problems, but I remember it as being the most nerve wracking thing I've ever done.

And some of the testers can be asses too, I got a good one. But I remember my driving instructor (who was excellent) saying to me before the test "I hope you do well, and I hope you dont get certain testers".

TBH I cant see why everyone doesnt voluntarily get proper driving lessons anyway. Learning from your parents, your family or 'John down da road' is ridiculously stupid IMO.

Edit: And not to sound boastful or anything, but I dont understand why so many people fail. Its not **that** difficult. Grade 1 faults arent that important, you can make about 4 without any problem. You can make eight or nine grade 2 faults which are genuine mistakes, but nine of them is generous. Grade 3's are usually stupidity or an inability to drive, or nerves on the day.

I'd be interested in seeing stats on what percentage of people pass having gotten proper lessons from someone qualified versus the percentage of people who pass having had no lessons or lessons from a friend etc.

Ham'nd'egger · 30-10-2007 1:19pm

Chris_533976 wrote: »

And some of the testers can be asses too, I got a good one. But I remember my driving instructor (who was excellent) saying to me before the test "I hope you do well, and I hope you dont get certain testers".

On the issue of testers, I'm just thinking of a driving test I sat back in the day.

It was Rathgar and when I was doing my turnaround down near Cowper Downs, the tester told me to stop as the test was over.

When I asked then what the problem was, I was told that as a warning light had been displayed on the cars dashboard, the car was "unsafe" to drive. The instruction from here? Drive back to the test centre! I said, if the car was safe to drive back, it was safe to be tested in, they said no, I said surely if it's unsafe then we can't drive back, but if you are demanding to be driven back, then we should go on. They still refused so I kicked them out of the car and made them walk back to the test centre!!!:D

Red Alert · 30-10-2007 1:54pm

I'm sure testers can have bad days as such like anybody, but I honestly don't think any of them are out to 'get' anybody. Unfortunately they're probably not covered by insurance should something then go wrong. It is bizarre though that he asked for a lift back!

In reply to to tomED, I never said that I should be allowed out by myself. I want Ireland to have quick tests (like in Northern Ireland), so the focus is on learning and improving driving skills, not on getting annoyed with a waiting list.

trellheim · 30-10-2007 2:59pm

I say we have an amnesty again.

Poof ! Look you all have licences now.

Wishbone Ash · 30-10-2007 3:10pm

murphaph wrote: »

The testers are, in my experience, unpleasant individuals (save for the nice fellow who did my bike test)

I've done the tests in all categories and I've never had any reason to complain about them. They were neither pleasant or unpleasant.

murphaph wrote:

The test itself is technically not difficult. It has no parallel or reverse parking.

It depends on the category being tested.

Chris_533976 wrote: »

I got my test first time ........And some of the testers can be asses too, I got a good one

How can you tell that some of them are "asses" if you've only done one test?

Hamndegger wrote: »

the tester told me to stop as the test was over

I'd say that was unusual - probably would never happen now.

When I was doing the artic test, about 5 minutes into it, I stupidly almost struck a cyclist. The tester closed his clip board and put his hands into his pockets. I had to go through the motions for the next hour and a half all around north Dublin, knowing I had already failed! (It was a bit of experience though

)

jellybaby21 · 30-10-2007 3:22pm

I just got off he phone to the driving test place I applied for my test in august they told me at least another 5 months yet on the website it says the average waiting time in my county is 10 weeks what a joke!!!! They are only calling people now who applied for their tests in april.
This whole system is a joke and so is this country:mad::mad::mad:

Chris_533976 · 30-10-2007 3:25pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

How can you tell that some of them are "asses" if you've only done one test?

That is going on hearsay I know, but as I said my instructor was really hoping I didn't get certain testers as they were unpleasant people and less likely to pass you.

dudara · 30-10-2007 3:35pm

There is a large variation in pass rates between testing centres in different parts of the country. This is what worries me. It is clear that the system is not as standardised as it should be.

Branoic · 30-10-2007 3:56pm

Hamndegger wrote: »

I was told that as a warning light had been displayed on the cars dashboard, the car was "unsafe" to drive.

Yeah, I got the notification for my test in the post there last week, and on the checklist accompanying it, one of the points is that if any system warning lights come on, the test is automatically over. It's nothing to do with individual testers. As someone else said, its probably something to do with insurance.

stevoman · 30-10-2007 4:39pm

dudara wrote: »

There is a large variation in pass rates between testing centres in different parts of the country. This is what worries me. It is clear that the system is not as standardised as it should be.

thats true. some towns are dead hard. portlaoise for example is mega hard. i went through 12 roundabouts on my last test, with a major one right outside the test centre with no flow of traffic behind you as its outside a building its almost impossible to get out of.

MOH · 30-10-2007 5:58pm

What the great benefit of being accompanied by a someone with a license for more than 2 years?

Right now my girlfriend could drive around our area of Dublin with either of her parents, both of whom are over 70, rarely drive, and when they do it's on relatively quiet country roads.

Whereas I've known the area we live in since I was a kid, I'm familiar with one way streets, who has priority at junctions. I'm observant, I've got a good knowledge of the rules of the road, and my gf feels far more comfortable with me advising her in the car.

But now legally i can't, since I haven't held a full license for 2 years.
Boo to you, Gaybo :mad:

Red Alert · 30-10-2007 6:13pm

Today's Irish Times says SGS are going to be doing a lot more tests. To be hoonest, they should do everything to clear the backlog for once and for all (including fully using SGS, retired testers and army/garda testers), then have testing 'on demand' (i.e. within a month) and from then on rigorously enforce the laws, because people have no excuse whatsoever then to break them.

MrPudding · 30-10-2007 6:15pm

MOH wrote: »

What the great benefit of being accompanied by a someone with a license for more than 2 years?

Right now my girlfriend could drive around our area of Dublin with either of her parents, both of whom are over 70, rarely drive, and when they do it's on relatively quiet country roads.

Whereas I've known the area we live in since I was a kid, I'm familiar with one way streets, who has priority at junctions. I'm observant, I've got a good knowledge of the rules of the road, and my gf feels far more comfortable with me advising her in the car.

But now legally i can't, since I haven't held a full license for 2 years.
Boo to you, Gaybo :mad:

Pretty much any rule or regulation can be picked apart or made to look silly with well choosen individual examples.

Can you happily state that that every driver with less than 2 years experience is as good as you? Can you state that every every driver over 70 drives rarely and only on quiet roads? I doubt it.

We have a major problem here that need to be addressed. It will not be possible to make everyone happy. The rules have to be set up to benefit the greater number of people in a positive way and absolutely target the people they want to target. The only way to do this is with blanket regulations.

How else would you suggest they do it? There are a bunch of unqualified people driving on the roads. Some of them can drive and some of them are downright dangerous, (lets not get into the dangerous full licence holders, that is a different issue) how do we differentiate between the two? A lot of you provo drivers are complaining that you are excellent drivers and should not be tarred with the learner brush. How do we know? How can you prove you are better? If only we had some way to differentiate.

I think an accompanying driver with two years experience is pretty standard in civilised nations. After two years the average driver will have built up a bit of experience and should be a reasonable driver. The first year or two of driving still has a fairly steep learning curve. It does not make sense for a person still learning a still to be advising another person on how to do it.

MrO

clally · 30-10-2007 8:08pm

MrPudding wrote: »

The rules have to be set up to benefit the greater number of people in a positive way and absolutely target the people they want to target. The only way to do this is with blanket regulations.

MrO

perhaps, but this is a blanket regulation which does not achieve its purposse (to promote road safety).

Saying that a two year licence holder sitting in the passanger seat will ensure the provisional driver drives in a safe manner is nonsense. I and many i know have driven on provisional licences with fully licenced passengers in the car and they won't say anything to the driver. Its the age old backseat driver scenario, a commentary on how someone should drive is not something that's done, except perhaps at the very beginning. Its like complaining in a restuarant, few people do it.

I think the effect of this rule will be minimal.

It would be far more efficient to have all learners take a minumum of six lessons where they must satisfy an instructor of their ability to handle a car safely before being issued a licence. A blanket regulation like that would ensure a set standard, this won't.

ardmacha · 30-10-2007 8:17pm

It would be far more efficient to have all learners take a minumum of six lessons where they must satisfy an instructor of their ability to handle a car safely before being issued a licence.

But then you'd have a whine from people who would complain that they had to pay through the nose for lessons when they had a friend/relative etc who was willing to help. Either way persons who have not passed the test should not be allowed drive without some supervision, you can't ensure the supervisor does their job responsibly, but it keeps the focus on learning to drive not on using the car as a mode of transport.

Tomas_V · 30-10-2007 8:18pm

Ireland is not the only country with big waiting lists, there's an article in today's
New York Times, here's a quote:

Securing a South African driver’s license is not as simple as passing the K53 test, which is not simple at all. It also requires that one apply for the license, a bureaucratic process so daunting that it set off riots this year. It necessitates eye examinations before applying for a license and before the road test — and all over again, should one fail.

timmywex · 30-10-2007 8:28pm

does anyone know if you can apply for your test within 6months and you cannot take it till you have been driving 6months or can you only apply after 6 months, if the later, that means you are 15+ months driving before you are full because of the wait

Hotblack Desiato · 30-10-2007 8:48pm

dudara wrote: »

There is a large variation in pass rates between testing centres in different parts of the country. This is what worries me. It is clear that the system is not as standardised as it should be.

It's much more likely that the standard of driving instruction isn't as standardised as it should be... instructors still aren't regulated, after all.

MrPudding · 30-10-2007 9:52pm

clally wrote: »

perhaps, but this is a blanket regulation which does not achieve its purposse (to promote road safety).

OK, so are you actually saying that a regulation that stops a 18 year old getting a driving licence purely for ID and not driving at all, having that license expire, get a 2nd provisional licence and now have the ability to legally drive a car on public roads with out being accompanied and not ever having driven before does nothing for road safety? You are joking aren't you?

clally wrote: »

Saying that a two year licence holder sitting in the passanger seat will ensure the provisional driver drives in a safe manner is nonsense. I and many i know have driven on provisional licences with fully licenced passengers in the car and they won't say anything to the driver. Its the age old backseat driver scenario, a commentary on how someone should drive is not something that's done, except perhaps at the very beginning.

What! Backseat driver? So driving instructors are backseat drivers? How dare they tell learner drivers what to do! Who do they think they are?

The purpose of an accompanying driver is to help and advise the learner. If you are there in that capacity then it is perfectly acceptable to offer help and advice. For me one of the most important roles of the accomanying driver is a extra pair of eyes for the learner. Learning to drive take a huge amount of concentration and obseration suffers as a result.

clally wrote: »

I think the effect of this rule will be minimal.

Personally I disagree. Driving experience under proper supervision can only help a learner to gain confidence and pass the test first time.

clally wrote: »

It would be far more efficient to have all learners take a minumum of six lessons where they must satisfy an instructor of their ability to handle a car safely before being issued a licence. A blanket regulation like that would ensure a set standard, this won't.

There is nothing to stop someone getting six lessons.....

There is a lot of whinging going on on these threads. There are a lot of people trying to defend a system which, IMHO, is indefensible. A system that allows a person to fail a test of competency and then continue to drive on their own without penalty or exclusion is criminally negligent.

MrP

Wishbone Ash · 30-10-2007 10:53pm

timmywex wrote: »

does anyone know if you can apply for your test within 6months and you cannot take it till you have been driving 6months or can you only apply after 6 months, if the later, that means you are 15+ months driving before you are full because of the wait

No, you may apply for the test immediately - but you won't be permitted to do it for 6 months.

Presumably, if the waiting time shortens to less than 6 months in the centre concerned, they will hold you back until the 6 months have expired.

clally · 31-10-2007 2:58am

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, so are you actually saying that a regulation that stops a 18 year old getting a driving licence purely for ID and not driving at all, having that license expire, get a 2nd provisional licence and now have the ability to legally drive a car on public roads with out being accompanied and not ever having driven before does nothing for road safety? You are joking aren't you?

you argued in an earlier post how "pretty much any rule or regulation can be picked apart or made to look silly with well choossen individual examples" the same applies to opposition to a regulation.

MrPudding wrote: »

What! Backseat driver? So driving instructors are backseat drivers? How dare they tell learner drivers what to do! Who do they think they are?

Same argument applies and if it wasn't clear from my post, apologies but i wasn't referring to instructors but parents, friends, boyfriends, spouses etc., who sometimes are bitting their tongues while they shut their eyes and pray! i've seen it happen, i just would have hoped there was a more effective way of achieving road safety than this.

MrPudding wrote: »

Personally I disagree. Driving experience under proper supervision can only help a learner to gain confidence and pass the test first time.

Well I will agree with you in the sense that if it is "proper supervision" you are quite right it will definitely be of huge benefit to the learner driver.

I have not said that the system is right or perfect the way it is and it is definitely in need of reform but I am doubtful whether this will achieve the reform intended.

MrPudding · 31-10-2007 9:35am

clally wrote: »

you argued in an earlier post how "pretty much any rule or regulation can be picked apart or made to look silly with well choossen individual examples" the same applies to opposition to a regulation.

What's good for the goose....... Every thread on this subject is full of people that have been on provisional licences for years, yet have either never sat a simple test of competency or have sat it and failed. Everyone of them, according to themselves, is an amazing driver and has nothing to learn. I was simply pointing out that there is another side to it, you know people that are not born with an innate ability to drive, unlike the majority of whingers on these threads.

You managed to avoid answering this question:

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, so are you actually saying that a regulation that stops a 18 year old getting a driving licence purely for ID and not driving at all, having that license expire, get a 2nd provisional licence and now have the ability to legally drive a car on public roads with out being accompanied and not ever having driven before does nothing for road safety? You are joking aren't you?

Perhaps you could answer it now.

clally wrote: »

Same argument applies and if it wasn't clear from my post, apologies but i wasn't referring to instructors but parents, friends, boyfriends, spouses etc., who sometimes are bitting their tongues while they shut their eyes and pray! i've seen it happen, i just would have hoped there was a more effective way of achieving road safety than this.

The role of an accompanying driver is not to bite their tongue, it is to offer advice and constructive criticism to help the learner and to try to keep them out of trouble. That is the point. I can understand an unwillingness to criticise from a passenger, but we are talking about a designated full licence holder acting as an instructor, of course they are supposed to say something. It works for thousands of learners in the UK, why is Ireland so different?

clally wrote: »

Well I will agree with you in the sense that if it is "proper supervision" you are quite right it will definitely be of huge benefit to the learner driver.

I have not said that the system is right or perfect the way it is and it is definitely in need of reform but I am doubtful whether this will achieve the reform intended.

So what exactly is your point?

MrP

Stark · 31-10-2007 10:38am

Actually I'm in agreement with cally that mandatory driving lessons with a qualified instructor would be highly effective. After that, it shouldn't matter as much whether the accompanying driver has their license for 6 months or 2 years.

Not in agreement with the regards to the "backseat driver" thing though.

Padraig Mor · 31-10-2007 10:44am

MrPudding wrote: »

Driving experience under proper supervision can only help a learner to gain confidence and pass the test first time.

Agreed. However, you do live in Ireland right? Where the majority of drivers (incl. fully licenced) should not be allowed drive a go-kart, not to mind 'teach' their dangerous habits to the next generation?

Stark · 31-10-2007 10:48am

I've known plenty of people who picked up atrocious habits from their parents. That's why we have the test so that people can be rid of those habits before they graduate to driving on their own and perpetuate those habits into the next generation.

clally · 31-10-2007 12:49pm

MrPudding wrote: »

You managed to avoid answering this question:

OK, so are you actually saying that a regulation that stops a 18 year old getting a driving licence purely for ID and not driving at all, having that license expire, get a 2nd provisional licence and now have the ability to legally drive a car on public roads with out being accompanied and not ever having driven before does nothing for road safety? You are joking aren't you?

Perhaps you could answer it now.

My answer is obvious of course they shouldn't. I have no where said that this regulation will do "nothing" to achieve road safety. What i have said is that it "does not achieve its propose" which to my mind would ensure everyone is driving safely on a provisional licence. Personally I think leaving this in the hands of fully licenced drivers is not enough. As i see it their ability varies greatly both as driver and as instructors.

MrPudding wrote: »

I can understand an unwillingness to criticise from a passenger, but we are talking about a designated full licence holder acting as an instructor, of course they are supposed to say something. It works for thousands of learners in the UK, why is Ireland so different?

I am sure it does work for many in the UK and would here however i am questioning the efficacy of this system as a way of ensuring road safety. As you say they are "supposed to say something", where is the guarantee that they will or that they will say the right thing and not simply pass on bad habits?

My overall point is that this is not enough.

Calina · 31-10-2007 1:53pm

SO I'm missing something here. Either provisional licence holders should be allowed out un-supervised, or they should not be allowed out un-supervised.

clally, I'd be of the opinion they should not be allowed out un-supervised. You appear to be arguing against this. On the key issue of whether they should be allowed out un-supervised, is it yes or no?

In other words, you appear to be arguing against the introduction of enforcement of accompanying rules on the grounds that it isn't enough, whilst arguing in favour of more stringent rules.

In the absence of more stringent rules, what is your position, leave well enough alone, or enforce? Some of us see an incremental progression here, you see. I sort of feel, well we should have an minimum requirement of 30 hours driving instruction before you're allowed out on the road with anyone other than an instructor but I recognise that there will be mayhem on this front given the lack of regulation in the driving school sector, meanwhile, if learners could be compelled to adhere to what rules apply to them, that would be a step in the right direction. I don't agree with the concept of a free for all while we get more stringent rules in place.

ardmacha · 31-10-2007 1:56pm

My overall point is that this is not enough.

It isn't enough in most cases, but learners can also benefit from some practice mileage in addition to their formal lessons. Any experienced driver can offer some insight and while all drivers have their weaknesses they won't necessarily pass these to the learner. Many doctors smoke, but almost none of them advise their patients to do so.

clally · 31-10-2007 5:39pm

Calina wrote: »

clally, I'd be of the opinion they should not be allowed out un-supervised. You appear to be arguing against this. On the key issue of whether they should be allowed out un-supervised, is it yes or no?

yes they should be supervised, i apologise if i've not made this sufficiently clear. My position is quite simply that i don't think this supervision will always be enough and that it could in certain circumstances lead to poor guidance being given to learners.

Calina wrote: »

I sort of feel, well we should have an minimum requirement of 30 hours driving instruction before you're allowed out on the road with anyone other than an instructor but I recognise that there will be mayhem on this front given the lack of regulation in the driving school sector, meanwhile, if learners could be compelled to adhere to what rules apply to them, that would be a step in the right direction. I don't agree with the concept of a free for all while we get more stringent rules in place.

Yes agree with you, i have obviously been unclear, the rules are a move in the right direction, they shud be enforced. However i think a minimum number of driving lessons with an instructor would achieve more in the line or safe driving than supervision by family and friends. But i take your point that this would currently cause mayhem!

New Rules for Learner Drivers

Comments