Second Provisional?

mattg

Just a quick question,

If you on your 2nd provisional can you drive with passengers in your car, or do you have to be by yourself. Im talking about passengers without a licence.

Thanks,
Matt

Our man in Havana

You can drive without a qualified driver on a second provisional. You can carry passengers on in a car on any licence.

Atomic Pineapple

think this is due to change in the next year or so, a second provisional will be subject to the same rules as a first

aodh_rua

I wasn't sure about the whole second provisional needing a licensed driver so I rang the Department of Transport. They said the seconds were fine for now but the Minister's stated intention is to change that.

Seth Brundle

Originally posted by draffodx
think this is due to change in the next year or so, a second provisional will be subject to the same rules as a first

about feckin time!
[not that driving on the first prevents you from driving on your own, despite what they say!]

mattg

Thanks a lot guys for your help.

Nuttzz

They need to sort out the testing situation, i cant believe people are waiting for a year for a test,

beatsie

Is it true that you cant drive on your own when you have a third provisional???

shoegirl

It is illegal to drive unaccompanied on a 3rd or subsequent provisional. However this law is never enforced, and even if you have an accident it will not be brought up.

However this is almost certain to become enforced in the future. Judging by the sheer number of people waiting for a driving test, there must be a quite large body of people who've bought cars with provisional licences.

This of course, will be an enormous money spinner to the exchequer, as on the spot fines will probably be introduced, and probably penalty points. As L plate holders have higher insurance premiums, they actually contribute more in VAT to the state than full licence holders and this also generates bigger profits for insurers as they can load provisional holders heavily.

Considering that a provisional licence is only a two year licence, it is highly unfair that in 18 test centres there is a 50 week or greater waiting list for a test. The current average is 42 weeks (10 months) so the chances are that the law will be changed before many drivers get a chance to sit a test.

Can you imagine if the Leaving Cert had a sporadic waiting list such as this? Imagine when you paid your LC fee you had no idea when the test was going to be? What effect do you think this would have on pass rates? I am not surprised that the failure rate is quite high - it seems highly difficult to me to prepare for a test that can be anything between 4 and 10 months in the future.

I would advise anybody who doesn't have a full license who is thinking of buying a car to wait until they have a test passed as they could find themselves being suddenly criminalised if they are caught driving without one in 6 or 12 months time.

beatsie

Thanks for that shoegirl


my second provisional expires in november so i better apply for the test right now

This of course, will be an enormous money spinner to the exchequer, as on the spot fines will probably be introduced, and probably penalty points. As L plate holders have higher insurance premiums, they actually contribute more in VAT to the state than full licence holders and this also generates bigger profits for insurers as they can load provisional holders heavily.

Is that why the government will not increase the number of testers ??

Surely its not that hard to reduce unemployment by creating more jobs and speeding up the process for everyone? the cost of the test would finance the new employees.

I mean the population is increasing so why not the number of testers.

Or am i missing something?

Rodney Trotter

This of course, will be an enormous money spinner to the exchequer, as on the spot fines will probably be introduced, and probably penalty points. As L plate holders have higher insurance premiums, they actually contribute more in VAT to the state than full licence holders and this also generates bigger profits for insurers as they can load provisional holders heavily.

Rubbish, girl. Provisional drivers, on the whole, drive little heaps of junk, which contribute SFA, in real terms, to the exchequer. Their expense to the exchequer, in terms of clearing up after their "accidents", in the costs of the Gardai having to police their inadequate driving skills are negated by any extra VAT on their Insurance premiums. You will see that "Real Drivers", in general, drive proper cars which have contributed more to the exchequer than any puddle-hopper Fiesta or Panda or Micra etc.

In summary,
Provisional Licenced drivers should be banned from the roads. They, in general, haven't a clue how to drive and are accidents waiting to happen.
There should be a minimum of 6 penalty points for any L-idiot caught driving unaccompanuied.
Driving is a privilege, not a right, and one that should be earned. Nobody should be allowed on our roads by just buying a piece of paper and a heap of dirt, car.

seamus

Originally posted by Rodney Trotter
Rubbish, girl. Provisional drivers, on the whole, drive little heaps of junk, which contribute SFA, in real terms, to the exchequer. Their expense to the exchequer, in terms of clearing up after their "accidents", in the costs of the Gardai having to police their inadequate driving skills are negated by any extra VAT on their Insurance premiums. You will see that "Real Drivers", in general, drive proper cars which have contributed more to the exchequer than any puddle-hopper Fiesta or Panda or Micra etc.

Um, figures please? Or are you just talking out of your arse?

Every provisional holder I know owns a decent (small-engined) car or drives someone else's. That's not to say that none of them drive junkheaps, but certainly no more than normal. Most people who drive pieces of crap tend to be fully licenced drivers who don't give a crap about other drivers. You'll also find that a significant amount people driving unroadworthy vehicles tend to be untaxed, uninsured and like to have the odd tipple while they drive.

(oh, "The cost of Gardai having to police their inadequate skills"? - I thought Gardai were paid a salary, and not a per-arrest bounty :rolleyes: )

Rodney Trotter

Every provisional holder I know owns a decent (small-engined) car or drives someone else's. That's not to say that none of them drive junkheaps, but certainly no more than normal. Most people who drive pieces of crap tend to be fully licenced drivers who don't give a crap about other drivers. You'll also find that a significant amount people driving unroadworthy vehicles tend to be untaxed, uninsured and like to have the odd tipple while they drive.

In your own words, Seamus,
"Um, figures please? Or are you just talking out of your arse?"

BTW, if they're driving someone else's car they are not contributing much, are they?

w.r.t. Gardai, calculate the share of Garda resources wasted on L plates and you will have a figure which could otherwise have been better allocated.

The original point I was responding to claimed it was an "official" thing to keep drivers on L plates due to the extra revenue they would contribute.

seamus

Originally posted by Rodney Trotter
In your own words, Seamus,
"Um, figures please? Or are you just talking out of your arse?"

Read my sig

BTW, if they're driving someone else's car they are not contributing much, are they?

They're not taking much either.

beatsie

Jesus Christ Rodney Trotter you have serious issues with provisional drivers dont you?

Can you remember what its like having a provisional ?

Or were you bestowed a full license by the powers that be because your a "REAL Driver" unlike all us imaginary drivers with provisionals

Have you no understanding that some people who are trying to get their first car can only afford small second hand cars. One reason being that you get crippled by insane premiums on larger better cars

B

Rodney Trotter

I do have an issue with provo drivers, they shouldn't be allowed drive unsupervised on the roads, i.e. without a qualified instructor beside them.

When I was provo driver the situation was as thick and stupid. I shouldn't have been allowed do what I did. I'm older and wiser now and can see the stupidity of allowing such drivers on the road. It's a miracle how I got through that phase. But because I was allowed do something does not mean it's right or that I cannot condem such a practice.

I understand perfectly why Insurance premiums are the way they are. Everyone's insurance is higher than necessary because of young inexperienced drivers. Remove the risk and everyone's premium will go down.

My point about small cars was how much less these vehicles contribute to the exchequer compared to real, proper sized cars. Small cars are inherently unsafe and, for me, no thanks.

Get qualified, get experienced (preferably on some else's car) and then buy a real car.

seamus

Originally posted by Rodney Trotter
My point about small cars was how much less these vehicles contribute to the exchequer compared to real, proper sized cars. Small cars are inherently unsafe and, for me, no thanks.

Get qualified, get experienced (preferably on some else's car) and then buy a real car.

Yes, so when you run someone over you can do a proper job of it.

Smaller cars aren't any more dangerous. Otherwise drivers would be loaded for driving small cars. No, the bigger and more "real", as you put it, the car is, the more the insurance costs. The smaller engine and shorter wheelbase, in fact makes them inherently safer (to other road users).

Kind of ruins your theory there.

You pay more VAT on bigger cars because that's the nature of VAT, i.e. the more you pay, the more the Government makes from you. It has nothing to do with covering the cost of the vehicle to the state. That's what VRT and road tax is about.

hussey

In the words of Del Boy

"Rodney You Plonker"

How can inexperienced drivers gain experience?
by driving

Just because you have a liceance doesn't mean you are experienced!!
e.g.
say you've had a Pro for 4 years and have been driving for 4 years.
Now in my books he/she would be experienced.

Much more experienced than someone who had 3 months driving and passed a test??


************
Also Remove the risk and everyone's premium will go down so policys that allow non-experienced drivers are cheap? I think not

Get qualified, get experienced (preferably on some else's car) and then buy a real car
Get experienced on someone else's car? Because you are soooo much safer driving someone else's car.

without a qualified instructor beside them.
How many prov drivers are there and how many qualified instructors are there?
do the math.

*************
And who gives a flying f*ck what car he/she drives?
Just because it's small doesn't mean it's not safe

Safety depends on the driver

Rodney Trotter

4 years driving on a provo licence = experience? Your definition of "experienced" is just typical of the tolerance for incompetance so prevalent in Ireland, today.

In my book this should count for nothing. Provo drivers are one of the many cancers on Irish roads and should not be allowed.

BTW Seamus, what are you on about w.r.t. VAT?


Small cars are inherently unsafe. I don't want to be in one, on Irish roads, thanks. How many people have died, in Ireland, because they have been taxed into buying a small unsafe car? Quite a few, I'd guess, and they're not for me. Small cars belong in cities.

Now to answer some more

1. Also Remove the risk and everyone's premium will go down so policys that allow non-experienced drivers are cheap? You fail to understand the principle of Insurance. Should you remove the causes of claims then the cost of claims will fall. Get rid of the L-plate drivers would reduce the cost of Insurance.

2.Get qualified, get experienced (preferably on some else's car) and then buy a real car
Get experienced on someone else's car? "Because you are soooo much safer driving someone else's car. " No. I'd guess the owner of the car would be a little more careful about the style of driving in their vehicle, i.e. the learner would get more supervision than would be the case if they were driving their own car.

without a qualified instructor beside them.
"ow many prov drivers are there and how many qualified instructors are there?
do the math." My point exactly! The less learners on the road, the better. (BTW Maths has an "s" at the end, in Ireland, keep your Americanisms to yourself, thanks.)


PROVO drivers belong in Driving Schools, and nowhere else!

SheroN

Provo drivers

don't go bringing politics into this!

seamus

Originally posted by Rodney Trotter
4 years driving on a provo licence = experience? Your definition of "experienced" is just typical of the tolerance for incompetance so prevalent in Ireland, today.

I think his point is that someone driving for 4 years on a provisional can be more experienced, and can even be a better driver than someone who drove for three months, passed the test, and then packed it in.

BTW Seamus, what are you on about w.r.t. VAT?

You seem to be implying that small cars should be banned because they cost less. Give me some figures to show that small cars have a net cost the exchequer and large cars have a net profit. So the exchequer makes more money on bigger purchases? Well done. First year economics there.

Small cars are inherently unsafe. I don't want to be in one, on Irish roads, thanks.

Again, show me your basis for this. As I said, lower insurance and smaller engines would logically indicate to me that smaller cars are safer. How to you justify that they must be more dangerous?

1. Also Remove the risk and everyone's premium will go down so policys that allow non-experienced drivers are cheap? You fail to understand the principle of Insurance. Should you remove the causes of claims then the cost of claims will fall. Get rid of the L-plate drivers would reduce the cost of Insurance.

Agreed. Once there are more controls on provisional drivers, claims, and therefore costs should reduce (but not as dramatically as you may think - Drink-Driving and dangerous driving are the cause of most accidents, and are just as likely, if not more so, in qualified drivers as provisional drivers).

No. I'd guess the owner of the car would be a little more careful about the style of driving in their vehicle, i.e. the learner would get more supervision than would be the case if they were driving their own car.

Agreed, but someone else instructing you in your car, is still not going to want to crash. Chances are they're going to be a little less neurotic about you scratching the car, and so are going to be far less jumpy, which can only be a good thing. From accompanying a few people in my own car in the past, I can tell you, it's a much more stressful experience for both driver and you when they're in your car.

The problem is two-fold. Provisional drivers should not be on their own on the roads, without some form of testing. But there are even plenty of qualified drivers out there who are worse than the provisional driver they're accompanying, giving bad advice, and generally being of no use in the spirit of what the law intended.

Victor

Originally posted by shoegirl
As L plate holders have higher insurance premiums, they actually contribute more in VAT to the state than full licence holders and this also generates bigger profits for insurers as they can load provisional holders heavily.

Not sure where you are coming from here, but there is no VAT on insurance (there is no VAT on and financial services). The only "tax" is the 2% insurance levy.

hussey

I think his point is that someone driving for 4 years on a provisional can be more experienced, and can even be a better driver than someone who drove for three months, passed the test, and then packed it in.
bingo

You seem to be implying that small cars should be banned because they cost less. Give me some figures to show that small cars have a net cost the exchequer and large cars have a net profit. So the exchequer makes more money on bigger purchases? Well done. First year economics there.

Again, show me your basis for this. As I said, lower insurance and smaller engines would logically indicate to me that smaller cars are safer. How to you justify that they must be more dangerous?
Nail, hit, the & head.

The word Math is a perfectly valid word. You fucking dip shit

Rodney Trotter

4 years but un-certified, still should not be allowed on the road.

The small car contribution to the exchequer is less than a larger car, that's all I'm saying. No need to ban puddle-hoppers!

Insurance premiums are calculated on the basis of the driver and the car, not just the car.

And we're not in the USA so Math is not an acceptable term here. MATHS is the word!

hussey

says who? You??

Who the fuck are you to say what is an acceptable term here?

Why don't you do me a favor and go back to kindergarden where you belong.

Victor

Originally posted by Rodney Trotter
The small car contribution to the exchequer is less than a larger car, that's all I'm saying. No need to ban puddle-hoppers!

Smaller cars also cause disproportionately less damage to roads.

seamus

Originally posted by Rodney Trotter
Insurance premiums are calculated on the basis of the driver and the car, not just the car.

Yes....but the same driver will still be charged a higher premium on a large car than on a small car.....

shoegirl

You do forget one thing - a lot of so-called "qualified" drivers never sat a test in their lives. So they are not qualified. However it is statistically proven than the more experience you have the more safe you become - this has nothing to do with licence type.

However, the risk of truly dangerous driving is higher in uncertified drivers, so yes, theoretically the average L plate holder should be more dangerous. However, Ireland has a legacy of notorious driving, zero-testing and tolerance for drink driving, so there is almost the same risk amongst "qualified" drivers. I believe one of the triggers for the notorious licence amnesty in 1979 was a study which found that the accident rates were more or less the same.

As to the arguement that bigger cars are safer - rubbish! Smaller cars are safer before they do not drive as fast. Speed contributes to risk so by virtue of this smaller cars are safer. And besides most L plates I see are on quite new cars.

In fairness to the arguement over experience. I drove for 4 years on a provisional, then emigrated and sold the car. I came back, did a test, passed it and have a full licence. I havent driven for a about a year.
Let's say I buy a car tomorrow - am I more or less safe than a provisional holder who has driven continuously for the last 2 years? I'd say they are probably safer than I would be!

Having said that I think removing unaccompanied provisional holders from the roads would improve driving standards not least because of the message it would send out about obeying the law on the road. But there would still be lots of idiots on the road. And insurance would actually soar because of the loss in profit to insurance companies . . .

MojoMaker

Originally posted by hussey
Why don't you do me a favor and go back to kindergarden where you belong.

If you want to haul yer man up on his [incidentally correct] interpretation of "Maths" we'll also take it you meant "kindergarten"...

Originally posted by shoegirl
As to the arguement that bigger cars are safer - rubbish! Smaller cars are safer before they do not drive as fast. Speed contributes to risk so by virtue of this smaller cars are safer.

Are you for real? Smaller cars don't drive as fast? Sure half the certified loons in the country are stuck driving 1.0 and 1.1 cars around the place and yes, they drive way too fast.

Statistically you are far safer in a big heavy solid car with safety aids than a pokey tin box like a Fiesta, Micra, Seicento etc...far, far, far safer...

Rodney Trotter

Shure look at all the muppets who cannot even put an L plate on properly. If someone cannot tell which way around an "L" should be, imagine how they're supposed to control a motorised vehicle.

BTW THE bigger the car you're in, the safer you'll be. Give me a choice of travelling in a big Volvo or a Micra, and there's no choice.

As for passing a test without having driven for a year? Fair play to you!

Victor

Originally posted by Rodney Trotter
BTW THE bigger the car you're in, the safer you'll be.

Not necessarily, large "cars" (4x4, MPV, etc.) are no safer than other cars in the same price bracket. There is also the compensation factor of when someone thinks they are in a safe car, they will engage in more risky behavior.

Larger cars are much more dangerous to other road users.

seamus

Originally posted by Rodney Trotter
Shure look at all the muppets who cannot even put an L plate on properly. If someone cannot tell which way around an "L" should be, imagine how they're supposed to control a motorised vehicle.

LOL, I completely agree. Anyone who hasn't the spatial ability to realise that it has to be backwards to you, for others to see it, shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a motorised vehicle

rs

Rodney, you are full of sh*t, not because I don't agree with the most of the points you make, but because you fail to see the big picture to identify the root causes of the problems.

I agree with that provo drivers should not be allowed to drive by themselves. I took my first driving test in Canada, and this was the case. It was very illegal to drive without a qualified driver in the car over there, and it was strictly enforced. fair enough. The difference is, I called up to book my test two weeks before I took it.

However, not being able to drive for 12 months while you wait for a test is stupid. Particularly, people like myself who already hold valid foreign licences.

People here are allowed to drive on provo licences because the testing system is crap. What's even worse is that it's always been crap and no-one has bothered to fix it. That's the root cause of the provo problem, and that's what needs to be fixed.

Another great thing about driving in Canada was that everyone paid the same insurance premium. It was based on the value of your car and your driving record. Both me and my mum were insured for the first time at around the same time (on different cars). We paid the same for our insurance. It's illegal for insurance companies over there to discriminate based on age and sex. A first time driver was considered just as much of a risk, as any other first time driver.

Canada also has a penalty points system. If you prove yourself to be a bad driver, by getting points or making claims your premiums go up. If you don't and you get your no claims and premiums go down.

I'd more than welcome much stricter traffic laws, enforcement and penalty points here. We need it, because so many people here are simply bad drivers. And from what I've seen on the roads, it's certainly not just young people with provos who don't know what they're doing. All of these people need to be removed from the roads.

leeroybrown

I agree that provisional drivers shouldn't be allowed to drive unsupervised on the roads but with caveats.

It's all fine and well saying that prvisional drivers should be kept off the roads but the major issue here is the amount of time it takes to get to a test. When I got a provisional licence I did a course of lessons. When I applied, I had to wait over 7 months to get notification of the test which ended u falling during my colege exams so I couldn't get home. I then had to wait a further 5 and a half months for notification of the second test date. I passed this test but ended up in a situation where I had to drive unaccompanied reasonably regularly or give up a good job.

The problem is that there is no mechanism for a driver to quickly demonstrate competency so that they can get regular driving practice and get a license quickly once they have sufficient ability.

MojoMaker

How come it's only fully licensed drivers (and newly licensed at that) that want unsupervised provisional drivers off the road? Bit hypocritical isn't it? Now you want an end to a system that benefitted you greatly in your own time, a system that incidentally you had no problem with at the time, a system that spared you from ever really learning how to drive and let you off the hook regarding sitting & passing driving tests. Shure, wasn't it great back then, but no, now you have a licence you automatically move to the moral high ground. That's pretty pathetic.

Nothing more sanctimonious in Ireland right now than a new qualified driver it seems. Cop the **** on.

I had a provisional for a few months once and I was bloody glad of the opportunity to practice driving on my own. The government could of course hire about 100 new driving testers and have this whole mess sorted out in about 12 months.

seamus

Originally posted by MojoMaker
How come it's only fully licensed drivers (and newly licensed at that) that want unsupervised provisional drivers off the road? Bit hypocritical isn't it? Now you want an end to a system that benefitted you greatly in your own time, a system that incidentally you had no problem with at the time, a system that spared you from ever really learning how to drive and let you off the hook regarding sitting & passing driving tests.

To be fair, most drivers with full licences got them through passing the test. I had no problem driving unsupervised at the time, but also wouldn't have given out if they decided to enforce the law. I was simply exploiting a farce in Irish society. It's wrong sure, which is why I tend not to go mental about provisionals driving alone. It's not right, but I can't give out. By the same token, it's like looking back now at some of the things you did as a teenager, and thinking "God, I was an idiot", and giving out to kids for doing exactly what you used to do. I don't see anything hypocritical in using your experience to augment your beliefs, so long as you admit that it was just as wrong when you did it yourself (and obviously, that you don't do it anymore). The system I would like to see introduced, I actually decided on when I was a learner, and would be far more restrictive than the current system . Pity I'm not Minister for Transport

I had a provisional for a few months once and I was bloody glad of the opportunity to practice driving on my own. The government could of course hire about 100 new driving testers and have this whole mess sorted out in about 12 months.

Indeed. Not allowing provisional drivers unaccompanied at any stage, is a bit overkill IMO. You'll end up with new drivers coming out, technically proficient, but with little or no experience. Driving is 10% Luck, 10% Skill, and 80% experience IMO.

shoegirl

Well the problem is not the competency of drivers, or the colour of their license - the problem is that by allowing unaccompanied provisional license holders to drive is that we are introducing them to a culture of noncompliance with the law and condoning it.

Now the problem is actually much the same as saying its "ok" to break the law and that speed laws are "rubbish." We are questioning the law, and very probably breaking it.

The road laws are there for the protection of all road users, those who drive and those who don't. Most of the laws are based on 100 years of international driving experience. What I find incredible is the sheer arrogance of people who have convinced themselves that speeding, drinking etc doesn't increase. As for the first class halfwit who believes that big cars are "safer" than small ones - I'd love you to meet a 38 year old friend whose pelvis was shattered due to the impact of a 4x4 while she waits for a hip replacement - any actuary will tell you that the bigger the vehicle and the engine the higher the risk.

The problem in Ireland has been a general lack of compliance - the flipside of this is enforcement - if the laws were enforced then this would discourage noncompliance. This is why it would be good were the laws regarding provisional license holders were to be enforced - it would lead to greater compliance as more laws are seen to be enforced.