L Plate conditions

cormie

Hi,
Is there a set size for L plates? My friend said there has to be at least one inch of white border around the L or else its illegal. Is this true? I want to go on the motorway discreetly.

Esel

*Not* a smart plan. The cops will 'notice', plus your insurance will be invalid if you have an accident...

If you are still going ahead, have you tried a google or the Dept of the Environment website...:dunno:

cormie

I'm going from Bray to Finglas every morning. It would take forever the non motorway route:( I'll hopefully get fully licensed soon!

Shrimp

Originally posted by esel
*Not* a smart plan. The cops will 'notice', plus your insurance will be invalid if you have an accident...

If you are still going ahead, have you tried a google or the Dept of the Environment website...:dunno:

Exactly

Esel

I give you a week tops before some other driver drops a dime on you - it gets boring in that car park.

I can hear the cop in Control now ...."Yeah, thanks a lot, you're the nnth person to call us about that car, but thanks anyway...btw...are you on a mobile phone....where exactly is that L-plate car?.....I see...and you're the car immediately behind it are you....we'll be in touch...drive safely now".

Have you considered Dart/bus? or moving to the beautiful Northside?

logic1

Umm I've never heard of anyone getting stopped for driving on the motorway with L's.

I've been doing it myself with months.

.logic.

Sleipnir

What's the point in buying L-plates and then disguising them. I love the ones with all the white cut out. You can just about make out the L when you're 15 feet away.
I mean, what is the bloody point?

Seth Brundle

In reality, you are unlikely to be stopped at the moment.

fjon

There definitely a set size for the L Plates, and an inch of white sounds about right.
I have been driving the M50 stretch from Ballinteer to Blanch every day for the last two years , and see quite a few L Drivers on it. I have never seen anyone get caught.
To be honest, I am not too worried about allowing L drivers on motorways. To me they are far safer roads than some of the backroads in this country.

PBC_1966

Just a thought, but if a cop (sorry, Garda ) sees you driving along with modified "L" plates, maybe that would give him reason to think something's amiss and pull you over? Maybe it would be better to drive without them at all and not draw attention to yourself; unless he stopped you for something else he'd have no reason to assume you're not a fully licensed driver.

(Not that I would advocate doing such a thing, you understand -- Just pondering over the problem!)

Captain Trips

esel wrote:

I give you a week tops before some other driver drops a dime on you - it gets boring in that car park.

I can hear the cop in Control now ...."Yeah, thanks a lot, you're the nnth person to call us about that car, but thanks anyway...btw...are you on a mobile phone....where exactly is that L-plate car?.....I see...and you're the car immediately behind it are you....we'll be in touch...drive safely now".

"Well seeing as the traffic is stopped as usual and I am out having a stroll in the M50 waiting for the cars to move ........"

seamus

L plates are a red L on a white background, and must be at least 4" x 4".

esel wrote:

*Not* a smart plan. The cops will 'notice', plus your insurance will be invalid if you have an accident...

Not true.

cormie

I also see quite a few cars with L plates. They could be fully licensed drivers who's children drive the car at weekends or something. However I look my age, 20.. Maybe it would be best to take them down altogether, but then I would have to put them up again on exit. Either way I'm breaking the law. I'm not driving with a fully licensed driver, I'm on the motorway and I may have no L plates up. Eeeek. Think It's time to take my test.

cormie

seamus wrote:

L plates are a red L on a white background, and must be at least 4" x 4".

Not true.

so I will be covered?

Stark

I've seen people with these L-plates that have just the "L" and transparent background. They're probably illegal. Not sure about getting caught on the motorway, myself and some friends drove to and from Dublin one weekend using the motorways and nothing happened to us.

By the way, on the issue of L-plates - What are they like as regards removing/replacing regularly? I plan to learn to drive in my parents car but don't plan on using it that often and don't want them to have to go around with langer signs tattoed on them on my account.

seamus

cormie wrote:

so I will be covered?

Yes, yes you will.


(Messages have to be 10 chars. Boo)

PBC_1966

Captain Trips wrote:

"Well seeing as the traffic is stopped as usual and I am out having a stroll in the M50 waiting for the cars to move ........"

"So, you're walking along the side of the motorway, are you? Are you aware that pedestrians aren't allowed on motroways, Sir?"

I don't understand why such a big deal is made of "L" plates in this part of the world. There's no equivalent in the U.S. and it doesn't seem to cause any problem.

Stark

Yes but the Americans don't have the security of saying "Oh thank god it wasn't my fault, that guy was a ****** learner driver".

"L-plates. Include imaginary sign that says 'Direct Road Rage Here ->'"

Seth Brundle

Stark wrote:

By the way, on the issue of L-plates - What are they like as regards removing/replacing regularly? I plan to learn to drive in my parents car but don't plan on using it that often and don't want them to have to go around with langer signs tattoed on them on my account.

AFAIK only people learning to drive can use them - if you are fully licenced and driving the car you must remove them beforehand.

PBC_1966 wrote:

I don't understand why such a big deal is made of "L" plates in this part of the world. There's no equivalent in the U.S. and it doesn't seem to cause any problem.

Thankfully no other country has the crap method of training drivers that Ireland is proud of!

cormie wrote:

so I will be covered?

yes but the insurance company can recover any costs of a claim from you (and I believe are starting to carry out this)

Captain Trips

PBC_1966 wrote:

"So, you're walking along the side of the motorway, are you? Are you aware that pedestrians aren't allowed on motroways, Sir?"
.

lol, never thought of that one....also on the blue sign............!

impr0v

They might not stop you, but should you happen to warrant their attention for other reasons they'll book you for it.

Article in todays indo about some air corps apprentice doing 111mph on the M7 at night, got convicted of that and driving on a motorway with a provisional. Licence confiscated for a year and 350 in fines. Hardly a tough punishment, but I'd imagine the judge's thinking was 'i'll slap him on the wrist, and let the insurance companies hang, draw and quarter him.'

unkel

imho the system should be changed so that the only time an unqualified driver is in the driver's seat is when a qualified instructor is beside him/her in the instructor's dual control learning vehicle

Qualification would need to mean an entirely different thing from what it means now as well of course

Once that system is started, you will see the number of motoring accidents, injuries and deaths start going down and down and the average speed realised in this country going up and up

My car has this yoke that registers my average speed. I've had my car for over 5 months now. I live in the greater Dublin area. I rarely venture inside the M50 circle during rush hour. I don't really have gridlock problems on my daily commute. I never let my engine idle when parked. My average speed so far is.....

21mph

kbannon wrote:

yes but the insurance company can recover any costs of a claim from you (and I believe are starting to carry out this)

That new to me :eek:

cormie

Waiting list for tests is about 1 year. That would be unfair. I've been driving since March and I honestly think I'm probably better than allot of fully licensed drivers out there. That's not me boasting, just me putting them down... Everyone says it, once you pass your test you become a worse driver.

PBC_1966

unkel wrote:

imho the system should be changed so that the only time an unqualified driver is in the driver's seat is when a qualified instructor is beside him/her in the instructor's dual control learning vehicle

As someone who grew up in a country where a learner has to have a licensed driver with him in the car, I'm still trying to get to grips with this idea that Irish learners can drive unaccompanied. I'd never even considered this possibility until joining your forum.

I wouldn't go as far to say as you should drive only with a qualified instructor though. What's the average cost per hour for an instructor in Ireland at the moment? If all practice had to be done with an instructor it would make getting a license horrendously expensive, surely? Changing the rules to require a licensed driver would be much more acceptable to most people, I believe.

cormie wrote:

Everyone says it, once you pass your test you become a worse driver.

I think it depends upon the individual person and on what you actually mean by "worse."

Yes, there are those who once they pass their test and gain confidence behind the wheel seem to lose all sight of common sense and start driving like idiots -- "Hey, I've got my license, I'm a great driver, I can take chances!" :rolleyes:

But there are those who do not follow this path. It may sound like an old cliche, but there really is no substitute for experience. Sure, by driving school standards those of us who have been driving for years might be "worse," because we gave up on their pettiness years ago -- You know, hands always at 10-to-2, feed the wheel with both hands when turning, pull on the parking brake every time you stop at a light for two seconds, and all that nonsense.

The thing that experience gives you is the ability to "read the road" better and anticipate what is going to happen, what might happen, etc. Does that make me a better driver now than when I had just passed my test 21 years ago? I would like to think so.

Seth Brundle

PBC_1966 wrote:

Changing the rules to require a licensed driver would be much more acceptable to most people, I believe.

That is the current rule (except when on provisional #2)

fjon

PBC_1966 wrote:

But there are those who do not follow this path. It may sound like an old cliche, but there really is no substitute for experience. Sure, by driving school standards those of us who have been driving for years might be "worse," because we gave up on their pettiness years ago -- You know, hands always at 10-to-2, feed the wheel with both hands when turning, pull on the parking brake every time you stop at a light for two seconds, and all that nonsense.

The thing that experience gives you is the ability to "read the road" better and anticipate what is going to happen, what might happen, etc. Does that make me a better driver now than when I had just passed my test 21 years ago? I would like to think so.

I totally agree - being a good driver is all about experience. However, would that not mean that a learner driver who driving for one year waiting for his/ her full license is a better driver than a "proper" driver who has passed his/her test a few weeks after starting to drive?

I don't think it is fair that so many L drivers get a lot of flak for being bad drivers. Sure, there are some atrocious ones out there, but many drive as well as drivers with full licenses. The only difference is a piece of paper from a test which is, frankly, quite easy to pass if you have any sort of cop on.

seamus

PBC_1966 wrote:

I wouldn't go as far to say as you should drive only with a qualified instructor though. What's the average cost per hour for an instructor in Ireland at the moment? If all practice had to be done with an instructor it would make getting a license horrendously expensive, surely? Changing the rules to require a licensed driver would be much more acceptable to most people, I believe.

That would be pretty much my sentiments. Maybe a mandatory number of lessons with an instructor to learn correct procedure, and after that they can drive with a fully licensed driver. Driving with a qualified instructor (and particularly dual-control cars) is good for instruction, but restrictive when it comes to gaining experience and roadcraft. Dual-control cars are not normal, and wouldn't give a realistic experience for learners. Part of driving is learning that you are the driver, you are responsible for everything that occurs to and in the car while you drive.

But there are those who do not follow this path. It may sound like an old cliche, but there really is no substitute for experience. Sure, by driving school standards those of us who have been driving for years might be "worse," because we gave up on their pettiness years ago -- You know, hands always at 10-to-2, feed the wheel with both hands when turning, pull on the parking brake every time you stop at a light for two seconds, and all that nonsense.

The thing that experience gives you is the ability to "read the road" better and anticipate what is going to happen, what might happen, etc. Does that make me a better driver now than when I had just passed my test 21 years ago? I would like to think so.

Indeed. Many experienced drivers would fail a test now, mainly because the rules set out in the test for the way you drive are to ensure that learner drivers are driving in the safest manner possible, in the absence of actual experience, which cannot be substituted.

Stark

That would be pretty much my sentiments. Maybe a mandatory number of lessons with an instructor to learn correct procedure, and after that they can drive with a fully licensed driver. Driving with a qualified instructor (and particularly dual-control cars) is good for instruction, but restrictive when it comes to gaining experience and roadcraft. Dual-control cars are not normal, and wouldn't give a realistic experience for learners. Part of driving is learning that you are the driver, you are responsible for everything that occurs to and in the car while you drive.

I'm the situation where I have to take 10 lessons before I can get insured and start driving with a parent in the car or whatever. It's a complete bitch. I'm sensible enough not to drive into town at my current experience level obviously but I'd still like to go to some quiet industrial estate or whatever to practice between lessons. Driving instructor is constantly giving out to me for not practicing saying I keep losing skills between lessons. (Although I'm going to try and get a few lessons in the one week).

As someone who grew up in a country where a learner has to have a licensed driver with him in the car, I'm still trying to get to grips with this idea that Irish learners can drive unaccompanied. I'd never even considered this possibility until joining your forum.

You can't drive unaccompanied on your first provisional licence, only on your second. And that's mostly to do with the outrageous waiting times for a full licence test.

I wouldn't go as far to say as you should drive only with a qualified instructor though. What's the average cost per hour for an instructor in Ireland at the moment? If all practice had to be done with an instructor it would make getting a license horrendously expensive, surely? Changing the rules to require a licensed driver would be much more acceptable to most people, I believe.

€30 an hour. Horrendously expensive and horrendously frustrating (I can't take hand held tuition at all, I need to learn things on my own ).

seamus

Stark wrote:

I'm the situation where I have to take 10 lessons before I can get insured and start driving with a parent in the car or whatever. It's a complete bitch. I'm sensible enough not to drive into town at my current experience level obviously but I'd still like to go to some quiet industrial estate or whatever to practice between lessons. Driving instructor is constantly giving out to me for not practicing saying I keep losing skills between lessons. (Although I'm going to try and get a few lessons in the one week).

You should be safe to drive in any non-public place - carparks after hours, school grounds, etc. I wouldn't go as far as saying 10 lessons - as you say, you do need to practice between them. But maybe 3 or 4 minimum, just to get the basics of driving, and some common sense drummed into you.

PBC_1966

fwk wrote:

However, would that not mean that a learner driver who driving for one year waiting for his/ her full license is a better driver than a "proper" driver who has passed his/her test a few weeks after starting to drive?

That's a valid point, and one which could certainly be argued in my case. My license conveniently reminds me that I passed my test on April 12, 1983. That's just one month and one day after my 17th birthday, so I had been driving on public roads for less than 5 weeks at that time.

Now, I would say that I had been interested in driving and had studied up on the theory and practice for many years before. Like most kids probably, I'd also sat next to my father and steered or changed gear for him since the age of 8 or 9, so it's not quite like going into driving with no knowledge at all.

There are people who do that however. Until a few years ago my brother worked as a driving instructor in London. Incredible as it may seem, he said he was amazed at the number of students who arrived for their first lesson with him, paying out good money, and they hadn't even bothered to read a little information for themsleves beforehand. He said that some came to him not even knowing which pedal was the accelerator and which the brake!

seamus

PBC_1966 wrote:

There are people who do that however. Until a few years ago my brother worked as a driving instructor in London. Incredible as it may seem, he said he was amazed at the number of students who arrived for their first lesson with him, paying out good money, and they hadn't even bothered to read a little information for themsleves beforehand. He said that some came to him not even knowing which pedal was the accelerator and which the brake!

Well in fairness, that's the entire point of getting the lessons, isn't it? I know when I was younger, I had asked which pedal is which, but I never remembered, so when my dad first took me out (on private grounds) it was literally a matter of, "Right, that's the brake, that's the clutch, that's the accelerator...etc". Although I was 18 at the time, so I had some rudimentary understanding of "Press clutch - change gear", and I was familiar with most of the Rules of the road.

AntiRip

kbannon wrote:

AFAIK only people learning to drive can use them - if you are fully licenced and driving the car you must remove them beforehand.

I don't think so. That would mean that everytime the gf drives the car I have to take off the L's! I'd have to buy L-plates every week. I'm sure the gardai have a lot more serious crime to be concentrating on...
:rolleyes: who am I kidding!

cormie

L plates are non sticky backed anymore, you just rub them onto the window and they stay there and can be peeled off easily.

fjon

cormie wrote:

L plates are non sticky backed anymore, you just rub them onto the window and they stay there and can be peeled off easily.

Hi Cormie, looks like we've hijacked your thread and totally changed the subject.
My suggestion to your original question is:
DO drive on the motorway if you have to, preferably with L plates, but drive carefully. If you do not attract attention to yourself by speeding, overtaking dangerously or using your mobile, chances are you will not arouse the suspicion of any Garda. As someone pointed out, I don't think anyone wants to stop you for driving on a motorway as an L drver, however if you do get stopped for something else they will use it against you.

Jak

Given the abysmal state of the testing system in this country (waiting lists recorded over 52 weeks), and the unprofessional aspects of the driving test authority, many people drive 'unplated' on provisionals.

Couple of points ...

1. Your insurance is absolutely not invalidated by driving without displaying L plates, driving unaccompanied or otherwise - unless you have an explicit agreement with your insurance company along these lines. Call your insurance company and ask if you are really worried - but generally the former will hold true.

2. Gardai are aware that a very high number of drivers are on provisionals. You can calculate an approximate value by looking at waiting lists and average tests processed in a week. How any individual reacts to your case is anyone's guess, but it is likely to be a small fine or caution. As far as I'm aware the point penalties for these offences have not been implemented - but I haven't checked in a while. Drive safe - have your taxes and insurance in order and you will not be asked for your license. Gardai don't randomly pull cars off the road.

3. As someone who was on an Irish provisional for 3 years (1 test failed by 2 marks for excessive caution which could have easily been remedied and 2 tests where I never started the car through no fault of my own) - I have the uptmost sympathy for provisional drivers in this country. Waiting times to take a test should be one month at the very limit - then we can complain to people for not having a full license. I ended up arranging a UK test as it was easier and I could have sat the test there 10 times before getting another shot here.

As for licensed drivers being better than provisional ... rubbish. On an individual by individual basis there are enough cases for arguments on both sides. I have seen plenty of older drivers with poorer reactions, plenty of younger drivers who are too nervous for example. It is also commonplace to hear people 'learning' to drive a certain way to pass the test, and then reverting to their regular patterns.

Driving teaching and licensing has a long way to go in this country.

Gurgle

I disagree with everyone.
You're all wrong!

Seth Brundle

unkel wrote:

kbannon wrote:

yes but the insurance company can recover any costs of a claim from you (and I believe are starting to carry out this)

That new to me :eek:

Did a quick scan on this as I am sure I read about it recently and all I could find was this [relevant sentence bold]... (from http://homepage.tinet.ie/~breadandroses/press.htm):-
Labour Leinster Euro candidate, Sean Butler, has called on the Government to change the law in relation to provisional driving licences. Undercurrent legislation it is illegal for a driver on their first or third provisional licence to drive without a qualified driver accompanying them.
According to Mr. Butler, "At present, 24% (375,000) of those driving on Irish roads only hold a provisional licence. The worrying fact is that the Irish Insurance Federation (IIF) has stated that, the insurance policies of first or third provisional licence holders are invalid if they are driving unaccompanied. The IIF have stated that in these cases they will pay third party costs to claimants and then sue the provisional driver to recover the costs."

"The fact that insurance companies are willing to take money off young provisional drivers and then use this loophole to invalidate their policy is a scandal. Then to add insult to injury they will sue a young driver to recover the cost, this is outrageous. The IIF itself estimates that 200,000 drivers fall into the category of first or third provisional drivers," Mr. Butler.

Jak

Interesting link - though the quote is 5 years old, so I wonder where things currently stand. When I called my insurance company (maybe a year ago) they explained that I would be fully covered were I on a 3rd provisional and unaccompanied - I might call them to see what the case would be now.

impr0v

seamus wrote:

You should be safe to drive in any non-public place - carparks after hours, school grounds, etc. I wouldn't go as far as saying 10 lessons - as you say, you do need to practice between them. But maybe 3 or 4 minimum, just to get the basics of driving, and some common sense drummed into you.

I think he means that the insurance company have specified that he must have done 10 lessons with an approved instructor before they will insure him.

Nice little clause for the driving instructors. Wonder how much they have to pay to get 'approved?'

unkel

kbannon wrote:

Did a quick scan on this as I am sure I read about it recently and all I could find was this [relevant sentence boldThe worrying fact is that the Irish Insurance Federation (IIF) has stated that, the insurance policies of first or third provisional licence holders are invalid if they are driving unaccompanied. The IIF have stated that in these cases they will pay third party costs to claimants and then sue the provisional driver to recover the costs.[/B[/I]

OMG, so if Sean Butler is correct, most provisional license drivers are in fact uninsured if unaccompanied :eek:

Imagine causing an accident which leaves someone an invalid - this will mean you will have to pay most of your earnings for the rest of your life....

I was not aware of this and I'm not 100% convinced this is the case. If it is, that's the strongest argument I can think of for my point of only driving with a qualified instructor

seamus wrote:

Driving with a qualified instructor (and particularly dual-control cars) is good for instruction, but restrictive when it comes to gaining experience and roadcraft. Dual-control cars are not normal, and wouldn't give a realistic experience for learners

Why? The dual control is only used when the learner makes an error, serious enough to potentially cause an accident

seamus wrote:

Part of driving is learning that you are the driver, you are responsible for everything that occurs to and in the car while you drive

That's why the dual control is only used as a last resort, e.g. if you fail to brake approaching a stationery vehicle. Surely you're not saying it is better to drive yourself and crash into it?

I appreciate that the vast majority of people have never seen a dual control test vehicle, let alone driven it under supervision of a qualified instructor - culture shock

PBC_1966 wrote:

If all practice had to be done with an instructor it would make getting a license horrendously expensive, surely?

There is no point denying this. Yes it will be very expensive, on average I guess about 60 odd hours times 40 odd euro (remember it's not in your own car), so ballpark €2.5 grand :eek:

Soon after this is introduced though, a 17 year old qualified driver can look forward to a starting insurance premium of say €1000 for a 1.0 liter car and voila, the whole investment has paid off at once. Imaginge the further savings when he / she is 18, 19, ..., 40

But most importantly, we'll all be heading for insurance premiums of hundreds rather than thousands if the other big insurance issue, personal injury claims, is sorted

a_ominous

Just a general comment. AFAIK there is a central fund that all the insuance companies pay into (using our money) that will pay out even in the case where a driver has no insurance or has committed a road traffic offence. This helps to run up everyones premium.
As I've said before, I think compulsory lessons for all would be good. That should reduce all premiums including those of driving instructors whose lessons might cost 35 euro an hour. But what of the total cost to everyone for each fatality? I've seen figures of about 1 million per fatality. Not to mention the emotional costs to friends and family of the deceased.

Stark

As if the insurance companies will reduce premiums just because they "can"

seamus wrote:

Driving with a qualified instructor (and particularly dual-control cars) is good for instruction, but restrictive when it comes to gaining experience and roadcraft. Dual-control cars are not normal, and wouldn't give a realistic experience for learners

Why? The dual control is only used when the learner makes an error, serious enough to potentially cause an accident

I did lessons in a dual control car and sometimes the instructor will use the dual controls if you make a mistake in technique like forgetting the clutch. It is very VERY annoying. From your point of view (since you're not looking at the instructor's feet all the time), you're simply driving along and suddenly the pedals stop responding the way they should for no apparent reason. That's why it doesn't give a realistic experience.

seamus

unkel wrote:

Why? The dual control is only used when the learner makes an error, serious enough to potentially cause an accident

That's why the dual control is only used as a last resort, e.g. if you fail to brake approaching a stationery vehicle. Surely you're not saying it is better to drive yourself and crash into it?

As Stark says though, many instructors will use the dual control to correct minor errors, clutch correctly to change gears etc. It's better to allow someone to make a grievous error and attempt to correct it, then to do it for them. That's the point of L plates - "Stay clear, this guy could make a serious cock-up". You learn by making mistakes and correcting them, not making mistakes and having them magically fix themselves.

unkel

seamus wrote:

many instructors will use the dual control to correct minor errors, clutch correctly to change gears etc.

Ah I see your point, but that is not what instructors should do

Stark wrote:

I did lessons in a dual control car and sometimes the instructor will use the dual controls if you make a mistake in technique like forgetting the clutch. It is very VERY annoying. From your point of view (since you're not looking at the instructor's feet all the time), you're simply driving along and suddenly the pedals stop responding the way they should for no apparent reason. That's why it doesn't give a realistic experience.

Seems that incompetent instructor is more interested in the maintenance of his car than to teach you how to drive :mad:

My instructor has never done anything like it. The most trivial he ever used his brakes for is when I failed to completely stop at a stop sign. Was doing maybe 3mph and about to take off again and he slammed his foot down as hard as he could just to make the point. If you don't completely stop during the test, you fail. He made his point, I didn't make that mistake again

PBC_1966

If you don't completely stop during the test, you fail. He made his point,

Ah... The rolling stop, supposedly a favorite target of many small-town sheriffs in the U.S. eager to boost county funds!

It's not quite such an easy target in Britain these days, as stop signs have become pretty rare, mostly replaced with "Give way" (yield) signs instead, or the dreaded mini-roundabout.

Esel

It would be very interesting to see the stats of all accidents, giving a breakdown of:

- whether driver(s) were on a full or provisional license

- no. of years license held.

I'm sure these figures are available somewhere.

My reply to people who say 'I've been driving for fifty years without an accident' is 'Yes, but how many accidents have you caused?'

RicardoSmith

Cut down L plates are like drum brakes painted red....lame.

seamus

RicardoSmith wrote:

Cut down L plates are like drum brakes painted red....lame.

They're also illegal.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

PBC_1966

the death rate in the US which is twice what it is here.

What is that based on? Deaths in auto accidents per X amount of population, or maybe deaths per passenger-mile traveled?

You can't look at just one thing (e.g. "L" plates) and correlate it with the death rate without taking into account all other variables.

Seth Brundle

PBC_1966 wrote:

What is that based on? Deaths in auto accidents per X amount of population, or maybe deaths per passenger-mile traveled?

You can't look at just one thing (e.g. "L" plates) and correlate it with the death rate without taking into account all other variables.

Read what he said again - "maybe that's a contributing factor to the death rate in the US"