European Commission taking Govt to court

Our man in Havana

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1013/driving.html

European Commission taking Govt to court

13 October 2004 18:00
The European Commission is taking the Irish Government to court for failing to implement a directive to raise driving test standards to improve road safety.

Member states were required to make the changes by the end of September 2003.

Following a warning and a demand for action on the directive, the Commission today lodged a complaint against Ireland at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

The Department of Transport said it hopes the regulation will be signed shortly by the new minister

Anyone know anything about this?

The Muppet

have not heard anything of this but it's logical that if the standard for passing the test is raised the waiting lists will get ever longer. They are already way too long with some people having to wait over a year for a test.

MrPudding

So? Do you just give licenses away again? That will solve the problem. Long waiting lists should not be an excuse for lower standards of tests. With some luck this action will cause the standards of the tests to rise and force the gov to invest in the infrastructre to shorten the wait.

Personally I, like many I'm sure, would be more interested if the EU took the gov to court over VRT.

MrP

Imposter

It could also be refering to people who are doing everyday driving on provisionals. I agree driving test waiting times are part of this problem but it's those that have never sat their test (or sat it and failed it), that are the main problem with driving standards, according to the EU's thinking and not that the test is not hard enough, i would imagine.

The Muppet

Imposter wrote:

I agree driving test waiting times are part of this problem but it's those that have never sat their test (or sat it and failed it), that are the main problem with driving standards, according to the EU's thinking and not that the test is not hard enough, i would imagine.

I.m not sure that is the problem at all. There are plenty of drivers with full licenses who are just as bad as those on provisionals, IMO The main problem is speeding, particularly on roads that were built for ass n carts. Until both those issues are tackled I can't see any improvement in the situation.

unkel

Imposter wrote:

but it's those that have never sat their test (or sat it and failed it), that are the main problem with driving standards

Unfortunately we can't do anything anymore about amnesties, where full licenses were handed out to incompetent drivers in the past

But we CAN change the system for current learners! I'll keep saying it: with plenty of notice to current learner drivers, abandon the learner driver system. This can be phased out over a couple of years. Only people that have passed the test should then be driving a car

puntosporting

I honestly believe there should be some form of driver education in secondary schools.

unkel

puntosporting wrote:

I honestly believe there should be some form of driver education in secondary schools.

Great idea

Pretty much like compulsory swimming lessons in primary school. Another life saver

Seth Brundle

unkel wrote:

Unfortunately we can't do anything anymore about amnesties, where full licenses were handed out to incompetent drivers in the past

They could if they wanted. An idea I have always supported is testing for everyone every two or three years. However, as they cannot manage to get the current system sorted, they are unlikely to manage to get my idea off the ground!

unkel wrote:

But we CAN change the system for current learners! I'll keep saying it: with plenty of notice to current learner drivers, abandon the learner driver system. This can be phased out over a couple of years. Only people that have passed the test should then be driving a car

I don't think you can take learners out of a car as good driving is mainly down to experience. However, they should remove the allowance of the 2nd prov. whereby a learner can drive on their own (really fúcking crazy - who came up with that?). All learners must have a fully licenced driver who has been insured for the last 3 years (maybe more!) in the car with them. Preferably, force all learners to take lessons of suitably qualified personnell. Also restrict their driving hours to off peak times.
Finally when someone does manage to pass the test, they should be made to carry 'R' plates like in the North. This prevents them from exceeding 50mph, etc.

However, all of these ideas require enforcement, so it basically isn't going to happen!

Imposter

kbannon wrote:

They could if they wanted. An idea I have always supported is testing for everyone every two or three years. However, as they cannot manage to get the current system sorted, they are unlikely to manage to get my idea off the ground!

I don't think you can take learners out of a car as good driving is mainly down to experience. However, they should remove the allowance of the 2nd prov. whereby a learner can drive on their own (really fúcking crazy - who came up with that?). All learners must have a fully licenced driver who has been insured for the last 3 years (maybe more!) in the car with them. Preferably, force all learners to take lessons of suitably qualified personnell. Also restrict their driving hours to off peak times.
Finally when someone does manage to pass the test, they should be made to carry 'R' plates like in the North. This prevents them from exceeding 50mph, etc.

However, all of these ideas require enforcement, so it basically isn't going to happen!

I'd suggest make everyone resit the test every 10 years when they are getting their licence renewed. 2 to 3 years is too soon. Obviously more testers would be needed and perhaps a slightly different test (for people who hold licences) to what's in place at the moment.

Provisional licences should be done away with. All learning should be done in a car with a qualified instructor. No relations/friends teaching people. I wouldn't neccesarily restrict this driving to off-peak times either. People should get practice in all types of conditions that are feasible in a 4-6 week learning period (normal conditions, wet roads, darkness, peak times, etc..). I think that R plates idea is stupid. Either they're good enough to drive or they're not. Over here in Austria new licencees cannot drink for 2 years and drive (0.1 limit) which I also think is a great idea.

uberwolf

Imposter wrote:

Over here in Austria new licencees cannot drink for 2 years and drive (0.1 limit) which I also think is a great idea.

All that says to me is, wait two years and then it's ok to drink drive. Driving? don't drink is the only message a gov should be broadcasting...

The Muppet

I do not think its a good idea to make everyone retake a test after 3 or 10 years as it would put an extra burden on an already overstretched system. I do believe that anyone that is banned form driving for whatever reason should be enforced to take a test before they are allowed behind the wheel again.

With the risk of being accused of Ageism I also feel there would be a case for making the over 70s take a test along with the current medical requirements before they are relicensed.

Imposter

uberwolf wrote:

All that says to me is, wait two years and then it's ok to drink drive. Driving? don't drink is the only message a gov should be broadcasting...

That's not what it says to me. Also the limit over here is 0.5 which iirc is lower than in Ireland (0.8 I think). Someone who has had a beer and drives is not driving illegally if they are under the limit. There are too many people who accuse these people of being drunk drivers when they are doing nothing illegal.

Stopping relatively inexperienced drivers from drinking while driving is a good step imo as it means that these drivers should never have alcohol impairing their judgement. It also gets the message across to them that driving is dangerous and drinking while driving increases this danger. It is also possible that one beer in a 17 year olds system (which is the age most people get licences here) can affect them a lot more than 1 beer in an older person's system. Eliminating this risk is a good thing. Making the drink driving limit 0.1 or 0.0 is silly as many people enjoy a drink or maybe 2 with a meal and in general here in Austria alcohol is not abused like it is in Ireland.

erin

Provisionnal license should be banned. Ireland is the only country where you can fail your test and go home driving your car.
I know people who hold a provisionnal license for more than 10 years and never sit a test and don't tell me it is because of the backlog !!!
You should not be allowed to have a car without a full license, and before sitting a test, you should have a number of road lessons taken.

The Muppet

erin wrote:

Provisionnal license should be banned. Ireland is the only country where you can fail your test and go home driving your car.
I know people who hold a provisionnal license for more than 10 years and never sit a test and don't tell me it is because of the backlog !!!
You should not be allowed to have a car without a full license, and before sitting a test, you should have a number of road lessons taken.

Is this the problem? Have figures ever been produced that support the theory that provisional drives are causing the carnage on our roads? If so you have a valid point but I do not believe that Provisional drivers particulaly those that have reached the standard to be competent enought to take the test are the problem.

I'll probably be shot down for thsi but IMHO just because you fail a test does not necessarily make you a bad driver . For instace fogetting to bring the relevent documentation is an instant fail. Some people will suffer stress when taking the test and they may make errors that they normally would not.

The issue of road safety needs to be tackled properly there is no point introducing laws that will have little effect.

BTW I have my full license in case anyone thinks i,m posting because of a vested intereest.

MrPudding

The Muppet wrote:

I'll probably be shot down for thsi but IMHO just because you fail a test does not necessarily make you a bad driver .

It is more likely to make you a bad driver than a good one!

The Muppet wrote:

For instace fogetting to bring the relevent documentation is an instant fail. Some people will suffer stress when taking the test and they may make errors that they normally would not.

You wait a year for your test and then forget to bring documention? I'm sorry but you deserve to fail. You had a fcuking year to remember.

I know there can be "exam nerves" and this is most unfortunate. Perhaps more practise would reduce nerves?

Although I don't have figures, I don’t even know if they are available, I would think that the majority of failures are due to the fact that the person is a sh1t driver. I'm sure most people would agree with this.

This is where I have a serious problem. Someone goes to sit a driving test. This is a test of competency, it is designed to test if the person has the skills necessary to safely drive a car on public roads. They fail this test. They have been deemed incapable of safely driving a car on public roads. What do they do? They fcuking drive home! Can you not see the absolute stupidity of this? Is it not glaringly obvious?

How would you feel if doctors had “second provionals?”

Patient- Are you qualified?
Learner Doctor- Naw, I’m on me second provisional. Tests are bullsh1t anyway. I might have failed but I am a savage doctor anyway. I’ve been learning for years.



Or maybe this:

Patient- Are you qualified?
Learner Doctor- Naw. I went for me test but I forgot some papers so I failed.
Patient- How long were you studying?
Learner Doctor- Ah, a couple of years.
Patient- And you forgot some paperwork. Did you ever consider that you might be too stupid to be a doctor?

MrP

erin

The Muppet wrote:

Is this the problem? Have figures ever been produced that support the theory that provisional drives are causing the carnage on our roads? If so you have a valid point but I do not believe that Provisional drivers particulaly those that have reached the standard to be competent enought to take the test are the problem.

No, that is not the problem.

My point is provisionnal license should not exist at all. If you want to drive, you should have a full license, that's all. There is no regulation whatsoever or if there is one it is not being respected. It is the only country where you can teach yourself how to drive if you wish, there is no mandatory lessons to be taken by an authorised instructors. I got my driving license in France and before I could sit the test i had to have a minimun of 20 hours driving license with an instructor and I wasn't allowed to drive in the meantime with or without a person holding a full license. Without a full license in France, you cannot drive at all only with an authorised instructors (exception of the youth who at 16 years old can sit a test after the mandatory 20 lessons but in this case, if he passed he can only drive with a holder of a license, it is called conduite accompagne but at 18 years old, he had to sit up the test again to have his full license - if this youth is caught driving without a person holding a license he is disqualified for driving for a certain amount of time and fined)

Boggle

puntosporting wrote:

I honestly believe there should be some form of driver education in secondary schools.

Agreed. When I was 10 I lived in Belgium for a few years and they used to bring us down to a local drivers training centre where they had miniature traffic networks set-up. We would be thaught how to behave in traffic both on bikes and in pedal cars... sounds amusing but it actually served a good purpose where most kids cycled to school in a crowded city.

kbannon wrote:

Finally when someone does manage to pass the test, they should be made to carry 'R' plates like in the North. This prevents them from exceeding 50mph, etc.

Good idea in theory and possibly useable in situations where you have dual carriageways but for normal roads outside of Dublin you would only be encouraging people to overtake more as half the traffic would now be stuck in cues behind R plate drivers as there is a severe lack of safe overtaking spots on many primary roads. (I put it badly but do you know what I'm getting at...?)

The Muppet wrote:

I'll probably be shot down for thsi but IMHO just because you fail a test does not necessarily make you a bad driver

Whatever about that, I'd say that passing the test definitely soesn't mean you are a good driver. If you think about it, how many people die as a result of a car crash in town? AFAIK 9x% of fatal crashes are outside of town areas and even possibly outside of daylight hours which are 2 situations a tester never even looks at.

Mr Pudding.... Difference is the doctor may not have been operating away safely on patients for years without bothering to get the paperwork whereas that is often the case with motorists - for whatever reasons.

Seth Brundle

Just in addition, the test as it is, is (without any doubt but so far unmentioned here) shíte! The test is not a good examination of ones ability to drive IMO. It fails in too many places to be of sufficient standard.
The examiner takes you through a housing estate and around the block a bit. There is no dual carriageway testing for the majority of centres (and little of it for those near one). There is also no nighttime testing!
In addition, the driving schools don't teach someone how to drive. They teach someone how to pass the test! This is an incorrect approach.

An interesting read is this:- http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motoring/2004/0407/3828109453MOT07HELP.html (1st letter)