80 km/h for new drivers - how do you spell "eejits"?

eachtrannach

Just found this:

The Oireachtas Enterprise Committee is recommending that a speed limit of 80km/h be imposed on all motorists driving on a provisional licence. - http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/07/27/story269594.html

I am driving from Cavan to Dublin and back daily ... if the road was further congested by "provisionals" doing a lawful 80 km/h, I predict road rage at a scale that would make the Battle of the Boyne look like a peaceful picnic!

I also like the "black boxes" and "alcohol detectors" idea. Nanny state anyone?

jd

If they are going to do this, they should ban learner drivers from National Roads. Otherwise the effective speed limit of National Roads becomes 80km/hr

murphaph

jd wrote:

If they are going to do this, they should ban learner drivers from National Roads. Otherwise the effective speed limit of National Roads becomes 80km/hr

Think about it. The only roads with limits above 80km/h are N roads, so by banning learners from N roads you automatically achieve a cap on their speed limit of 80km/h. They have no intenton of banning L drivers from N roads however so it wiould indeed mean an effective 80km/h limit on the rest of us. Hows about they start enforcing EXISTING legislation and get the training/testing sorted out rather than talk diversionary nonsense like this.

jd

murphaph wrote:

Think about it....Hows about they start enforcing EXISTING legislation and get the training/testing sorted out rather than talk diversionary nonsense like this.

Kinda my point-how nonsensical it is.
jd

Bluetonic

Why did you start the same thread twice in two different forums.

There's no need for it.

eachtrannach

I know ... but when I tried to cancel one thread, both already had postings ... I'll now go and whip myself with a wet silken handkerchief!

Bluetonic

eachtrannach wrote:

I know ... but when I tried to cancel one thread, both already had postings ... I'll now go and whip myself with a wet silken handkerchief!

Good man!

Nuttzz

also insurance companies to refuse business! like that will happen

gobdaw

murphaph wrote:

Hows about they start enforcing EXISTING legislation and get the training/testing sorted out rather than talk diversionary nonsense like this.

That says it all. No need for new laws, regs, etc. Just enforce the current ones. 400,000 L drivers in the country. How many are driving unaccompanied by a qualified driver? Why are they insured to drive unaccompanied? 23.000 L drivers cancelled their test at such short notice last year that the time could not be reassigned to another person. Why bother with tests, they undermine confidence!

Any law that is not observed or obeyed by the citizens is a bad law. Laws, though good in themselves, not enforced will end up not being observed and will bring ALL laws into disrepute.

Latest census suggests population of plus 4,000,000, men, women and children. Say 50% are under 18 years. Of the remaining 2,000,000, 20% are driving on provisional licences! Obviously drink driving is causing all the road deaths. Lets tackle it!

Only in Ireland......

BrianD

Unfortunately, any decisions regarding the 400,000 or so provisionals on the road would be influenced by safety but rather by politics.

The fact of the matter is by rigorously enforcing all the existing rules regarding provisionals would cause alot of dissatisfaction amongst a large chunk of voters. It would expose the waiting lists for tests and that many young first time home buyers have been forced to buy away from where they are originally from and now will be unable to drive to their place of work (unless accompanied) or will have a speed restriction. Not going to happen in an election year.

I don't think the 80KM limit is necessary. Bringing in the R type plate like in the UK would be beneficial accompanied with a zero alcohol limit.

gobdaw

BrianD wrote:

Unfortunately, any decisions regarding the 400,000 or so provisionals on the road would be influenced by ......politics.

I agree

BrianD wrote:

Bringing in the R type plate like in the UK would be beneficial accompanied with a zero alcohol limit.

Without enforcement, it would be as useful as a pius aspiration. And we won't have a good track record of enforcement.

westtip

gobdaw wrote:

I agree



Without enforcement, it would be as useful as a pius aspiration. And we won't have a good track record of enforcement.

This latest announcement from the PR department of minister of transport sounds like one of those summer pr stunts to keep Martin e-voting Cullen in the papers. Why can't he just go to Barbados with one of his PR beauty queens for the summer and leave us all alone. It is bad enough looking at his face in the media for the rest of the year.

Chris_533976

Put it this way, its still illegal for a provisional driver to drive on their own (I forget the details, but thats the general). How often is this ever enforced?

This is just another one of those fanny PR laws they come up with over here that even the Guards will admit will NEVER be enforced.

dam099

BrianD wrote:

I don't think the 80KM limit is necessary. Bringing in the R type plate like in the UK would be beneficial accompanied with a zero alcohol limit.

Do they have the R plate in the mainland UK, I couldn't find anything on it?

I know they have it in Northern Ireland (which has its own vehicle licencsing regime) and there you are restricted to 45mph on an R plate after you pass your test (Isle of Man also have one and restrict you to 50mph)

Alun

dam099 wrote:

Do they have the R plate in the mainland UK, I couldn't find anything on it?

Nope, it's only in NI.

RandomOne

Alun wrote:

Nope, it's only in NI.

It's voluntary in mainland UK. Useful on motorways, because you know the driver's had little/no motorway experience, so other drivers are a bit kinder, but that's about it.

Alun

RandomOne wrote:

It's voluntary in mainland UK. Useful on motorways, because you know the driver's had little/no motorway experience, so other drivers are a bit kinder, but that's about it.

Didn't know that. Is that a fairly recent development?

eachtrannach

Alun wrote:

Didn't know that.

Neither did I, but a quick note on such "voluntary schemes" - Opel was giving out free L-signs (blue in white background) in Germany during the 1980s, the idea was for young, inexperienced drivers to display those and thus receive courtesy/mercy. The idea went down like a lead zeppelin ...

On a similar note: About a third of the cars seem to be sporting stickers "Baby on Board" or similar, yet only 10% or so of them are actually carrying the small person (unless he/she is hidden in the boot). Thus the sticker is redundant and frequent exposure to it makes other drivers immune to any "warning" it should carry.

andrea

Personally I'd love to see the statistics backing up the blame being put on provisional licence drivers for the accidents on the roads! It's an easy target, like catching somebody doing 60kph in a 50kph zone and ignoring people doing 140kph+ on the motorway and, worse, driving through everybody else on the road to do it. There is no interest in targetting bad driving, only the easy targets like people who have not been allowed sit a test yet. As for drink driving, I think older drivers who think they know what they are doing are more likely to risk it than younger drivers.

Zapho

andrea wrote:

Personally I'd love to see the statistics backing up the blame being put on provisional licence drivers for the accidents on the roads!

Exactly, you never hear that the major cause of accidents in this country are the result of provisional licence drivers. If all the provisional licence drivers are doing 80kmh on national roads, it means there's going to be a hell of a lot more people overtaking which is really making the problem worse rather than helping it

RandomOne

Alun wrote:

Didn't know that. Is that a fairly recent development?

They've been around for decades, but it's only fairly recently people have actually considered them a good idea rather than embarrassing/for wusses. (sp?) Seatbelts before they became law being the closest I can think of re attitude change to voluntary things. Discussion of making R plates compulsory has come up once or twice, but it's not considered a big issue, and since it's mostly young people it would affect and all the major parties are vying for the "young" votes.....!

RandomOne

eachtrannach wrote:

On a similar note: About a third of the cars seem to be sporting stickers "Baby on Board" or similar, yet only 10% or so of them are actually carrying the small person (unless he/she is hidden in the boot). Thus the sticker is redundant and frequent exposure to it makes other drivers immune to any "warning" it should carry.

They're not intended to be there for other drivers, they're intended in the event of an emergency, to let the services know to look for a small person rather than taking a quick glance for more sizable ones. Same with signs re dogs/cats/toxics etc although that's also to let folk know what they'll be handling.

Alun

Zapho wrote:

Exactly, you never hear that the major cause of accidents in this country are the result of provisional licence drivers.

Because the Gardai never actually bother to collect that information, along with a whole bunch of other possibly useful stuff, that's why. The conspiracy theorist in me would suggest that this possibly a deliberate ploy to avoid embarrassment for the government's lack of action in this regard.

BTW, there are supposedly 400,000 provisional licence holders here. Does anyone have any figures as to what proportion that represents of the total number of licence holders nationwide?

Alun

RandomOne wrote:

They've been around for decades, but it's only fairly recently people have actually considered them a good idea rather than embarrassing/for wusses.

Hmmm, strange that I've never seen one then, I was born there and I drive in England quite a lot.

eachtrannach

RandomOne wrote:

They're not intended to be there for other drivers, they're intended in the event of an emergency, to let the services know to look for a small person rather than taking a quick glance for more sizable ones.

The same argument applies ... time may be wasted if emergency personnel starts sifting through the wreckage of a car if no small person is present. By the way - you mention toxics ... as far as I know the display of these signs is compulsory (as any dangerous goods carried, compressed gases etc).

BrianD3

RandomOne wrote:

They're not intended to be there for other drivers, they're intended in the event of an emergency, to let the services know to look for a small person rather than taking a quick glance for more sizable ones. Same with signs re dogs/cats/toxics etc although that's also to let folk know what they'll be handling.

That's a load of rubbish. Baby on Board stickers are aimed at the same people who like to fill their cars with stupid crap like nodding dogs and furry dice. They serve no purpose whatsover - well possibly they inform other road users that the driver of the car is likely to be a silly twat.

gobdaw

andrea wrote:

Personally I'd love to see the statistics backing up the blame being put on provisional licence drivers for the accidents on the roads!

So would I. And those caused by faulty cars etc, alcohol limit exceeded (and by how much), other substance abuse, age profile of drivers, provisional drivers not disoplaying L plates, and so on. Also defective road engineering, such as the high profile school bus crash near Navan last year. That way, different aspects of the very real problems of road safety can be addressed, rather that giving out messages that if you drive safely you will be OK. Make the victim responsible

andrea wrote:

There is no interest in targetting bad driving, only the easy targets like people who have not been allowed sit a test yet.

There's no interest in targeting anything! Lack of hard information means they don't know what to prioritise. I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your post, you are not advocating L-drivers being without an accompanying qualified driver, are you? It's only legal for holders of the second provisional but not for third or subsequent ones. I'm opposed to the concession for the second provo and it should be abolished.

andrea wrote:

As for drink driving, I think older drivers who think they know what they are doing are more likely to risk it than younger drivers.

I would say you are probably right. I am not aware that alcohol limits did have a drastic effect on road fatalities. (I accept that popular belief is that it did!) I would love to see statistics on it but even then they may be squewed through lack of enforcement. Only now we are having some sort of random test.

Just to clarify, I agree with alcohol limits (and their enforcement) but what part of the problem does alcohol play. For instance, most of the single car fatalities are anecdotally being put down to young drivers, yet they are probably the most responsible regarding drink.

andrea

Yes I am advocating provisional drivers being allowed to drive unaccompanied while there's a situation where you have to wait over a year for a test! If, and only if, they are experienced enough first to be safe on the roads.

If I was unable to drive by myself I would not be able to work, let alone anything else, it's that simple. And that is the case for many others. I've been driving over 2 years now, haven't had an accident and am improving my driving all the time. I am waiting to sit my test like most of the country seems to be at this point! I didn't get on the road on my own until I was a good enough driver to do that safely.

Being honest, most of the bad driving I have seen hasn't been by drivers with L plates! I think "young" (most often used to mean provisional drivers) are an easy scapegoat for a lot of problems on the roads, bad driving is certainly not age or even experience specific!


As for alcohol, it is without doubt dangerous to drive with alcohol in your system but some people will continue to take that risk until they have a real fear of getting caught. It's one thing bringing in laws, but they are absolutely pointless if nobody is enforcing them.

Alun

andrea wrote:

Yes I am advocating provisional drivers being allowed to drive unaccompanied while there's a situation where you have to wait over a year for a test! If, and only if, they are experienced enough first to be safe on the roads.

What a truly bizarre statement. I'm all ears as to how exactly you're going to determine how exactly someone is "experienced enough" to be safe on the roads without them taking, and passing a driving test. Or are you advocating a "self assessment" style of driving test, where people decide for themselves when they're ready to go? Or maybe they should just ask one of their mates, and as long as they say "Shure, you're a great driver!", then it's OK?

gobdaw

Not much point. so. in having tests- just start driving when you think your good enought.

Maybe we could get more doctors in the country the same way.

It's revolutionaly, really.

corktina

you guys......:)

i just applied to Ryanair ..look out for me on your next flight:eek:

Alun

corktina wrote:

you guys......:)

i just applied to Ryanair ..look out for me on your next flight:eek:

No problem ... I'm a really good doctor ...no really! ... all my friends tell me I am

ScumLord

This would be fairly typical of this government. Their completely incompetent when it comes to traffic control.

I've notice that the crashes they show on TV it's a head on collision on a straight bit of road, that leads me to believe it was caused by people overtaking a slower car. Although there are no statistics (as far as I know) to say what are the main causes of crashes in Ireland so anything they say is pure speculation.

andrea

Yes of course you have a point. In an ideal world where somebody does not have to wait over a year for a test! When the waiting time is reduced significantly then I will have no problem with enforcable (and enforced) laws forbidding anybody from driving on their own until they pass the test. As things stand that is just not practical. If that was rectified the waiting time would be the time required to learn and practice for the test.

I did not drive on my own until I knew that I could do so without being a danger or an inconvenience to myself or anybody else. My (qualified) instructor was perfectly happy for me to start driving by myself.

I now have to drive on my own (and am able to do so as things stand as I am on a 2nd licence) in order to work. Should I give up my job and stay at home?

Alun

andrea wrote:

I did not drive on my own until I knew that I could do so without being a danger or an inconvenience to myself or anybody else. My (qualified) instructor was perfectly happy for me to start driving by myself.

Great, so now we have supposedly qualified (whatever that might mean in an Irish context) driving instructors telling people it's OK to break the law.

andrea

Alun wrote:

Great, so now we have supposedly qualified (whatever that might mean in an Irish context) driving instructors telling people it's OK to break the law.

I take it you waited until you had a full licence before driving on the open road then? How long did you have to wait for that?

Alun

andrea wrote:

I take it you waited until you had a full licence before driving on the open road then? How long did you have to wait for that?

Yes, I did. A bit less than a year as it happens. All good things come to those who wait

So how many tests have you managed to take and fail in two years?

hadook

If an 80km/h limit for new drivers comes in then I might as well just sleep in work - all my free time will be spent listening to my OH complain about how long it's taking us to drive home.

I'm on a provisional. I tend to have a licensed driver with me (I share a commute with my OH) or I'm out in a school car and I'm due to sit a test in the next few weeks. I honestly don't see my driving changing any after a 20 min drive around a town & a different coloured bit of paper.

Personally I'd prefer to see a continuous assement approach to driving - you learn to drive in daytime/nighttime/ fog/ rain etc - and are tested on various different occasions. I suppose I'm lucky in that my OH has made it his mission to give me experience driving in different conditions.

As a driver I want decent road surfaces, adequate signage and other road users (not just drivers!) who have a basic understand of how to drive in a safe manner. And while I'm at it - I'd like to win the lotto. :rolleyes:

andrea

So Alun in that year (give or take) you NEVER drove on the road? Good job you don't live where I do, that would not be possible!

I had a letter from work to say I needed the test so I got it before I was even driving my own car, I failed 2 in about 2 months, about 2 years ago simply because I hadn't enough experience of driving on the roads. I've been waiting for another one since then and I know I'll pass it as soon as they let me take it.

I agree with hadook, drivers should have to prove themselves over time and in many situations before being given a licence. I would bet that the majority of full licence holders would not pass if that was the case.

If there was somebody available to travel with me rather than driving on my own then I would have done that, obviously it's a better thing to do. But things don't always work out so conveniently!

People get impatient if you travel at the existing speed limit, if you travel even slower than that then there is going to be even more rear ending, even more dangerous overtaking and even more angry drivers doing stupid things. Who really thinks this is a good way to solve anything?

I still don't accept that provisional drivers are responsible for a larger percentage of accidents than full licence holders. I have driven all over the country and I have seen an equal amount of bad driving from people in both categories and possibly even more/worse from those who have passed their test.

gobdaw

andrea wrote:

When the waiting time is reduced significantly then I will have no problem with enforcable (and enforced) laws

..untill then, should the laws be enforced? When I'm not late for an appointment, I have no problem with speed limits.

It's not about me or you, it's about what is safe for all. L drivers driving when they think it suits them or they are able is not the best way to go.

All road regs should be enforced.

andrea wrote:

I now have to drive on my own (and am able to do so as things stand as I am on a 2nd licence) in order to work. Should I give up my job and stay at home?

As you know, for third and each subsequent provo it is necessary to show that a test has been applied for. Last year, per Sen Cassidy, 23,000 L drivers cancelled at such short notice that somebody else (you, perhaps) could not be tested instead. They are still out there driving - maybe towards you out of that bend. I don't know how many cancelled early enough for their slot to be reallocated. They are still out there driving. I dont know how many failed their test. They are still out there driving. What should they do?
Not my problem.

What should we do? I believe they should not be driving unaccompanied. Tough, yes, but people are dying out there.

Lennoxschips

this is stupid

you have to learn how to drive faster than 80 km/hr. this means that people will be getting their licenses without having ever driven faster than 80 km/hr. ergo, they are not ready to be issued a driver's license

why don't they just admit that the whole provisional thing is a pile of muck

Alun

andrea wrote:

So Alun in that year (give or take) you NEVER drove on the road?

(I take it you mean unaccompanied) Strange as that may seem, no. I was 17 at the time, and my dad would have killed me if I did.

Good job you don't live where I do, that would not be possible!

We make our own life choices, they aren't made for us by "them". If you can't drive, then make allowances in the meantime concerning where you work or live until you can. If it's inconvenient, uncomfortable, awkward or whatever, then that's just too bad I'm afraid. Driving on public roads is a privilege to be earnt, not a right.

I still don't accept that provisional drivers are responsible for a larger percentage of accidents than full licence holders.

Neither do I, but then since the data isn't actually available, then neither can you or anyone else for that matter. Implicitly allowing unqualified drivers to drive on their own whatever the excuse is just silly whatever the statistics may prove.

I have driven all over the country and I have seen an equal amount of bad driving from people in both categories and possibly even more/worse from those who have passed their test.

That's still not the point. At some stage in their lives they have passed a test, and as such have been granted the privilege of being allowed to drive on public roads. If they break the law repeatedly then there are sanctions available which can ultimately result in them losing that privilege. The many L drivers on the road haven't even proved that once to the satisfaction of a qualified driving examiner.

andrea

Yes all the laws should be enforced. Some of them need to be reformed, but that's beside the point. The reality is that not all of them are going to be enforced, and if we are going to be selective then I don't think that this is the highest priority. I think dangerous driving, drink driving, etc are far more dangerous! I know it shouldn't come down to that, but we are in the real world and that's the way it is, for now at least.

If provisional licence drivers are to stay off the road until they sit the test, which usually takes a full year if not longer, then how are they supposed to work? We don't all live in places where public transport is an option! Is the state going to subsidise their living in the meantime? Out of interest, how much difference do you honestly think it makes to have an "experienced" driver beside a newer driver? Do you really think it reduces any risks?

We keep hearing promises of waiting lists being reduced to 6 weeks. I don't honestly believe that will happen any time soon because I don't think anybody is fully committed to making it happen.

Alun, I assume then that when you learned to drive you weren't trying to get yourself to and from a job? And if things change while I'm in a job where I need to drive to get to work then what should I do? Quit my job, move home and stay there? There are ideals on this and there are practicalities, you can't just ignore the practicalities of the situation.

2 years no claims bonus would seem to indicate that I am not a danger to you or anybody else (any more than anybody else is!)

gobdaw

Andrea, am I missing the point here? You have been driving about two years, You got two tests two years ago by jumping the queue with letters from your employer. You admit that at that time you were not competent enough to pass the test.

Not being personal, do you not feel that that kind of action is adding to the delays in people getting tested?

Does it not show that it is easier than you say to get tested in your part of the country?

But this is not about where you live and where you work. Its not about you at all. Its about me and others who have gone through the system and have been accessed as conpetent at some point in their driving career, and wish to drive on safe roads and if you wish to join us, you must show you have reached a certain standard.

You feel that as you get more experience, you get safer, but some "older" (full licenced) drivers are poor drivers. You probably are right. If I had to submitt to a test tomorrow, I honestly would get "tested" by a commercial instructor before the test proper. I suggest that you are developing, along with your experience, bad habits, like the rest of us. Not great preparation.

But there you go, I don't think our minds are going to meet on this one, because you "have" to drive, and so you will.

One statistic I do know, rural roads have more road fatalities than urban ones.

andrea

To be honest, I didn't think about the fact that getting an earlier test made the queue longer. I assumed that I just got a cancellation spot at the last minute that couldn't be given to someone who had applied in the normal way and therefore would expect more warning. Maybe that is incorrect. Also, I thought I would still be waiting longer than it turned out to be so thought I would be ready by the time I got the test. Unfortunately, that is the way learner drivers are forced to think! I was ready for the second one and don't think I should have been failed, but that's another story!

The queues there (Dundalk) are exactly the same as where I am now (Tallaght) - my brother was waiting a year/18 months and then was not allowed to sit the test because he didn't have the nct disk. (He had got the certificate with his ca but not the disk) He then had to wait ANOTHER year for a resit.

I'm not surprised that rural roads have more fatalities, people don't realise that you have to drive more slowly and carefully on those roads, there is no garda presence in most cases and the condition of the roads ranges from bad to appalling!

I agree most people develop bad habits as they drive. Perhaps the knowledge that I am waiting for the test means that I keep more of an eye on things and don't let it slip so much, perhaps not. I also intend getting an instructor for a few "lessons" to make sure that I am ok to sit the test before I do so. I do know though that I am more comfortable and confident driving now than I was when I last sat the test.

I agree that the ideal situation would be the situation that exists in countries like Germany, where you cannot get on the road without proving your capabilities. We need to work towards that, it is not something that is going to happen tomorrow unfortunately.

RandomOne

eachtrannach wrote:

The same argument applies ... time may be wasted if emergency personnel starts sifting through the wreckage of a car if no small person is present. By the way - you mention toxics ... as far as I know the display of these signs is compulsory (as any dangerous goods carried, compressed gases etc).

"Toxics" used as illustrative. I should have used non-toxics notices instead! I agree, BOB stickers when no child is travelling would cause services to spend more time checking, but this assumes that no person in the car is capable of saying there is/isn't a child on board. A few minutes extra checking is better than not realising there's another person to get out/take care of. It has happened where babies have been left behind in cars that have been involved in an accident (Can't find link). This possibility obviously scares parents. In an ideal world, the sign would go up and down according to when a child is on board, but have you tried getting those things to restick? Hard enough to get them to stay on in the first place.

Re: banning Learners from N Roads instead of restricting their speed, this is the same as the UK ban on Learners on motorways. Has as much going for it as against it.

eachtrannach

andrea wrote:

Yes all the laws should be enforced.

In that case you should start enforcing them yourself by staying off the road as of now ... sorry to be blunt!

corktina

good debate peeps, but a little too heated at times....

in my view, until you have proved to the relevant authority that you are competant you should ONLY be permitted on the road with a qualified driver and should be restricted to the actual driving you do (such as not on Motorway, possibly not after dark and probably not over a certain speed.)....Now before you all jump down my throat, in defence of this I would say that you don't really learn to drive until you've passed that test and got some experience in.....

Too many people have had no experiance of what a car does if it skids at high speed....it isnt nice, heading at right angles to a ditch at even 50k is potentially life-threatening.....so it is reasonable to have a graduated qualifying system that allows more freedom as experiance increase....

dam099

andrea wrote:

I had a letter from work to say I needed the test so I got it before I was even driving my own car, I failed 2 in about 2 months, about 2 years ago simply because I hadn't enough experience of driving on the roads. I've been waiting for another one since then and I know I'll pass it as soon as they let me take it.

So two years ago at a time when you obviously thought you had some chance of passing the test (I assume this is so as you did it twice in two months) the person qualified to make that assessment disagreed. Now in retrospect you agree and feel that you are a better driver now than you were then (and I accept it is likely you are) but it is still only your opinion that you are good enough to pass now, you were wrong 2 years ago maybe you are now aswell? Until you take and pass the test there is no way of telling for sure if you are competent enough to be on the road on your own so in any sensible scenario you should not be.

That said the ridiculous waiting times for a test make it very hard to do a proper crackdown on this (and make the needed change in the law on 2nd provisionals). There is a catch 22 situation at the moment in that proper enforcement would cause hardship until the waiting times are addressed but nothing substantial is being done to address these (other than tinkering around the edges).

ardmacha

The OP, eachtrannach, started this thread with the concept that an 80kph limit would be a disaster and lead to road rage. If you are from Cavan then presumably you've driven in the North, is there road rage and congestion in Fermanagh because of R drivers? Some sort of graduated system makes sense, I'd also look at a zero alchohol limit and a late night curfew.

Then the thread turned into the usual "learner drivers need to get to work" argument. Provisional licences should be to allow you to learn to drive, not to go to work, go to the disco etc. When you have qualified you can drive to work. People who can't afford cars go to work, people with disabilities that prevent them driving go to work. In the present environment there is no shortage of jobs so this is red herring.

Then there's the provisional drivers aren't any worse than anyone else argument, or that more accidents are caused by drink driving, immigrants etc. There are other causes of accidents, but that doesn't change the fact that any serious road traffic strategy has to start with testing people before allowing them on the road. Personally I'd also advocate putting people through a rules of the road test every time (10 years) they replace their licence.

eachtrannach

ardmacha wrote:

The OP, eachtrannach, started this thread with the concept that an 80kph limit would be a disaster and lead to road rage. If you are from Cavan then presumably you've driven in the North, is there road rage and congestion in Fermanagh because of R drivers? Some sort of graduated system makes sense, I'd also look at a zero alchohol limit and a late night curfew.

Interesting point - unfortunately most of my driving up north is done on weekends, so I can't really compare commuter traffic. But having said that ... the roads up there tend to be a little, teensy-weensy bit (I mean it) more inviting to overtake any slow drivers. And there do not seem to be that many R-drivers about as one would suspect (... seeing that every L-driver has to become one, but the again I have the feeling there are less L-drivers up north ... could be just me!). So I pass on that question ...

As to zero alcohol limit for new drivers (and obviously L-drivers) - you have my full support here. And please don't anybody whine that this would endanger their pint after work ...

Curfew ... hmmm ... bad idea! This really starts to infringe on human rights, as the late-night/early-morning accidents in my opinion (for lack of hard data) are caused by a combination of tiredness and enthusiasm, but mainly fuelled by alcohol and/or drugs (and six Red Bulls without vodka could be seen as being "drugged up" as well ...). Now a general curfew might save a few lifes, but where would it leave those guys who have to work shifts?