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: