Tougher driving test to be introduced

Elessar

I heard this on Newstalk 106 today after Gaybo let it slip.

The new measures I heard were that after you've passed your test, you STILL have to have a licenced driver with you in the vehicle (that has over four years) for the first year of driving, and there is a zero percent alcohol tolerance.

They are supposed to be introduced next year and while I agree with the second one the first bit is just absolutely insane. Once I've passed my test, having PROVED I'm a capable and good driver, I still have to have someone in the car like I did on a provisional for a whole year? Absolutely ridiculous. I'm getting my work letter in ASAP.

What do the people here think of this??

peasant

Elessar wrote:

I heard this on Newstalk 106 today after Gaybo let it slip.

The new measures I heard were that after you've passed your test, you STILL have to have a licenced driver with you in the vehicle (that has over four years) for the first year of driving,
What do the people here think of this??

At what point during their Christmas party did the RSA dream that one up?

Must have all been langers by then ...

Supercell

Its daft, even if introduced nobody will pay the slightest attrention to it like the current L platers that should have a fully licensed passenger.

Waste of time, zero test queue wait time, then make driving on a public road on a provisional illegal like in other eu countries and then we get drivers that are safe on the road.

Seth Brundle

I heard it also. I think its a brilliant idea and can't see why prov drivers will be so against it. It should ensure that they will be safer thereby justifying large insurance reductions.
If like you mention, this is an inconvienence then get your application in soon. I would imagine it would not apply to anyone currently on the waiting list.

jhegarty

kbannon wrote:

can't see why prov drivers will be so against it.

you can't see why someone would object to waiting a year and a half for a test (which will only be longer is they up the fail rate) and then when they pass this harder test they still need someone with them for year ?


and all this from a person who never even did a test....

mloc123

kbannon wrote:

thereby justifying large insurance reductions.

I'll believe that when it happens.

peasant

kbannon wrote:

I think its a brilliant idea

You can't be serious?

It's the typical half assed solution that politicians and "authorities" seem to come up with, quick-fix knee-jerk reaction that changes nothing about the real problem but looks like "something is being done".

The driving test is supposed to be the culmination of your driver education. It is supposed to examine whether or not you have sufficient skills to participate in traffic safely on your own.

Now the driving test here is a joke and so is the (learner) driver education.
No standardised driving instructions, unqualified driving instructors, no minimum of lessons in different conditions before you sit your test, no standardised test even ...just as long as you're lucky on the day and keep it straight and manage to reverse around a bend you're grand ...

And all this is gonna change to the better because after having passed your test you will have to be accompanied by some other muppet who has as much of a clue about proper and safe driving as you? (after all, said muppet got his/her licence under the same conditions ...or just in the post)

Yeah ...right ...brilliant idea :mad:

Seth Brundle

I also did use the word 'so' within my statement.
A year and a half? The current average waiting time (once the test is booked) is 32.9 weeks. Maybe if they introduced a steeper fine for those who don't turn up then that should reduce bookings. The waiting list times are coming down from what I hear due to the assistance of SGS.
However, my point was that they should save a fortune in the long run. The fact that less drivers inexperienced drivers will be driving on their own* is what I like!


* one hit me this week on the M50

Supercell

Good post peasant.

Think the lack of regulation in the whole learning to drive area is crazy.

The government spends millions on campaigns to catch people driving badly yet totally ignores the new drivers.

This is completely mad imho.

Why the hell don't they regulate the instructors and test the testers???????

The only way the roads here are going to be come safer year on year is to educate the new drivers correctly and come like a hammer down on the older ones that still drive home from the pub after a few for the road...

Long term ..we need to educate the many thousands of new drivers on our roads.
I'm not trying to demonise them , just saying that if our government really wanted to permanently cut road deaths down then driver education is the key and that means instructors need to be qualified first to teach.

I have my full license less than a year and I can become a driving instructor in this country if I wished to..what's wrong with this picture ?

Royale with Cheese

Well I'm on the waiting list for my test. If this law comes to pass I won't pay one bloody bit of attention to it (have been driving 5 months on a provisional, and never without a licenced driver in the car). Nor will anyone else who's just passed their test. It will solve nothing. Waste of time and a pathetically stupid idea.

Seth Brundle

The primary responsibility for education is on the student. Look at how the current system has taught drivers - there are two threads currently running on foglight usage.
Having registered instructors, etc means sweet FA if the student thinks that they can ignore most of what thhey learn.
However, there are plans to improve all of these areas - whan they will be introduced I do not know.

AnnaStezia

Like a lot of other things in this country this idea will only come to pass when some idiot learner - and there are plenty of those - runs over someone important......

peasant

kbannon wrote:

The primary responsibility for education is on the student. Look at how the current system has taught drivers - there are two threads currently running on foglight usage.
Having registered instructors, etc means sweet FA if the student thinks that they can ignore most of what thhey learn.
However, there are plans to improve all of these areas - whan they will be introduced I do not know.

Thanks for proving my point!

The current system is not even eable to teach "students" when and when not to use their foglights ...neither are the unqualified and unregulated/unchecked so-called driving instructors.

And putting someone who has sufferd the same bad education four years ago next to someone who just passed their test is going to improve that situation?

How exactly?


And doesn't it strike you as somewhat weird, that one day after having passed your test you can hang out the shingle and call yourself "driving instructor" yet if you want to accompany a newly licenced driver under the proposed new rules you will be required to have held your licence for at least four years??

Where's the logic in that?


Stupid, useless, harebrain, vote-catching idea ...that's all it is.

I am very, very disappointed with the RSA for coming up with such an utter crap proposal.

Supercell

kbannon wrote:

The primary responsibility for education is on the student.
Having registered instructors, etc means sweet FA if the student thinks that they can ignore most of what thhey learn.

Can only speak for myself.

I failed my first driving test and passed the second time.

My instructor spent a lot of time killing my bad habits that my first instructor incorrectly taught me.

With proper regulation new drivers will learn the right way to drive first time, and piss poor instructors will be out of a job -and there is a lot of them out there.

Oh and as to fog lights..while there is a motors board..there will be fog light tread ..like Alfas..everyone has an opinion that's unshakable

DonJose

kbannon wrote:

I heard it also. I think its a brilliant idea and can't see why prov drivers will be so against it.

I agree 100%. The only people against this new test are learner drivers who have most likely failed a test at some stage and who should be kept off the road anyway. I've been forwarding boards.ie threads to Noel Brett at the RSA for the past couple of weeks, specifically those bragging about driving unaccompanied on first provisional licences

Lorax

I aint gonna obey this law anyway. Its so stupid. What makes having a full driver 1 year after getting your full license in anyway significant? Example, someone gets full license, doesnt drive at all for the year, then when the year elapses can hop into the car on their own and drive. Second example, someone gets full license, drives every day of the week with full driver, after 6 months of doing this which will be the better driver? The 1 with 6 months experience. Thats why time-lapse is a stupid way of setting the full-licensed driver thing, technically it should be measured by your mileage but better yet not at all because this new idea is absolutely ridiculous. I guarantee if its introduced, road deaths will NOT go down!

Seth Brundle

Longfield wrote:

Oh and as to fog lights..while there is a motors board..there will be fog light tread ..like Alfas..everyone has an opinion that's unshakable

There shouldn't be if people respected that law.
I run a primarily UK based forum (see my sig) and don't recall conversations about people using their fog lights. It only happens in Ireland.

mackerski

I heard the item on Newstalk today. Apart from the fact that such a (daft) system would never affect me either way, some thoughts:

• The RSC doesn't get to make these laws, so it's not exactly a primary source
• Newstalk is a station that consistently gets even the most basic facts wrong - most recently, claiming our port tunnel as the longer Motorway tunnel in Europe
• It's a funny jump, to go straight from a system where some learners are actually allowed to drive alone and pretty much all can with impunity, to one where not even qualified drivers are allowed to.

So don't anyone panic until a more fact-complete version of this information surfaces. (but do press ahead and get real licences anyway)

old boy

sure they have to check gabos senility, so thick and stupid, can they come up with something that makes sense

Supercell

kbannon wrote:

There shouldn't be if people respected that law.
I run a primarily UK based forum (see my sig) and don't recall conversations about people using their fog lights. It only happens in Ireland.

As I said..proper driver education is the key...

If people didn't dazzle me on the way home i wouldn't feel the need for fogs...

Unfortunately some truckers and 4x4's and other high mounted vehicles here are free to dazzle all and sundry without any kind of penance and that's the problem.

Its self feeding, if I could drive home without being dazzled by idiot truck and car drivers I'd have no need for fogs...

Its regulated in the Uk thus its not an issue, its a free for all here..thus ...

Seth Brundle

Longfield wrote:

Its regulated in the Uk thus its not an issue, its a free for all here..thus ...

But when changes are proposed then you disagree with them because everything else if crap? Where exactly do you suggest they start and in the meantime should prov drivers be allowed to continue drive unaccompanied?

DonJose

Lorax wrote:

I aint gonna obey this law anyway. Its so stupid.

Yeah right, like you are obeying the current law about driving unaccompanied 4 months into a first provisional licence, come back when you actually have a real driving licence

Supercell

But when changes are proposed then you disagree with them because everything else if crap?

i'm confused ?

Where exactly do you suggest they start and in the meantime should prov drivers be allowed to continue drive unaccompanied?

Ground level, newbie drivers learn safe and progressive driving from instructors that have been certified as capable of training.

Regarading prov unacompnied, its pointless now as it is, they might be accompnied by their aul lad that never even sat a test ffs, the accomnied thing is daft imho

Capt'n Midnight

Great idea, heard it on the radio too, maybe they meant that for L drivers you could only be accompanied by someone who has had a driving license for 4 years - very similar to the system a few miles north of Dundalk.

But it would be better if they enforced existing laws first.

And since there are 400,000 with provisional licenses , that's how long the queue really is.

OSiriS

DonJose wrote:

The only people against this new test are learner drivers who have most likely failed a test at some stage and who should be kept off the road anyway.

You are forgetting the huge number of people who aren't acquainted with a fully licensed driver who will sit with them every time they wish to get behind the wheel. The best way to learn to drive is through experience (provided you have a solid foundation of good instruction), and you won't get much if you are severely limited in how much and how often you can get that experience. Drivers should be held accountable for knowing all the rules and regulations of safe and proper driving, but keeping beginner drivers on a short leash for at least 20 months is unlikely to improve matters much.

Nephew

A link to pass rate and waiting time for each centre.

http://www.drivingtest.ie/drivingtest/HTMLContent/frameset.html

It’s pretty sickening tbh.

Rathgar has a pass rate of 44.2% and a waiting list of 34 weeks, you don't even have a one in two chance of passing in Rathgar, thus the waiting list will keep increasing.

If they worked on reducing the waiting list, the roads would be safer. People are driving around on provisionals for approximately 10 months before they do the test that tells them if they have the required ability to drive alone. In which time they might have picked up many bad habits which are hard to forget, resulting in quite a few failures I suspect.

If they are going to reduce the alcohol limit it should be a blanket reduction for all ages. Why should young drivers who successfully pass the test be treated any different to older drivers? We're treated the same when comes to the likes of paying tax. But a blanket reduction will never happen as it will affect those who make the laws.

It doesn't say much for the governments faith in the whole testing procedure if they have to apply further restrictions, once a driver has successfully proved they are competent enough to drive at the required level.

Does anyone actually have the statistics for the amount of L drivers involved in fatal crashes? I could well be wrong, but anytime I hear about young drivers involved in front page accidents its mostly stupid assholes with a full licence acting the bollox on the road. A couple of idiotic assholes make the rest suffer.

CrowdedHouse

I often wondered what the full licensed driver-passenger is supposed to do anyway...grab the steering wheel,pull the handbrake...give provo fatherly advice/bollocking ?

Seth Brundle

I would imaging it is to provide advice so that an emergency manouvre shouldn't arise

Stark

CrowdedHouse wrote:

I often wondered what the full licensed driver-passenger is supposed to do anyway...grab the steering wheel,pull the handbrake...give provo fatherly advice/bollocking ?

Well everyone should be made do lessons in a dual-control car to start off with. That's just common sense but unfortunately it's not the case here.

After that, the fully licenced driver would be able to give advice to keep someone out of difficult stages and to help calm someone down if they get into a panic. I remember one time when I was learning I was in the car with my father and I got panicked because I couldn't start the car at a junction so he had to get out and start the car for me. There were also other tricky situations, such as when I pulled in between parked cars to let a car on the other side past and couldn't get out again. Being in a car with a fully licenced driver, you also have the advantage that you can get them to clarify the rules of the road if you're unsure at any point.

Capt'n Midnight

one other point about having an experienced driver with you is that they can take over driving if you get tired or encounter a situation you can't handle or if you need to go on a motorway

An extra pair of eyes is always handy especially since so many drivers out there can barely manage to control the speed and direction of their car , any extra task like correctly using indicators seems totally beyond them.

maidhc

Stark wrote:

Being in a car with a fully licenced driver, you also have the advantage that you can get them to clarify the rules of the road if you're unsure at any point.

I have yet to meet a fully licenced driver who knows them there rules!

Gay Byrne is really starting to grate on me. Yes we need to overhaul the licensing system, but him pontificating from on high is probably not how it should be done. I suspect like others that he is going senile, specially when Noel Brett is not exactly backing up what he says!

Wait until someone who knows what is actually going on makes an announcement.

Nuttzz

Elessar wrote:

The new measures I heard were that after you've passed your test, you STILL have to have a licenced driver with you in the vehicle (that has over four years) for the first year of driving, and there is a zero percent alcohol tolerance.

Madness really, you pass a tougher test and some one who either got their drivers licence in an amnesty or by doing a simpler test still has to accompany you. My mother hasnt driven in years and got her licence in the 60's when you could just pay over your cash for one, is uncle gaybo telling me that she is qualified to monitor all the new drivers out there??

steveland?

So if they're forcing you to have a 4-year minimum qualified driver in the car with you at all times for a year after passing the test presumably the insurance costs for your first year of driving with a full licence will come down yes?

Of course not... that'd make too much sense... after all the Government thinks that having a 4-year qualified driver with you will make the roads safer, thereby making the roads a safer place and you a safer driver...

Hmmm...

In my opinion they should actually try using that bit of mush in their heads and get a proper testing system implemented which actually measures your ability on the roads and only pass someone who's shown that they keep to the letter of the law...

Ergo, when everyone has a full licence that was obtained through proper tried and tested techniques and was examined to the finest details no-one will be breaking the law, speeding, drink driving...

By the way I agree 100% with the 0 tolerance alcohol rule and feel very strongly that this should be implemented accross the board to appy to every single driver on the road, regardless of how many they think they can have for the road and still be safe...

matrim

I don't see how this could work. One of the reasons that so many learner drivers drive unaccompanied (and the guards allow them) is because of the wait to drive on their own.

At them moment even if you pass first time, you will have been waiting 6 months to a year before driving on your own. Under the proposal, even if there was no waiting list you would have to wait a year.

The best system would probably be some kind of R plate system, and if you get points within the first year, you have to resit the test.

snickerpuss

I don't think that after you pass your test still having to have a licensed driver with you makes any sense. Espeically since not everyone has somebody to drive around with them. I know people who learnt to drive aged 40/50. Who do they get to drive around with them for a year or more?

For most people its so unpractical that they'll just ignore it, like now. They need to bring in something workable since most people don't have someone who'll drive around with them for 2 years or whatever.

Rudolph Claus

It`d suit the dopes better if they`d concentrate on the test we have at present and reduce the waiting lists to 6weeks. If you fail a test you should be resittibg it 6weeks later, not ayear which is the biggest joke of this country. When they get the waiting times down to 6weeks then we might be interested to hear waht new retarded rules they want to introduce. Passing a test and still needing a licenced driver is retarded and more bull**** if you ask me. Where do they expect drivers to get all these fully licenced "passengers" anyway? Do they think parents/people have nothing better to do than to spin around with their "fully licenced" offspring? Do they not realise that most people actually work for a living and dont have time to be sitting in a car making sure a "possible fully licenced" driver doesnt make a mistake. Sure these "passengers" probably got their licence handed to them in the amnesty. Fookin laughable proposal if ever I did hear one.

In fairness, they did contract the nct crowd to help reduce waiting lists but still theres no point talking about new stuff till they get the waiting times down to a reasonable 6-8weeks. If they bring in a "tougher" test before drastically cutting the waiting lists, then more people will be failing the tougher test and the queues will still be at a ridiculous retarded level.

Seth Brundle

WRT the long waiting lists and the fact that its terrible on all the prov drivers who must endure this wait and how they become so good that they should be entitled to drive around on their todd - if they are that good and given they have so long to practice for the test and that the test is so poor, why then is the pass rate only 53.5% (source)?
Would it be because they cannot pass a simple test despite all this practice? Given that, do you still think that the current system should continue to exist?

steveland?

kbannon wrote:

WRT the long waiting lists and the fact that its terrible on all the prov drivers who must endure this wait and how they become so good that they should be entitled to drive around on their todd - if they are that good and given they have so long to practice for the test and that the test is so poor, why then is the pass rate only 53.5% (source)?
Would it be because they cannot pass a simple test despite all this practice? Given that, do you still think that the current system should continue to exist?

Well the waiting list (from time of application to time of test) is a different issue to the test itself but they do go hand in hand.

To introduce a tougher test but not cut down the waiting time is stupid. It'll mean more people driving around on provisionals because they may fail the tougher test and then wait another year for a resit.

In an ideal Ireland there'd be a regulated agency for providing lessons, you do a certain amount of these and are certified as ready for the test depending on the progress you make that the qualified, regulated instructors decides on.

You're given a certificate that you send in with your application, informing the testing agency that you've done these lessons and are ready for a test.

You wait 6 weeks max and take your test.

You should pass since you weren't allowed take the test until you were good and ready but if you fail you take the detailed feedback they should be giving you after your test back to the lessons agency who will work on fixing these problems and then 6 weeks after you send in your retest application you get another test.

When you get your full licence you can drive around on your own safe in the knowledge that you're a qualified driver who has had training and can handle any situation you may run into on the road.

In my opinion there should also be a 0% tolerance on alcohol on the roads accross the board. Even if you're 45 and have been out for "a shandy" after work you're breaking the law. None of this "Oh I've often had 6 or 7 drinks and driven home. But I've never killed anyone!!!!" crap.

Insurance comes down because there's less accidents, less people drink drive, less people die, road confidence and competence goes up, the Government go back to campaigning...

But then again it'll never happen...

Seth Brundle

You quote me but don't address my point!
Anyhow, WRT the alcohol - it is impractical to have a 0% limit - mouthwash, some deserts, etc can inadvertently put alcohol in one's system.

WRT the waiting times for an appointment, I can only presume that this is down to the politicians not wanting longer waiting lists. However, should the waiting list come down (and I believe that it is) then the wait for an appointment should also.

There is movement on the waiting lists. SGS have recently arrived in the market despite IMPACT opposition to outsourcing (they in fact delayed outsourcing!). However, a significant number (~20 or 30% IIRC) of those on the waiting list will not turn up for their test. These should be penalised for wasting a place.

Still, my point stands - given the length of time it takes to sit a test from when one sends off the application - it is enough time for prov drivers to become sufficiently competent to pass the test.

Stark

kbannon wrote:

Still, my point stands - given the length of time it takes to sit a test from when one sends off the application - it is enough time for prov drivers to become sufficiently competent to pass the test.

Well things can still go wrong on the day for even a competent driver. 12 months is a long time to build up "exam nerves". Most people who fail their first test pass the second test without much bother. Of course then there are the muppets who don't even bother taking lessons for their test.

kbannon wrote:

There is movement on the waiting lists. SGS have recently arrived in the market despite IMPACT opposition to outsourcing (they in fact delayed outsourcing!). However, a significant number (~20 or 30% IIRC) of those on the waiting list will not turn up for their test. These should be penalised for wasting a place.

Hopefully if the waiting lists go down, the number of no-shows should decrease also as you have less people deciding to throw a few applications in at the same time. Also many of the no shows are due to people changing address during the waiting period and forgetting to notify the DoT. Less chance of this happening also the waiting list decreases. I reckon if they get the waiting list below a certain threshold, they'll have a much easier time of keeping it down.

That said, I wish they'd do something in the here and now to sort out the no-shows. A steep fine like you suggested would be good. Also an efficient and easy to use test scheduling system like they have for the NCT. Someone should be able to login to a web interface, click "Cancel" or "Reschedule" while someone else should be able to login, see the newly vacant slot and take it. It would probably cost millions in consultancy fees to set it up though