[Article] Alarm over surge in number of L-drivers

Chris_533976

Fair enough, but thats my point. Its unpredicatble. It should be mandatory, or at least mandatory for every test centre near a DC.

MrPudding

Lemming wrote:

I'll keep this brief since I'm in work ...

Tell me MrP, ever sat on the back of a bike with a clear view of what's in front of you and instructing the driver?

More to the point, have you ever managed to get a clear view of what's in front whilst *NOT* having your head bounced about by wind sheer like it's a ragdoll?

Lemming, please believe me, I am not trying to drag you down to my level, but I am not sure what you mean here.

We are talking about power restrictions on bikes here. I am not sure what wind buffeting has to do with the fact that we insist bikers are restricted for 2 years AFTER PASSING their test of competancy whereas a car driver can sit his test in any car he can afford to buy and insure, fail that test thereby being deemed not competent to drive, jump into the aforemention car and drive off on his own with no real incentive to try to correct the faults that caused him to fail.

My point is, if we can restrict bikes, why not cars?

MrP

Stark

MrPudding wrote:

My point is, if we can restrict bikes, why not cars?

My point anyway was not that we don't restrict cars, but that we restrict them to something more flexible. With the example you gave for Australia, the restriction is on power to weight ratio(more sensible) and is more generous than what's being proposed by Cullen. 1.0L offers no future-proofing as cars get heavier with extra safety features and need more engine capacity to lug themselves around. As a previous poster said, you can't get even get a Micra with an engine size less than 1.2L these days. Engine size doesn't even equate directly to power to begin with.

MrPudding

Stark wrote:

My point anyway was not that we don't restrict cars, but that we restrict them to something more flexible. With the example you gave for Australia, the restriction is on power to weight ratio(more sensible) and is more generous than what's being proposed by Cullen. 1.0L offers no future-proofing as cars get heavier with extra safety features and need more engine capacity to lug themselves around. As a previous poster said, you can't get even get a Micra with an engine size less than 1.2L these days. Engine size doesn't even equate directly to power to begin with.

Agreed 100%. Restricting cars by engine capacity is the work of someone that does not really have a grasp of what he is talking about.

I would be much happier with a form of restriction that can be carried out by EMU or somesuch, which would be reversible and would not require households to but a car specifically for the kids to learn in.

MrP

Lemming

MrPudding wrote:

Lemming, please believe me, I am not trying to drag you down to my level, but I am not sure what you mean here.

We are talking about power restrictions on bikes here. I am not sure what wind buffeting has to do with the fact that we insist bikers are restricted for 2 years AFTER PASSING their test of competancy whereas a car driver can sit his test in any car he can afford to buy and insure, fail that test thereby being deemed not competent to drive, jump into the aforemention car and drive off on his own with no real incentive to try to correct the faults that caused him to fail.

My point is, if we can restrict bikes, why not cars?

MrP

We restrict bikes for reasons other than learners being learners. You cannot sit on a bike and instruct a learner like you can in a car. You have no ability to judge what is up ahead because you either a) can't see anything other than the back of the drivers head, or b) get your head near-ripped off when you poke it up for a look over the drivers shoulder ...

So, in short, motorbike learners are restricted in part to compensate for the fact that a qualified driver cannot accompany them, unlike the learner car driver. Anyone pointing out that many learner car drivers don't drive accompanied is missing the point. And in any case, such drivers are not supposed to be doing so, and this is another eloquent example of lack of enforcement of existing road-law.

MrPudding

Lemming wrote:

We restrict bikes for reasons other than learners being learners. You cannot sit on a bike and instruct a learner like you can in a car. You have no ability to judge what is up ahead because you either a) can't see anything other than the back of the drivers head, or b) get your head near-ripped off when you poke it up for a look over the drivers shoulder ...

Bike instructors tend to be on another bike in a following position giving instruction by radio.

Lemming wrote:

So, in short, motorbike learners are restricted in part to compensate for the fact that a qualified driver cannot accompany them, unlike the learner car driver.

You are steadfastly missing my main point. A motorcycle rider that has proven he is competant, by passing a test of skill is restricted on the power of his motorcycle for to years after he has passed. So we have situation where a section of road users who have taken the time to learn, and potentially invested quite a bit of money in it, and taken a test to prove their ability find themselves restricted whereas another group of road users have no such restriction placed upon them after failing a test of competancy.

MrP

BrianD

Whatever about the slowness of the system, I'm sure it doesn't take 8 years to get a test date? Surely they can check each provisional licence against the number of times that person has completed a test and refuse them further licences using that criteria?

ardmacha

I am not sure what wind buffeting has to do with the fact that we insist bikers are restricted for 2 years AFTER PASSING their test of competancy whereas a car driver can sit his test in any car he can afford to buy and insure,

Perhaps the fact that the accident rate for bikes is much higher than cars and that bikers are a uniquely irresponsible category of road users, routinely ignoring speed limits, lanes, bus lanes, red lights and whatever.

talkingclock

ardmacha wrote:

Perhaps the fact that the accident rate for bikes is much higher than cars and that bikers are a uniquely irresponsible category of road users, routinely ignoring speed limits, lanes, bus lanes, red lights and whatever.

...which car drivers don't, of course!

Seth Brundle

ardmacha wrote:

Perhaps the fact that the accident rate for bikes is much higher than cars and that bikers are a uniquely irresponsible category of road users, routinely ignoring speed limits, lanes, bus lanes, red lights and whatever.

The usual cause for a biker to be involved in an incident is down to other road users not looking where they are going.
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you"

Wishbone Ash

Chris_533976 wrote:

Fair enough, but thats my point. Its unpredicatble. It should be mandatory, or at least mandatory for every test centre near a DC.

I take your point but sometimes it isn't physically possible within the same county. Leitrim, for example, acquired its first set of traffic lights in recent years and AFAIK it doesn't have any dual carriageways. It may be unfair to ask the good people of Leitrim to travel to another county for their test. Other counties do not have any level crossings. Someone from Letterkenny would have to travel a long way to find a test centre near a level crossing. Many counties do not have 3 lane roundabouts, zebra crossings, bus lanes, contra flow bus lanes, trams etc.

It would be very difficult to have a test route that incorporated all these features.

OHP

Just have 2 questions:

1. Are "L" drivers allowed to drive without a Qualified Driver beside them?

2. English Learner Drivers have an "R" sticker displayed on their window. What does it mean?


OHP

Chris_533976

Wishbone Ash wrote:

I take your point but sometimes it isn't physically possible within the same county. Leitrim, for example, acquired its first set of traffic lights in recent years and AFAIK it doesn't have any dual carriageways. It may be unfair to ask the good people of Leitrim to travel to another county for their test. Other counties do not have any level crossings. Someone from Letterkenny would have to travel a long way to find a test centre near a level crossing. Many counties do not have 3 lane roundabouts, zebra crossings, bus lanes, contra flow bus lanes, trams etc.

It would be very difficult to have a test route that incorporated all these features.

Oh yeah I can understand the logistics of it, but how about a standardised computer simulated driving test, as part of the overall test. That way each centre could go the same route, which could be programmed as necessary.

Wishbone Ash

OHP wrote:

Just have 2 questions:

1. Are "L" drivers allowed to drive without a Qualified Driver beside them?

Yes if in categories, A,A1,M,W, those on their second provisional license in category B and those who have held a provisional license prior to the 12th August 1985. Otherwise they are not.

2. English Learner Drivers have an "R" sticker displayed on their window. What does it mean?

"Restricted" to a speed limit of 45mph for a period of one year after passing the test.

MrPudding

OHP wrote:

2. English Learner Drivers have an "R" sticker displayed on their window. What does it mean?

Northern Irish drivers, they do not have "R" plates in England. They do have a voluntary green "P" which means the driver has recently passed.

MrP

OHP

Wishbone Ash wrote:

Yes if in categories, A,A1,M,W, those on their second provisional license in category B and those who have held a provisional license prior to the 12th August 1985. Otherwise they are not.

"Restricted" to a speed limit (45mph??) for a period of time after passing the test.

Thank you.

I have lost 2 family members and a close friend due to an RTA. I could go on forever about what should and should not be done to prevent this from happening again and again. And I really want to. But I am not going to. It will not bring them back. All I am going to say is SLOW DOWN and most of all PAY ATTENTION! No matter if your a Learner or qualified driver.

OHP

MrPudding

ardmacha wrote:

Perhaps the fact that the accident rate for bikes is much higher than cars and that bikers are a uniquely irresponsible category of road users, routinely ignoring speed limits, lanes, bus lanes, red lights and whatever.

I really don't want to get into a car drivers are worse than bikers debate here but I do have to say, you are talking a load of arse here.

Bikers, in my experience rarely break red lights. It is dangerous enough going through a green light on a bike given the number of car drivers that break them.

Speed limits? I am sure some bikers do break them.I would love to see a break down of the stats. I think you will find it is not as many as you think.

What about bus lanes? We use them, so what? I do not effect you or any other road users and it is a lot safer for us and others. Are you just a stuck in traffic begrudger?

Lanes? Are you refering to filtering here? Do you not like that? One of the advantages of a bike. Should we stay in line?

Yes, bikers are over represented in accident statistics but a large number of the accidents are not the bikers fault and therefore the power of the machine is irrelevent. In fact some people may argue that in some cases a more powerful machine may have allowed the rider to evade a collision which was not his fault in the first place.

And besides, you also seem to be ignoring my main point. Leaving accident rates aside for the moment, I don't think they help your arguement as most are caused by car drivers. Actually, I am going to kind of change what i was going to say around slightly, but the meaning is more or less the same.

You, and others, think it is sensible to restrict a catagory of road user in the amount of power their machine can have. This is not just for the period of learning but for two years after they have trained for, sat and in fact passed a test of competency. Given this, does it make any sense at all to allow another catagory of road user to have whatever kind of vehicle he or she wants, regardless of the power, limited only by what they can afford, even after they have failed a test of competency?

Seriously. How does that make any sense in your head?

MrP

Lemming

Just a note on bus lanes.

Bus lanes are also designated as 'cycle' lanes .... note the lack of any designation-prefix in front of the word 'cycle'. That means bitching about motorcycles using bus lanes amounts to whistling dixie.

Wishbone Ash

Lemming wrote:

Just a note on bus lanes.

Bus lanes are also designated as 'cycle' lanes .... note the lack of any designation-prefix in front of the word 'cycle'. That means bitching about motorcycles using bus lanes amounts to whistling dixie.

The symbol of the signage of a bus lane clearly shows a pedal cycle! The relevant statute instrument would clarify it in black and white.

Victor

Lemming wrote:

Bus lanes are also designated as 'cycle' lanes

Many, not all.

Lemming

Wishbone Ash wrote:

The symbol of the signage of a bus lane clearly shows a pedal cycle! The relevant statute instrument would clarify it in black and white.

The sign is irrelevant. I used to work on those cycling rickshaw thingies in town many moons ago when I was a student, and we were quite clearly told that rather subtle little piece of clarification by the carriage office. We did not need public service vehicle licenses, insurance, and could use the bus lanes because they were 'cycle' lanes, not 'bi-cycle' lanes.

out of interest victor .. how does one distinguish between a non-designated bus lane and a designated bus lane?

Wishbone Ash

Lemming wrote:

how does one distinguish between a non-designated bus lane and a designated bus lane?

Depends whether there is a 'cycle' symbol on the bus lane sign, e.g. contra-flow bus lanes do not have one and bus lanes on routes where a seperate cycle lane is also provided..

SeanW

Independent Letters:

Left waiting after driving test shambles

This person will now have been left waiting for at least 50 weeks for their driving test. drivingtest.ie states that the waiting time for Tullamore is 31 weeks. It also states that the waiting time for Longford is 29 weeks. I personally have already been waiting 36+ weeks and counting. The numbers on this page were reduced about 6 months ago, but these reductions seem to be a work of fiction.

Much like, apparently, the whole policy surrounding the driver testing system.