Discrimination against recently qualified drivers

Old_-_School

When renting a car most companies require you to hold a full license for a minimum of 2 years.
Under the change of rules on 30th June a provisional license holder is required to be accompanied by a driver who has had a full license for a minimum of two years.
I find this ridiculous as people who've just passed their test are surely as good as drivers who've passed it years beforehand and have picked up all their bad habits.

bonkey

Old_-_School wrote: »

people who've just passed their test are surely as good as drivers who've passed it years beforehand and have picked up all their bad habits.

Your use of the word 'surely' suggests to me that you're saying you personally believe this, as opposed to you saying that you can actually show this to be true using available statistics.

WUSBDesign

It is in the statistics, chum...yea numbers can lie but the likelihood of an accident happening to a recently qualified driver is much higher than what the authorities and motoring "experts" would like to see...

fenris

You will probably find that rental car company policies are driven by the need to reduce insurance risk. If there was a business case for renting to new drivers that outweighed the risks then they would do so.

ztoical

Old_-_School wrote: »

When renting a car most companies require you to hold a full license for a minimum of 2 years.

In some countries you can't rent a car until your over 25 regardless for how long you've held your license. Can't say I blame them, numbers don't lie and more new* drivers have more accidents then older ones and people who've been driving for a while are quicker at picking up a different car then say someone who just got their full license and have only ever driven one car.

And just because you have a full license doesn't mean you've been driving long enough to supervise provisional license holders. Some people are only on their provisional for a couple of months and get an early test and pass first time so could actually be driving the same amount of time or even less then the provisional license holder. I feel with the new law the goverment is trying to ensure that learner drivers are getting as experienced a driver as they can supervising them.

Getting your full license means you are allowed to drive on the road by yourself and go on motorways etc but it shouldn't mean the rental car companies have to rent you car, if they don't think new license holders are safe enough thats their choice.

*by new I mean people who just got their full license.

cold_filter

ztoical wrote: »

In some countries you can't rent a car until your over 25 regardless for how long you've held your license. Can't say I blame them, numbers don't lie and more new* drivers have more accidents then older ones and people who've been driving for a while are quicker at picking up a different car then say someone who just got their full license and have only ever driven one car.

And just because you have a full license doesn't mean you've been driving long enough to supervise provisional license holders. Some people are only on their provisional for a couple of months and get an early test and pass first time so could actually be driving the same amount of time or even less then the provisional license holder. I feel with the new law the goverment is trying to ensure that learner drivers are getting as experienced a driver as they can supervising them.

Getting your full license means you are allowed to drive on the road by yourself and go on motorways etc but it shouldn't mean the rental car companies have to rent you car, if they don't think new license holders are safe enough thats their choice.

*by new I mean people who just got their full license.

I agree, Have my full licence 1 year and crashe dinto my gate, My own fault I was too lazy to move the bin over..

TwoShedsJackson

Old_-_School wrote: »

I find this ridiculous as people who've just passed their test are surely as good as drivers who've passed it years beforehand and have picked up all their bad habits.

That you even mention this shows you haven't thought about it properly. Statistically the people most likely to have a crash are A) young men aged 17-26, people who have passed their test in the previous two years and C) drivers aged 60 and over.

Not to mention a combination of A & B, of course.

Gregor Samsa

Old_-_School wrote: »

I find this ridiculous as people who've just passed their test are surely as good as drivers who've passed it years beforehand and have picked up all their bad habits.

You know, people pick something else up when they've been driving a few years. It's called experience. Passing your test isn't the end of your driving education - all you're doing is showing a basic competency in controling a vehicle on public roads - if you're paying attention, you should always be learning.

Come back to us in a few years, and see if you think you're the same driver you are now.

Old_-_School

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

That you even mention this shows you haven't thought about it properly. Statistically the people most likely to have a crash are A) young men aged 17-26, people who have passed their test in the previous two years and C) drivers aged 60 and over.

Not to mention a combination of A & B, of course.

I have thought about it. The statistics are skewed. The statistics show that there's a higher proportion of crashes caused by drivers who've only had a license for two years or less than those who've had it longer than two years. People who have had a license for less than two years are far more likely to be younger drivers and thus more likely to have an accident. A better survey would be to compare like with like e.g. For 26 year olds who have caused an accident, compare how many have had a license for 2 years with those who've had it for longer.

Also, I know you'll gain experience with driving, but a lot of this is negated by the development of bad habits.
If experience was what makes you a better driver that would make taxi drivers amongst the best drivers in the country, which I don't think too many people would agree is the case.
Surely giving someone a license to drive on the road unaccompanied is a bigger responsibility than being able to accompany a driver with a provisional license. Yet going by the government you'd think it was the other way around.
Also, for the accompaniment rule, the fully licensed driver doesn't even have to be sober. So they're saying a it's better to be accompanied by a paralytically drunk person with a full license for 2 years, than a completely sober person with a full license for less than 2 years.

And finally there are thousands of fully licensed drivers on the road who've never passed a driving test. Are they really that much better than someone who has passed their test in the last 2 years?

chris85

Old_-_School wrote: »

I have thought about it. The statistics are skewed. The statistics show that there's a higher proportion of crashes caused by drivers who've only had a license for two years or less than those who've had it longer than two years. People who have had a license for less than two years are far more likely to be younger drivers and thus more likely to have an accident. A better survey would be to compare like with like e.g. For 26 year olds who have caused an accident, compare how many have had a license for 2 years with those who've had it for longer.

Statistics show in the first two years a driver has a full licence (no matter what age you are) that the chances are higher of being involved in road accident. Also the fact that many full licence drivers are young in first two years of full driving doesnt help as this is also the worst accident rate.

These statistic are independant of each other.

You gain experience after a few year. The driving test is piss easy compared to the numerous experiences you will learn to react to in the lifetime of driving.

So how long you been driving old school?

lubie76

Old_-_School wrote: »

And finally there are thousands of fully licensed drivers on the road who've never passed a driving test. Are they really that much better than someone who has passed their test in the last 2 years?

Thats a very good point old school. I would like to see the statistics of people having accidents who got their licence through the Amnesty. I found when I was learning to drive that the most careless drivers were the older drivers who were most likely driving for years.
Learner drivers might have less experience but at least they know to use indicators.

TwoShedsJackson

Also, for the accompaniment rule, the fully licensed driver doesn't even have to be sober. So they're saying a it's better to be accompanied by a paralytically drunk person with a full license for 2 years, than a completely sober person with a full license for less than 2 years.

This is incorrect, the accompanying driver will need to be in a fit condition to drive i.e. not over the alcohol limit or otherwise impaired.

_feedback_

Where are the statistics that you talk about?

Old_-_School

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

This is incorrect, the accompanying driver will need to be in a fit condition to drive i.e. not over the alcohol limit or otherwise impaired.

5 times either myself or one of my brothers or friends were designated drivers for a night out while being on a provisional license and were stopped by Gardaí. They asked about a fully licensed driver and in each case the fully licensed driver was drunk, and in one case even had to be woken up and this was accepted by the Gardaí.
Are you saying that fully licensed drivers accompanying a provisionally licensed driver get breathalysed?

Old_-_School

chris85 wrote: »

Statistics show in the first two years a driver has a full licence (no matter what age you are) that the chances are higher of being involved in road accident. Also the fact that many full licence drivers are young in first two years of full driving doesnt help as this is also the worst accident rate.

These statistic are independant of each other.

Show please.

egan007

Old_-_School wrote: »

...as people who've just passed their test are surely as good as drivers who've passed it years beforehand and have picked up all their bad habits.

Ha ha yeah right, it's exactly that thinking that makes mince meat of boys and girls every weekend.

There is NO substitute for road experience.
Let me under line that NO
ah...that's better.

No point in arguing with me for 2 years.:D

Wishbone Ash

Old_-_School wrote: »

If experience was what makes you a better driver that would make taxi drivers amongst the best drivers in the country, which I don't think too many people would agree is the case

Experience doesn't make one a better driver but learning from experience does. Perhaps taxi-drivers do not learn from their experience.

Old - School wrote:

the fully licensed driver doesn't even have to be sober. So they're saying a it's better to be accompanied by a paralytically drunk person with a full license for 2 years, than a completely sober person with a full license for less than 2 years.

That is incorrect. If the accompanied driver is over the legal alcohol limit, then the learner driver is, in effect, driving unaccompanied.

Old - School wrote:

there are thousands of fully licensed drivers on the road who've never passed a driving test. Are they really that much better than someone who has passed their test

Statistics would seen to prove so. At present, the drivers who obtained their licences in the post office prior to the introduction of the driving test in 1964 would generally be aged over 60. While it can be argued that the insurance statistics show that drivers become less safe as they get towards OAP age, one has to remember that 20 or 30 years ago these drivers would have been considered the least risk and at that time they could also have been labelled as "drivers who hadn't done a driving test."

lubie76 wrote: »

I would like to see the statistics of people having accidents who got their licence through the Amnesty

I think Old - School was referring to the pre 1964 motorists and not those who benefited from the one-off amnesty in October 1979. At that time, a full licence was granted to those who were on their second Provisional Licence and who had already applied for a driving test. It only applied to the old category C only (now and not to any other category.

Wishbone Ash

Old_-_School wrote: »

Are you saying that fully licensed drivers accompanying a provisionally licensed driver get breathalysed?

See above post.

Old_-_School

The thing is that there's no check for any experience done by the accompanying driver.
I've an aunt who occasionally drove and who only learnt to drive properly after the new regulation was announced as she didn't want to be isolated in case anything happened to her husband (they're a one car family, no kids either). She passed the test in December and hasn't driven since (except coming home from the test) as she doesn't have a car. In December 2009 she'll have had a license 2 years and chances are that she'll have had little or no experience of driving in that time, yet still she'll be considered properly qualified to accompany an L driver while someone who has driven every day for a year and a half since their test won't be qualified. Is that fair?

egan007

How do you propose you measure everyones experience?

In fact you could say the new measure is working because your aunt went out and learned to drive. While it's not the idea situation, her not driving often, at least it made some difference.

And yes it's fair- she passed her test.
Whether the test is good enough is a whole other discussion.

WUSBDesign

In the UK, if a new driver gets 6 or more points within 2 years of getting a full licence, then the licence is revoked automatically and that said driver has to re-take the entire theory/practical test...basically from the beginning.

So, one such person just need to REFRAIN from driving for 2 years and all shall be hunky dory. No checks.

Know the rules, beat the system.

Wishbone Ash

Old_-_School wrote: »

The thing is that there's no check for any experience done by the accompanying driver.
I've an aunt who occasionally drove and who only learnt to drive properly after the new regulation was announced as she didn't want to be isolated in case anything happened to her husband (they're a one car family, no kids either). She passed the test in December and hasn't driven since (except coming home from the test) as she doesn't have a car. In December 2009 she'll have had a license 2 years and chances are that she'll have had little or no experience of driving in that time, yet still she'll be considered properly qualified to accompany an L driver while someone who has driven every day for a year and a half since their test won't be qualified. Is that fair?

It's impossible to cover everyone or every situation. There are many such 'loopholes'.

I passed the motorcycle test a few years ago. For two years I was licenced to drive a restricted bike only. After that I was legally entitled to drive a bike of any size/power. Even though I have not sat on any bike since the day of the test, I would be legally licenced to drive the most powerful bike available.

ztoical

Old_-_School wrote: »

The thing is that there's no check for any experience done by the accompanying driver.
I've an aunt who occasionally drove and who only learnt to drive properly after the new regulation was announced as she didn't want to be isolated in case anything happened to her husband (they're a one car family, no kids either). She passed the test in December and hasn't driven since (except coming home from the test) as she doesn't have a car. In December 2009 she'll have had a license 2 years and chances are that she'll have had little or no experience of driving in that time, yet still she'll be considered properly qualified to accompany an L driver while someone who has driven every day for a year and a half since their test won't be qualified. Is that fair?

Buts that is exactly why they are bringing in this change. Yes there are a few people out there who don't drive much, I know a few who are great for driving round the town but won't drive in the dark or outside of the town. But there are far more people who have only been driving for a handful of months, have got an early test and are now fully licensed, should that person with only a few months driving be allowed to accompany an L driver? People who get their 1st provisional and pass the test without getting their 2nd legally should not have been driving by themselves so there should be a buffer zone to allow them to get use to driving alone and on motorways etc before they start supervising someone else.

Out of a group of 8 friends on L plates - 7 failed the test first time and 1 one past first time and amazingly the one that past I would peg as an awful driver and would avoid getting into a car with him at all costs and two of my friends who failed first time [both got it 2nd time no prob] I would count as the safest drivers out there. The goverment has no way to rate someone in these cases, should we do it like learning to fly and have people log the hours they spend driving and once you've driven over X amount your allowed accompany others?* Setting a two year period means you should have gained enough experience driving on your own.


*I know theres more to learning to fly then just logging hours but you get what I mean, i hope

egan007

WUSBDesign wrote: »

Know the rules, beat the system.

Beat your face into a cracked windscreen, sever your arms on cut glass, break your legs on the foot well ..... Great idea man

mikemac

Old_-_School wrote: »

When renting a car most companies require you to hold a full license for a minimum of 2 years.
Under the change of rules on 30th June a provisional license holder is required to be accompanied by a driver who has had a full license for a minimum of two years.
I find this ridiculous as people who've just passed their test are surely as good as drivers who've passed it years beforehand and have picked up all their bad habits.

You think that's bad!
Try passing an A motorcyle test and you are restricted in power for two years. (though it does makes sense from a saftety point of view)
So you have little to complain about OP! :mad:

Edit: Wishbone Ash beat me to it

WUSBDesign

egan007 wrote: »

Beat your face into a cracked windscreen, sever your arms on cut glass, break your legs on the foot well ..... Great idea man

Ah, road rage ported to a forum. Well done...

BoB_BoT

WUSBDesign wrote: »

Ah, road rage ported to a forum. Well done...

I think that's supposed to be a car crash. not road rage.

also what about continuous assessment? What if, in 2 years, you had another test to prove you were competent?

Old_-_School

micmclo wrote: »

You think that's bad!
Try passing an A motorcyle test and you are restricted in power for two years. (though it does makes sense from a saftety point of view)
So you have little to complain about OP! :mad:

Edit: Wishbone Ash beat me to it

Ok that is a lot worse in fairness.
I was p*ssed off because I planned to drive on my holidays this Summer only to be disappointed at this rule.
However I noticed that you only need a full license for two years to rent a car so my GF will be able to rent the car. There's no mention that all drivers need a license for two years, just the person renting it.
Also I've found a car rental company that mention nothing about the 2 year rule.

mikemac

Old_-_School wrote: »

However I noticed that you only need a full license for two years to rent a car so my GF will be able to rent the car. There's no mention that all drivers need a license for two years, just the person renting it.
Also I've found a car rental company that mention nothing about the 2 year rule.

Are you planning and getting the gf to hire the car and then you will take turns driving it? I'm certain that is what you are implying from your post.
Tread very, very carefully. Your girlfriend will probably have to sign a declaration stating she will be the sole driver.

And if you so much as put a scratch on the hire car, the company can and will rape your credit card. :eek:

Gregor Samsa

micmclo wrote: »

Are you planning and getting the gf to hire the car and then you will take turns driving it? I'm certain that is what you are implying from your post.
Tread very, very carefully. Your girlfriend will probably have to sign a declaration stating she will be the sole driver.

And if you so much as put a scratch on the hire car, the company can and will rape your credit card. :eek:

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. We rented a car in Italy last year. My girlfriend, who has had her full licence for years, was the main driver. I, who had my full licence for about a week, was able to put myself down as a "named driver". I could drive the car, but she had to be in it with me. It didn't cost any extra, and when the guy took my licence to check it, he didn't mention anything about how long I had the licence.

Now maybe he just didn't check thoroughly enough, but my impression was that you needed to have the licence for 1 year (not 2) to actually rent the car, but you just needed to have a full licence to drive it (with the renter present at all times). Best bet is to check with the rental company.