RSA Opinion

darling.x

I'm a learner since jan and i must have to say that the new laws are fine with me I only feel comfortable driving when someone is sitting with me.

The new laws are probably be a good thing - whatever improves the mess and all on the roads would be a good thing.

What i don't understand is the point of coming down so heavy on one group of drivers and not others like speeders and drunk drivers. All the carnage on the roads will not be solved.

Stark

darling.x wrote:

What i don't understand is the point of coming down so heavy on one group of drivers and not others like speeders and drunk drivers. All the carnage on the roads will not be solved.

Uhm... The Gardaí rarely if ever enforce the driving accompanied rule yet they're constantly doing speed checks and breath testing. And second road safety on TV is either about speeding or drink driving. And then there's Gay Byrne's campaign to get speed cameras installed all over the country and talks of reducing the blood alcohol limit. So stop acting the martyr.

Snakeblood

darling.x wrote: »

I'm a learner since jan and i must have to say that the new laws are fine with me I only feel comfortable driving when someone is sitting with me.

The new laws are probably be a good thing - whatever improves the mess and all on the roads would be a good thing.

What i don't understand is the point of coming down so heavy on one group of drivers and not others like speeders and drunk drivers. All the carnage on the roads will not be solved.

Theoretically, they are closing a loophole that shouldn't exist in the first place. It's impractical and difficult at the moment, but the end result is going to be positive. There are already laws for drunk drivers and speeders. If you get caught doing either, you get in trouble.

This is just extending the authority onto a group of people who also needed it done. Including me, like. I'm 20 km from my job, and I'm going to need 4 buses to get me to my job, if I go that route. It's still important that this is going to make the roads safer in the long run, even if most learner drivers are safe drivers now.

Wishbone Ash

darling.x wrote: »

What i don't understand is the point of coming down so heavy on one group of drivers and not others

So those who drink and drive should be ignored because some people break the speed limit.........

Those who break the speed limit should be ignored because some people don't have an NCT certificate......

What is you point? (before the thread is locked!).

Alanstrainor

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

(before the thread is locked!).

I was one click away from locking this when i saw your alterations;)...i give it 10 minutes:pac:

Yakult

darling.x wrote: »

The new laws are probably be a good thing - whatever improves the mess and all on the roads would be a good thing. .

The mess really is over cocky drivers who have a full liecence and dont care for the drivers around them.

L drivers is a small small percentage.

Hanley

I STILL want to know of all the fatal or serious crashes on our roads, what percentage are caused by learners?

debbie72

i have to agree with you!!! 8mths i dont think is long enough fair enough they have got about half of the 2nd provisinal drivers a test or at least a date for there test but i think if they had given it 12mths then i dont think there would be any excuss for anyone to complain my problem is before the people were given learner permits those on provisinal were able to sit a test basically when ever they wanted even if they passed or not, now the ones on a learner permit have to wait 6mths which is fair enough also gives them enough time to gain experience but the thing is those who got there learners permit from november there 6mths waiting time to take a test is almost over but all this talk is on getting the ones on the 2nd licence a test before everyone else (i could be wrong this maynot be the case) but if it is everyone else will be waiting years to get there test now. but i can see your point would it not be better for the authorities to consentrate on the ones speeding, drinking, taking drugs, or using mobile phones instead of the drivers who are trying to make an honest living by driving to work for the the time been i know it has been mentioned before
let those waiting on a test be able to drive between 8am-8pm once they can prove they are waiting to sit there test just for the moment anyway untill they manage to bring the waiting times down to a reasonable level for everyone of 6-8wks and not just for those on there 2nd prov. licence!!! i know im going to get slated for this but its how i feel:(

TwoShedsJackson

R_H_C_P wrote: »

The mess really is over cocky drivers who have a full liecence and dont care for the drivers around them.

L drivers is a small small percentage.

Some drivers with full licences are cocky, are bad drivers etc. etc. and so are some learners. The difference is the ones with full licences have at least passed a very basic competency test. It's certainly not an ideal system but reforming this accompanied driver rule is a step on the way to producing safer roads in years to come.

Someone was always going to be put out by whenever this reform was brought in, but something had to be done at some point before the 'provisional' system here became the laughing stock of the entire world rather than just Europe.

calex71

as usual it seems to be an irish solution to an irish problem.

Even before the new laws came in things where a joke and still are, you fail your test (deemed not qualified to drive) and you are allowed to drive home.

Its the same with the new laws even if a L driver (im one of these) is caught
ok you get points and a fine but you'll be allowed to drive away !!

There a very few other places where you could get a licence to drive after answering 30 questions on a computer, that anyone with any cop-on could answer.

"The new laws are probably be a good thing" no they are not, they are another joke. In an ideal would they would seize the cars of un accompanied L drivers, and would not give people a licence in the 1st place with out them doing a set amount of hours with an instructer 1st

studiorat

I can drive any motorbike. I can't drive my car on my own. Gas eh?

Tigger

studiorat wrote: »

I can drive any motorbike. I can't drive my car on my own. Gas eh?

do you have a motor bike lisence or one of those fetching yellow vests with an l plate

Alanstrainor

calex71 wrote: »

as usual it seems to be an irish solution to an irish problem.

Even before the new laws came in things where a joke and still are, you fail your test (deemed not qualified to drive) and you are allowed to drive home.

Its the same with the new laws even if a L driver (im one of these) is caught
ok you get points and a fine but you'll be allowed to drive away !!

There a very few other places where you could get a licence to drive after answering 30 questions on a computer, that anyone with any cop-on could answer.

"The new laws are probably be a good thing" no they are not, they are another joke. In an ideal would they would seize the cars of un accompanied L drivers, and would not give people a licence in the 1st place with out them doing a set amount of hours with an instructer 1st

I have to disagree with this. If caught driving unaccompanied, you receive a substantial fine and are left to make your own way home, or get a fully licensed driver pick you up.
There was a reason for changing the name of the provisional license to a learner Permit, it sends a clear message that you do not have a license, merely a permit to drive accompanied.
The Gardaí couldn't possibly store all the cars they would impound, so this is just not feasible.
Ireland has made a step forward in the right direction, by no means perfect i'll agree, but we're getting there.

eddiehobbs

Hanley wrote: »

I STILL want to know of all the fatal or serious crashes on our roads, what percentage are caused by learners?

I would like to know this aswell. Cant find any figure on the rsa website.

eddiehobbs

studiorat wrote: »

I can drive any motorbike. I can't drive my car on my own. Gas eh?

You can drive your tractor unaccompanied too!!:D

NullZer0

Snakeblood wrote: »

Theoretically, they are closing a loophole that shouldn't exist in the first place.

There was no loophole. I mean... its not like the government didn't know that if you were on a second provisional you could drive unaccompanied.

**//rant starts here

I dont get this whole "loophole" thing... its doing my f*ckin head in. It just goes to show how intelligent some of these people in law/media/other are....

There is an English language - USE IT PEOPLE


**// rant ends here

NullZer0

As for the how many L drivers cause/involved in RTA's each year -

Its actually very interesting, in all the surveys I have read this is never mentioned.

I think I would definately make a monetary contribution if someone was to carry out this survey effectively.


Of course the government haven't considered that FACT (based on statistics per density/population/location - and therefore a reasonable comparison) that there are less Road Traffic Accidents if we drive on the right hand side of the road.

As far as I know Denmark changed the whole driving system in their country in the 60-70's because they saw the sense in it.

I know it sounds like overkill... but if the government DO care and the statistics prove the above then I dont see why this would not be considered.


When they get the Road/Traffic issue sorted they'll have to come up with something else to blame learners and boy racers for. Believe me, they will! Unfortunately thats the way our society works.

IMO its all in the mind, people work all week and then think the world owes them something (I'm referring to both sides of the arguement here with specific reference to the government/law makers), it helps them sleep at night and feel important - "Look at me, I've done something".

A little common sense on the roads wouldn't go astray.

How many accidents are there on the Autobahn in Germany each year?
How many people are killed on it?

Quoted from the rules of the autobahn:

Upon entering an autobahn, you are supposed to accelerate as hard as you can, while still on the sidestrip.

Accordingly, upon leaving an autobahn, you are supposed to decelerate only after switching to the sidestrip.

Overtaking is only allowed by using a lane to the left of the other car. Since most of the time there is no such lane left to use, and since the right lane is almost, but not entirely, unoccupied, be prepared for cars coming from the right.

..... and it goes on.


and for reference:

A driver who chose to drive on the autobahn in the wrong direction. These people are known in Germany as Geisterfahrer :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Wishbone Ash

iRock wrote: »

There was no loophole. I mean... its not like the government didn't know that if you were on a second provisional you could drive unaccompanied.

At last - someone else agrees with me. You are indeed correct. It was not a loophole. The media all seem to think that it was even though it was deliberately introduced. :rolleyes:

Wishbone Ash

iRock wrote: »

As far as I know Denmark changed the whole driving system in their country in the 60-70's

Sweden 1967(?).

NullZer0

Thankyou! - Sweden it is.

I was in the middle of editing above post when you posted.

sonicthebadger*

studiorat wrote: »

I can drive any motorbike. I can't drive my car on my own. Gas eh?

I can drive any car as I hold a full licence, and what do you know! I also have a full motorbike licence! But oddly enough, I can't ride any motorbike for another 18 months. I have to ride restricted ones... despite having passed my test. Hmmm...:mad:

sonicthebadger*

iRock wrote: »

Thankyou! - Sweden it is.

Think I remember reading they only had a handful of traffic lights in the country at the time, the cost and engineering difficulty of changing the sides we drive on would be unreal. I couldn't even begin to imagine the figure. Every set of traffic lights costs tens of thousands for example.


The main reason cited for changing in Sweden was that all their neighbours (who have land borders with them) drove on the right. If they had left it another few decades to change the cost would have been prohibitive. Road safety was thought to have improved after the change because many older drivers never bothered to change and just stopped driving instead.


I'm not certain there's conclusive scientific evidence that driving on one side or the other is safer. It's more a general driver attitude and behaviour that impacts on road safety.

Stark

studiorat wrote:

I can drive any motorbike. I can't drive my car on my own. Gas eh?

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I can drive any car as I hold a full licence, and what do you know! I also have a full motorbike licence! But oddly enough, I can't ride any motorbike for another 18 months. I have to ride restricted ones... despite having passed my test. Hmmm...:mad:

I can drive any car, yet they won't let me drive a bus on my own. The so-and-sos...

NullZer0

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I can drive any car as I hold a full licence, and what do you know! I also have a full motorbike licence! But oddly enough, I can't ride any motorbike for another 18 months. I have to ride restricted ones... despite having passed my test. Hmmm...:mad:

+1

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Think I remember reading they only had a handful of traffic lights in the country at the time, the cost and engineering difficulty of changing the sides we drive on would be unreal. I couldn't even begin to imagine the figure. Every set of traffic lights costs tens of thousands for example.


The main reason cited for changing in Sweden was that all their neighbours (who have land borders with them) drove on the right. If they had left it another few decades to change the cost would have been prohibitive. Road safety was thought to have improved after the change because many older drivers never bothered to change and just stopped driving instead.


I'm not certain there's conclusive scientific evidence that driving on one side or the other is safer. It's more a general driver attitude and behaviour that impacts on road safety.

I know.. and I'm sure the cost would be insane. But the way the government/RSA are going on about things then why dont they consider something like this... if they really are that bothered! - thats the point Im trying to make... once it costs so much they're not interested. I know it would be a massive project.

As far as driver attitude and behaviour goes you know driving on the other side of the road could influence this (or so I believe anyway). Just as weather can influence moods/depression etc alot of things can come into play determining different mindsets.

Then again I'm not a psychologist - just my opinion.

sonicthebadger*

Stark wrote: »

I can drive any car, yet they won't let me drive a bus on my own. The so-and-sos...

A bus is not a car. You can do a test and get a licence for a bus.

iRock wrote: »

I know.. and I'm sure the cost would be insane. But the way the government/RSA are going on about things then why dont they consider something like this... if they really are that bothered! - thats the point Im trying to make... once it costs so much they're not interested. I know it would be a massive project.

As far as driver attitude and behaviour goes you know driving on the other side of the road could influence this (or so I believe anyway). Just as weather can influence moods/depression etc alot of things can come into play determining different mindsets.

Then again I'm not a psychologist - just my opinion.

It does change perception of safety for a little while, maybe a few years, then everyone is used to it and things get back to normal. There's far more cost effective ways of using the money to change peoples habits.

Check out
http://74.125.39.104/search?q=cache:n_Efq6waVOMJ:www.swov.nl/rapport/R-2003-31.pdf+less+road+marking+experiment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ie&client=firefox-a

http://www.fema.ridersrights.org/crashbarrier2005/

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2008/1-4/12-18/may1208visionzeromotorcycleroad/?R=EPI-100376

JP Liz

Hanley wrote: »

I STILL want to know of all the fatal or serious crashes on our roads, what percentage are caused by learners?

+ 1

NullZer0

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

A bus is not a car. You can do a test and get a licence for a bus.



It does change perception of safety for a little while, maybe a few years, then everyone is used to it and things get back to normal. There's far more cost effective ways of using the money to change peoples habits.

Check out
http://74.125.39.104/search?q=cache:n_Efq6waVOMJ:www.swov.nl/rapport/R-2003-31.pdf+less+road+marking+experiment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ie&client=firefox-a

http://www.fema.ridersrights.org/crashbarrier2005/

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2008/1-4/12-18/may1208visionzeromotorcycleroad/?R=EPI-100376

Why aren't they being looked at so?

sonicthebadger*

iRock wrote: »

Why aren't they being looked at so?

I know roads engineers. They don't take risks when designing roads.

They are being looked at, but since they're still at the research stage it will take time before engineers are willing to take the risk and do something different. If there's not plenty of papers written to back up a decision they won't make it. With good reason.

The roads have to be nearly the same all over the country so it's a big system with lots of inertia. It takes a lot to make it change direction.

peachystarr

Hanley wrote: »

I STILL want to know of all the fatal or serious crashes on our roads, what percentage are caused by learners?

What I would like to know is WHO claimed that the purpose of stopping learner drivers driving on their own was to prevent fatal/serious crashes??

IMO it has nothing to do with that, its about taking the possibly incompetant drivers off the road while on their own as they havent proved they are safe driver. Im not saying there not safe, im sure a lot of learners are better drivers than some fully licenced ones but until they can proove it by passing a basic test then its a joke to be letting them drive on their own.

Seriously before the law changed , someone could apply for a provisional licence and then procede to get a 2nd one without doing a test, get insured having never had a driving lesson, possibly having never even sat in a car and to think they could legally get into a car and drive away down the road on their own with no experience and no one with them???? This surely is not right.

And why do people keep referring to the "new" laws, there not new, the laws were always there, its just changed for drivers on their 2nd provisional licence.:)

jhegarty

peachystarr wrote: »

What I would like to know is WHO claimed that the purpose of stopping learner drivers driving on their own was to prevent fatal/serious crashes??

The RSA chief executive Noel Brett good enough ?


http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0630/licence.html

Hanley

jhegarty wrote: »

The RSA chief executive Noel Brett good enough ?


http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0630/licence.html

Pwnd

peachystarr

jhegarty wrote: »

The RSA chief executive Noel Brett good enough ?


http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0630/licence.html

Ok so that one person??

I still firmly believe its not the only reason the law was changed. Whether it will or will not reduce fatal/serious crashes nobody knows, theres still people out there with very little driving experience thinking they are perfectly safe to go solo and this is what needs to be changed.

Everyone improves with practices and experience and those withoutit should not be driving unaccompanied. End of.

Thanks

Solitaire

And, funny coincidence, that article is like almost everything coming out from between the RSA's buttcheeks - curiously lacking in statistics to prove their point :rolleyes:

Not that I approve of the old system - it could only be improved significantly with massively strengthened observation of the provisional drivers so that they couldn't get away with not making any effort at improving their skills, being safe drivers and getting the test done. Now that the RSA has done a good job of terrifying all the old provisional drivers into either getting pinkslips or getting off the roads the new system, while abhorrent to those who knew and loved the old system, is effective in this new era, against the new crop of learners. And I'm guessing the moves to make the test a bit easier will have to be permanent because of it - 30-40 hours at €35-50/hr will not give the same kind of driving experience (and is a lot more financially crippling) as 20-30 hrs and several thousand more learning unaccompanied like we used to. But those rotten apples spoiled that barrel, didn't they?

Er... actually they didn't. It wasn't the rotten apples that turned the barrel (though bad drivers there most certainly were), it was our old chums in the EU injecting it with a healthy dose of cyanide that did it. What annoys me most isn't the deluded chanting that all provisional drivers were lethal (note to mods: If you're so passionate, show us the stats!) or that the new system fixes the problems with the old system, it's the risible idea that the RSA has anyone's best interests in mind, other than getting us EU-compliant and undoubtedly giving favourable nudges to several (dozen) rich people's *cough*Gaybo*cough* stock portfolios. Oh, and as a platform to introduce more dodgy legislation to STOP THOSE EVIL LEARNERS!!1! (probably something along the lines of 42 days detention; after all we MUST copy all of England's mistakes at every available opportunity!) The idea that ANY of this was to improve road safety for OUR sake isn't naive, its just ignorant. Its the usual game of reaching full compliance with the EU standard whatever the cost.

Ultimately, while this rank-tasting medicine has been very hard to swallow, its still doing its job and making us better. I think that the new system, while rather draconian, will serve us well in the long run even if not the most effective way of dealing with the situation we had (just the cheapest way, par the course for our bhoys in the dail). But I'd still like to see all those stats RSA! Until then stop trying to prejudice us against some of our most vulnerable road users for no good reason and just say it like it is! :mad:

sonicthebadger*

Solitaire wrote: »

And, funny coincidence, that article is like almost everything coming out from between the RSA's buttcheeks - curiously lacking in statistics to prove their point :rolleyes:

...

But I'd still like to see all those stats RSA! Until then stop trying to prejudice us against some of our most vulnerable road users for no good reason and just say it like it is! :mad:

Here's a few concerning motorbikes.

http://www.rsa.ie/Home/upload/File/Motorcycle%20Report%2097%20-%2006.pdf

wil

Why all this call for statistics, it's not exactly rocket science.
The rest of the world has been driving for decades, we're hardly even in to the teenage years. It doesnt take a genius to see we've been doing it aresways here for most of that time.

Statistics for Ireland at this time would be almost impossible to interpret as we've had such a mixed up system where people do and dont learn to drive. How do you figure out which learners actually took some lessons and which never bothered, which never drove yet had provisionals for years, which drove daily.

Take it from the rest of the world, what we had was NOT a good thing. It just suited some people. And the gov didnt want to upset the apple tart.

We've been told by the EU years ago to sort out our roads or they would do it for us. Time they honoured that threat.

sonicthebadger*

wil wrote: »

Why all this call for statistics, it's not exactly rocket science.
The rest of the world has been driving for decades, we're hardly even in to the teenage years. It doesnt take a genius to see we've been doing it aresways here for most of that time.

Statistics for Ireland at this time would be almost impossible to interpret as we've had such a mixed up system where people do and dont learn to drive. How do you figure out which learners actually took some lessons and which never bothered, which never drove yet had provisionals for years, which drove daily.

Take it from the rest of the world, what we had was NOT a good thing. It just suited some people. And the gov didnt want to upset the apple tart.

We've been told by the EU years ago to sort out our roads or they would do it for us. Time they honoured that threat.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

I agree with most of what you say there, but if we want to make decisions based on facts and not hear say or popular opinion then we have to record observable events in the real world and compare them to similar observations made in countries where we believe things are being done better. After we make a change the whole process must start again in order to see if we're fixing the problem, making it worse, or having no effect.

Without the stats we're flying blind. What works in another country is likely to work here, but not guaranteed to work. One size does not fit all.

Feachan

To help this debate along-the current thinking on novice drivers and their needs can be found in a Publication Young Drivers-The Road to Safety. For anyone who would like to dip in here is a link to the Report

http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/Fixed/06_young/novice%20drivers.pdf

wil

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Without the stats we're flying blind. What works in another country is likely to work here, but not guaranteed to work. One size does not fit all.

Theres a job in the dail for people with ideas like that.

Lies, damned lies and politics:D:D

Yes lets honour the future dead on our roads by making them statistics. :rolleyes:
Then armed with the results in say 20 years form a delegation to appoint a committee to commission a report on what might be the best strategy to consider in another few decades. By which time everyone involved is retired or dead.

Or we could just do now what everyone else has done decades ago.
But of course we have to be different.:rolleyes:

sonicthebadger*

wil wrote: »

Theres a job in the dail for people with ideas like that.

As long as you'll vote for me!


But on a serious note, more southerly countries opposing things like DRL's has led to novel solutions to the problem by manufacturers like Audi and BMW.

I never said wait 20 years. It's the stats we have already that can highlight for us current areas in need of attention, the stats we have in 20 years will tell us how good a job we're doing then.

If we keep going the way we're going in 20 years we'll have sparse stats, which would be a very good thing and would show we're doing well.

Between 1998 and 2005 the number of licence holders increased by 21% while the number of road deaths decreased by 13%. Analysis of why that happened is extremely important. Unless you just magically know all the factors involved in bringing that about?