RSA seeks public's views on learner drivers restrictions

JP Liz

The Road Safety Authority is seeking the public's views on whether zero alcohol limits and other driving restrictions should be introduced for learner motorists.

So-called graduated licensing systems are already in place in countries like Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada.

The RSA is now seeking views from the public on whether a similar system should be introduced in Ireland for learner drivers aged between 17 and 24.

The system would include zero alcohol limits, a night-time curfew, increased penalty points and restricted car power.

Submissions on the matter can be made at www.rsa.ie for the next eight weeks.

Zero alcohol limits should be for everyone not just Learner Driver Permit holders

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

timmywex

I disagree with a good bit of this and dislike the rsa anyway, its all about targeting learner drivers, and infact, learner drivers are soem of the safer people on the roads in terms of accidents (as backed up by stats)

The good points of this are
1) Mandatory training
2) Harder test standard
3) Increased points
4) Limited number of passengers

And the woeful;
1) Zero alcohol limit............this would be bullshiz, someone takes mouth wash and are arrested for drink driving, it is also proved that diabetics or people on low carb diets would blow over due to some chemical reaction that takes place
2) Night time curfew............so when they qualify they suddenly learn how to drive during the night, bit rediculous imo, same goes to current motorway rules, not much sense in them and people dont know how to handle motorways when they pass the test
3) Restricted driving after test is passed! The person has passed the test, theyve shown they can drive, why restrict them! Sure they dont have much expirience but people through the years have got on fine, the best way to learn and gain expirience is by being at the deepend

TwoShedsJackson

(as backed up by stats)

Which stats are these?

timmywex

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Which stats are these?

Damm, i knew thatd be asked! I dont have time to look for them at the moment, will later though. It was in the news a few months back, i believe it was infact the rsa that released it

brian076

It won't be zero alcohol they're going to reduce it to 20% to allow for mouthwashes etc.
My big problem with this is that they'll bring in a range of new laws yet they can't enforce the one's that are already there. Most learners are still driving un-accompanied and/or without L plates, there seems to be no enforcement.
I used to work as a tester and we could see all the drivers arriving for their test on their own. Most of them would stick a pair of L plates on the car, then after the test, whether they passed or failed, the plates would be taken down and they'd drive home alone.

I think one solution to this, is to have a different colour Insurance Disc (maybe bright pink) for anyone who insures their car while on a Learner permit or if they're a named driver. It would make it much easier for the Gardai to spot a learner, because at the moment if someone takes their L plates off the Guards would have to stop every car at a checkpoint in order to catch an offender and we know that they're not going to do that.

Does anyone know someone who has been fined €1000 for driving un-accompanied?

wicklow joe

I dont know anyone who is going to swish mouth wash 10 seconds before they are breathalised

Alanstrainor

timmywex wrote: »

And the woeful;
1) Zero alcohol limit............this would be bullshiz, someone takes mouth wash and are arrested for drink driving, it is also proved that diabetics or people on low carb diets would blow over due to some chemical reaction that takes place

Unless mouth wash is something you use while in your car, i'd say you have nothing to worry about. And as for the comments about Diabetics, i'm a diabetic, and never heard of my body producing a chemical reaction that has the same result on blood alcohol level as actual alcohol, i think you may have confused this with something else.
And i noticed this quote ion the herald, granted it's far from a reliable source, but i doubt they'd just pick this out of the air.
Oh and afaik, if the above happened, where by a driver was accused of having alcohol in their system, a blood test can be requested which would show all.

The restriction would not apply to trace elements of alcohol, such as those used in products such as mouthwash.

Buffman

All this will result in is the ordinary decent law abiding learners finding it even harder to stay within the law, and the law breakers just breaking even more laws without getting caught.

Overall, I think the accompanying driver rule covers most of the stuff they are considering.

Bad points:

- Alcohol: Having different alcohol levels for different people sends the wrong message, it's ok for some people to have drink on board but not others. As well as enforcement problems, would a garda carry 2 breathalysers?

-Night curfew: I don't see how the time of the day affects anything. People have to learn to drive in the dark.

-Limiting engine size: The price of insurance already indirectly controls this, unless your rich, and a restriction would adversley affect named drivers using parents cars. Also, would they treat petrol & diesel engines the same.

-Newly quailified restriction: You have either passed your test and proven you can drive or not. No farting around in between.

-Ageism: Any age related restrictions are a non-runner. The RSA seems to love blaming under 25's for everything. The same laws should apply to everyone regardless of age. (Apart from the minimium age of 17 before anyone gets smart.)

-Mandatory training: Not really an issue for the law. It doesn't matter who trained you, you can either pass the test or not. Why pay some chancer €40 an hour when a family member can do it better. If this was to come in, the RSA should set a cap on charges, or maybe set up their own driving school. I know they now have approved instructors.

Possible good points:

-Penalty points: Having extra penalty points for learners is unworkable from a sheer administrative point of view I reckon, maybe reduce the limit to 6 points. (The UK has this I think)

-Limited passengers: There should be no reason for a learner to have more than 3 people in the car. (3 to allow for the 2nd tester who is sometimes supervising the driving test.)

-'Harder' test standard: Maybe not harder as such, but updated to take account of the challenges on today's roads, not 1960's roads as it is now.

brian076

Buffman wrote: »

-Mandatory training: Not really an issue for the law. It doesn't matter who trained you, you can either pass the test or not. Why pay some chancer €40 an hour when a family member can do it better. If this was to come in, the RSA should set a cap on charges, or maybe set up their own driving school. I know they now have approved instructors.

It does matter who trained you. There may be some chancers masquerading as driving instructors but this problem should be resolved when the ADI scheme is implemented at the end of April. However overall an applicant has a much better chance of passing their test if they've taken pre-test lessons and very few family members can give proper instruction at test level.

Buffman

brian076 wrote: »

It does matter who trained you. There may be some chancers masquerading as driving instructors but this problem should be resolved when the ADI scheme is implemented at the end of April. However overall an applicant has a much better chance of passing their test if they've taken pre-test lessons and very few family members can give proper instruction at test level.

I see where you're coming from, but I still don't think it's a legal matter as things stand now. They should give the ADI scheme a year to get rid off all the chancers at least.

But I still don't see a problem with a family member instructing. I know people can pass on bad habits and all that, but if that happens you won't pass the test. Simple

If you have a family member who is a competent instructor, I don't agree with a law which would force you to fork out ~€40/hour for an instructor.

If this became law they should seriously look at drivers ed classes in secondary school, and a subsidised RSA driving school of some sort, or subsidised ADI instructors. (Not likely these days I know)

dudara

I think the idea behind the diabetics/special diet people, is that such people may be producing ketones in their breath, which a regular breathalyzer cannot distinguish from ethanol. It does not mean that your blood alcohol level is elevated, but that you *may* fail a breathalyzer test.

Most of the ideas proposed are worth considering. Whether they are enforcable and practical is another story.

DancingDaisy

I agree with the alcohol restriction, and in my opinion, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to bring this in across the board.

I'm not so comfortable with the passenger restriction, mainly for selfish reasons, that I tend to do a lot of the family driving in my house, with my dad as my accompanied driver, for practice, and if this was to be brought in then I would have an awful less practice.

The night driving has both positive and negative points. They do have a point about accidents happening more frequently in the early hours of the morning, however, what I didn't quite understand was if this restriction will apply to somebody who has passed their driving test for a specified amount of time, 2 years.

I'm aware that the restricted license has not been introduced yet, but I got the impression from the article that this restriction would apply for two years after the passing of your driving test.

Another issue I had was the suggested 20 hours of mandatory lessons, which according to my calculation amounts to approximately €1000 worth of lessons, I just feel that may be a little excessive.

And finally, I disliked the suggestion of raising the six month limit currently in place for learner permit holders to a one year restriction.

I understand that they are trying to bring Ireland in line with other European countries, however, they need to have the correct resources in place first. Until this is so, it is unlikely, imo, that such restrictions will have the desired effect.

I'm open to being proved wrong though... just hoping I pass my test now that I finally have a date, and hopefully bypass these future restrictions!!

brian076

DancingDaisy wrote: »

Another issue I had was the suggested 20 hours of mandatory lessons, which according to my calculation amounts to approximately €1000 worth of lessons, I just feel that may be a little excessive.

We have probably one of the easiest and most lax driving tests in Europe. About 10 years ago my niece did her test in Germany, at that time she had to do a 6 week course one night a week on theory and pass a very tough test before getting a learner permit. She then had to do a test on town driving, nightime driving and autobahn driving before getting a full licence. During the training period she had to be accompanied by a qualified driving instructor, (no family members) it cost her the equivalent of €5000, so we're getting off very lightly

timmywex

http://www.rsa.ie/NEWS/upload/File/GDL%20Consultation%20Doc%20V3.pdf


Thats the actual document that is up for discusion or whatever, i really like the sounds of the hazard perception test

Wacko

A lot of the new suggestions make sense, we have been getting away with things that haven't been acceptable in a lot of other countries, however the RSA seem to be just making up these new rules without thinking about how they are going to be enforced, they seem to believe that they could say that every driver has to be accompanied by the tooth fairy and expect the Gardai to enforce it but in reality they have much more pressing issues to deal with. I am not sure what measures they will bring in, but they are all useless if everyone doesn't care, also does anyone know if the measures for newly passed drivers will apply just to people who have passed under the new regime or all drivers (i.e. all passed since 2007) ?

DancingDaisy

That's a fair point Brian. I didn't realise that was the case.

Personally, I still feel that amount of money is very excessive, and something that I personally could not afford. If it does come in before I get around to passing a test then I will just have to put off driving until I have finished education and gotten a job and such. I wonder if there are other people who will be in the same position as me.

Maybe the best idea overall would be to bring driving lessons and such into schools, and offer that opportunity to secondary school students over 17.

brian076

I agree it's certainly something which should be taught in schools. As an instructor I'm probably biaised in saying that compulsory lessons should be introduced, but I think 20 is excessive. My gut feeling is that they will probably make it compulsory to have at least 5 pre-test lessons before sitting a test and I don't think that's a bad idea.
Something else which is being considered by the RSA is the re-testing of all drivers. So when you pass your test you get a 10 year licence, but must sit another test before it's renewed. This could be a few years down the line but it could be introduced.

Buffman

Yes, 5 lessons wouldn't be too bad if they insisted (@€;20 each or something). 20 lessons is overkill.

The way forward is school education, not loads of complicated laws.

€5000 really is crazy, how are any young Germans driving at all!!!

jhegarty

They are sending a very bad message saying that you have passed the test and let two year go by , now you have go out with some drink in you.

I would agree with a near zero limit for everyone , but not just for one group (unless the group are people who have a previous ban for drink driving).

If the night time ban means 10pm - 5am , then it's a good idea, if it's the hours of darkness than it's a terrible one.

5 lessons minimum would also be a good idea, let the test sort them out after that.

NukaCola

brian076 wrote: »

Something else which is being considered by the RSA is the re-testing of all drivers. So when you pass your test you get a 10 year licence, but must sit another test before it's renewed. This could be a few years down the line but it could be introduced.

Why would they consider this option seeing as they can barely handle test applications for learner permit drivers and closing SGS centres in the process, that would be laughable, maybe in an ideal world.

Whats the point in introducing anything else really, the current laws are not being enforced and is a little unrealistic really to expect these new laws to be introduced effectively. They seem like good ideas but if learner drivers can drive on the motorway and unaccompanied as many do whats the chance of them being caught driving at night? Zero alcohol should be for everyone. Engine size shouldnt really be an area to be focusing on. Compulsory lessons is a great idea, i would say 10 would be plenty, 20 seems a bit too much. The driving test has to be updated.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brian076

I would imagine it'll be a few years before this is implemented if at all but it's definitely being looked at.
I fully agree with Bumblebee, we're a great country for bringing in new laws, then not enforcing them. I'd love to know how many people have actually been prosecuted for driving un-accompanied or without L plates since last July

hobochris

it should be simular restrictions as motorbike riders have, restricted poser for learners and any who passed their test in the 1st two years. should be 1.4 max or 1.6 desiel.

NukaCola

hobochris wrote: »

it should be simular restrictions as motorbike riders have, restricted poser for learners and any who passed their test in the 1st two years. should be 1.4 max or 1.6 desiel.

Dont see the point in that to be honest, and again big problems enforcing it

hobochris

BumbleBee123 wrote: »

Dont see the point in that to be honest, and again big problems enforcing it

If they can enforce it with bikes then cars would be easier to enforce it with.

It stops naive learners getting powerful cars that they don't have the experience for, often resulting in being another death on the roads.

most traffic corps garda would have a good knowledge of cars and know the engine sizes. and if they don't they can check the chassis plate that's usually in the door well or under the bonnet for engine size.

hobochris

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is something they should bring in once they clear the backlog, maybe next year, providing they put the effort into clearing the backlog of test queues.

NukaCola

hobochris wrote: »

If they can enforce it with bikes then cars would be easier to enforce it with.

It stops naive learners getting powerful cars that they don't have the experience for, often resulting in being another death on the roads.

most traffic corps garda would have a good knowledge of cars and know the engine sizes. and if they don't they can check the chassis plate that's usually in the door well or under the bonnet for engine size.

Do you honestly believe that guards stopping at checkpoints are going to be opening the bonnet for engine sizes and such, no chance.....its enforced on bikes for a very obvious reason, bikes and cars are very different machines. I would not class a 1.6 petrol as a powerful car, i learned and passed my test on one, and insurance is very high for learners on anything over 1.6. The driving accompanied law should be enough for this, also what if you passed your test and needed to drive a 1.8 or 2 litre company car???

NukaCola

hobochris wrote: »

This is something they should bring in once they clear the backlog, maybe next year, providing they put the effort into clearing the backlog of test queues.

That backlog will never be cleared by next year, i`d be against it to be honest unless the RSA pay for the test/tests and time i`d be missing from work, aswell as keeping the test waiting list really low

Mmmm_Lemony

BumbleBee123 wrote: »

...bikes and cars are very different machines...

Please explain why?

NukaCola

Mmmm_Lemony wrote: »

Please explain why?

Theres quite a lot, google it....

Buffman

hobochris wrote: »

This is something they should bring in once they clear the backlog, maybe next year, providing they put the effort into clearing the backlog of test queues.

The backlog will never be cleared, especially as they are now closing lots of the SGS centres.

Mmmm_Lemony wrote: »

Please explain why?

Bikes are a different story, for one as it is practically impossible for a male under 30 say, to get insured on one as a learner.

Engine size is not really an issue. Due to our tax levels we do not have 'powerful' cars as such. 1.6L petrol, 1.9L diesel, even a 2.0L petrol would not be considered powerful compared to other countries. Look at the UK/US, where V8's and the like are far more common. Thats powerful.

With 1.0L cars now able to do 140+km/h easily, I really don't see the point.
As I said before somewhere else, this would unfairly penalise people learning in their parents car.

Wishbone Ash

Interesting discussion lads/ladies.

In relation to the 'power' restrictions, I'd imagine that it would be done on power output rather than cubic capacity (as in motorcycles). I drive a 3 litre car but it is only 189bhp. Many 2 litre cars are more powerful and I'd imagine that many of the smaller 'skanger mobiles' that tear around my area are probably more powerful too.

Someone made a very valid point that the prohibitive cost of insurance (especially for young males) already regulates this end of things (except for the very well off).

The whole 'mouthwash' debate is a red herring but if a learner was to have one of Mrs WA's sherry trifles or Christmas puddings, they would probably be over the limit for some time!

And, even though I accept that the RSA do not enforce the law, I do agree that enforcement of the existing regulations (or even the former regulations) would be a lot more effective.

jhegarty

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

In relation to the 'power' restrictions, I'd imagine that it would be done on power output rather than cubic capacity (as in motorcycles).

It should really be on power/weight ratio. Some older barges take about 2 weeks to get to 60 with a 2l engine.

But do you really expect sense like that from the RSA ?

zonEEE

Agree with the alcohol limit but thats just about it, what are people that work nights or finish their **** during the night meant to do? Maybe if the country had a decent public transport then it would be ok but at the moment its utter useless.

Wishbone Ash

strongr wrote: »

what are people that work nights or finish their **** during the night meant to do?

I know this isn't what you want to hear but a Provisional Licence/Learner Permit is granted to allow access to public roads for the purposes of learning to drive. It is not granted to allow you to get to and from work.

brian076

Hopefully everyone who has contributed to this thread will contact the RSA with their views,<GDLconsultation@rsa.ie> otherwise they'll think everyone is happy with their proposals

DancingDaisy

I'm not sure about anyone else, but the point strongr has made about driving to and from work seems pretty fair to me.

The impression I got from document was that these regulations would effect you for the two years after learning to drive, as that this particular restricted license idea would come into force at the same time.

I am open to correction though.

I plan to email my observations to the rsa as soon as my exams are over and I have the time to put them into coherent English!

I have no issue with Learner permit holders being unable to drive unaccompanied, but I feel that if you are accompanied at night by an experienced driver, who is capable of taking over from you if you begin to feel tired or have difficulties, then the dangers are lessened.

I think it's important to have that experience under your belt as a learner, rather that end up in a situation, when you have your full license, that you have no experience in. Again, that is only the opinion of someone who has been on the roads for approximately six months, so I am not the voice of experience or any thing even like it!!!

Buffman

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I know this isn't what you want to hear but a Provisional Licence/Learner Permit is granted to allow access to public roads for the purposes of learning to drive. It is not granted to allow you to get to and from work.

I think he is talking about their proposal to restrict people after they pass the test, the 'newely quailified' drivers.

IMO you have either proven you can drive and passed, or not met the standard and failed. A lot of jobs require a full unrestricted licence, so this proposal could mean that people will have to wait at least 6+24=30 months for a full full licence (not a typo, can't think of anything else to call it)
Thats if they don't increase the 6 month rule aswell.

brian076 wrote: »

Hopefully everyone who has contributed to this thread will contact the RSA with their views,<GDLconsultation@rsa.ie> otherwise they'll think everyone is happy with their proposals

I definitely will be, probably just copy and paste my posts from here.:D
Closing date is Fri 13 March09.

ironclaw

I'm for the alcohol limit and the limit to car occupants. From school etc its stupid the amount you can fit into a car... :mad:

Not really keen on the night restriction. Seems abit pointless seeing as most fatal accidents (Or are more likely to) occur at night

The restriction after could work. As long as it allows for motor usage etc and unaccompanied driving. But on the same regard, it should be easier to pass your test. Maybe continous assessment? One test before restriction and one after?

Done some more reading:

It has long been recognized that young, novice drivers are poor at detecting and assessing hazards

- Bit of a white wash that one

Upgraded Driving Test

- I think its hard enough as it stands. The average pass rate is 60%, so 1 in 3 fail.

daveharnett

timmywex wrote: »

2) Night time curfew............so when they qualify they suddenly learn how to drive during the night, bit rediculous imo

Nobody is talking about restricting learners to the daylight hours, just keeping them off the roads from midnight till six(or thereabouts).

timmywex wrote: »

3) Restricted driving after test is passed! The person has passed the test, theyve shown they can drive, why restrict them!

The peice of paper shows one has demonstrated a basic level of competence. It does not magically increase one's ability. I think it makes a lot of gradually removing restrictions as experience builds.

timmywex wrote: »

Sure they dont have much expirience but people through the years have got on fine, the best way to learn and gain expirience is by being at the deepend

Bollocks to that. That attitude exemplifies the problem with Irish motoring. People have not "got on fine", they have died in their scores through their own and others complacency and overconficence.

Zonda999

daveharnett wrote: »

Nobody is talking about restricting learners to the daylight hours, just keeping them off the roads from midnight till six(or thereabouts).

Why though?? Really cant see any point in that. I do agree with mandatory pre-test lessons though

Buffman

daveharnett wrote: »

Nobody is talking about restricting learners to the daylight hours, just keeping them off the roads from midnight till six(or thereabouts).

Whats the point? If a learner is obeying the current law as it stands, he/she will be accompanied and it should not matter what time of the day it is.

daveharnett wrote: »

The peice of paper shows one has demonstrated a basic level of competence. It does not magically increase one's ability. I think it makes a lot of gradually removing restrictions as experience builds.

Thats the whole idea of the mandatory 6 month wait between first permit & test now. We all know that driving is a continuous learning experience, but at some point the 'training wheels' have to come off. At the moment this point is the driving test and I don't see why it should change.

daveharnett wrote: »

Bollocks to that. That attitude exemplifies the problem with Irish motoring. People have not "got on fine", they have died in their scores through their own and others complacency and overconficence.

If people break the law and die, more laws are not going to solve the problem. I would love to see the stats of how many law abiding learners were involved in fatal accidents.

SeanW

As a person who tends towards libertarianism, I feel the government frequently governs best when they get the hell out of the way, and let people live their own lives as they see fit tempered only to repsect the rights of others. As such, I tend not to take the view that a problem can be dealt with by a government trifecta of Tax, Ban and Regulate.

So as you might imagine, I have a serious problem with this proposal by the RSA, which seems to be no more than picking on an easy target.

In particular given what I've read about the whole RSA vs. SGS driver testing, I had to laugh when on one of the first few pages, there was mention of an example in Canada where obtaining a full unrestricted drivers license entails a Byzantine two driving tests over several years setup, and I had to laugh given how much difficulty the RSA has providing a single driving test system that actually functions.
Trying to solve problems by burying people (and businesses) in red tape is IMO a silly and irresponsible idea at the best of times, but when the current system under your remit is so badly run, to propose adding to that is just breathtakingly arrogant beyond words. I intend to write the RSA a polite but strongly worded letter, telling them exactly what I think of them.

But that doesn't mean I think the government should just step aside and allow anarchy on the roads either. In particular, there are some things I think could be done.
1) Bring some form of Drivers Education (Drivers Ed.) to 2nd level schools, show those graphic videos about the carnage caused by dangerous driving, speeding, drinking etc, as well as providing theoretical instruction in the rules of the road and so on.
2) Continue to invest in transportation, both Motorways and public transport (the former being a safer way to travel by road, the latter getting people off the roads
3) Convert busy T-Junctions and crossroards to roundabout, mini-roundabout, or add traffic lights.
4) Take the speed traps off the dual-carriageways with 80km/h limits and put them on dangerous roads and accident blacksposts.
5) Other reasonable measures that may be formulated.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dudara

We need to bring driving education into schools, so everyone learns the same techniques and rules in the same manner (no more being taught by your parents).

A comprehensive driving test, that covers all major areas of driving. Additionally it cannot be taken unless you have completed a set number of hours in training (this could be part of the school-based training, supplemented by lessons from approved instructors).

We need to bring the alcohol level down for ALL drivers.

Mandatory retesting every 10 years for all licensed drivers (this is a bit of a pipedream, but if they ever got the testing system sorted...)

I don't see the point of the engine size restrictions. There are a lot of nippy, powerful small cars out there.

In short, I don't think anything that I've said above is ridiculous. It's pretty much all common sense. The question is whether we continue with our pretty ridiculous system, or we make an effort to change.

brian076

One of the problems we have with regard to comprehensive testing is our infrastructure. In Germany you have to pass a test on the Autobahn before getting a full licence. How do you get tested here on motorways if you live in west Cork or Donegal?

Buffman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Stats would probably show that in the first 10 years of driving a higher % of drivers have been involved in accidents. (I'm just speculating here before anyone starts:)) So where do we draw the line. It's a legal minimum of 6 months experience at the moment.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yep, as I said somewhere before, the current test is more suited to the 60's, not modern day driving.

brian076 wrote: »

One of the problems we have with regard to comprehensive testing is our infrastructure. In Germany you have to pass a test on the Autobahn before getting a full licence. How do you get tested here on motorways if you live in west Cork or Donegal?

Yep, that could be an issue. Some sort of simulator or something maybe?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brian076

I think what is likely to happen, is that when someone passes their theory test they will receive a Cert which will allow them to take a compulsory 10 lessons. Once these have been completed they will then receive a Learner Permit. They must then keep a log of their driving experience which will be maintained by their supervising driver, and before they sit their test they will have to take a minimum of 5 pre-test lessons.
On the day of their test they will have to present this documentation to the tester before they are taken out on the road.

daveharnett

Buffman wrote: »

Whats the point? If a learner is obeying the current law as it stands, he/she will be accompanied and it should not matter what time of the day it is.

The unspoken motive here is to prevent learners from driving after pub and club chucking out time. Assuming the driver is sober and properly supervised, a group of drunk mates in the back is still a serious distraction.

Personally, I don't agree that that is a good enough reason - if enforced, the extra-low alcahol limit, the supervision requirement and the limit on passengers already have that particular problem covered.

I would consider the curfew worthwhile because there are other factors that make late night driving particularly dangerous - tiredness, higher risk of ice and other inclement weather, increased risk of other road users acting unpredictably (for various reasons). Learners have enough challenges to overcome in their first few months without dealing with this stuff.