Learners - Restrict the cars they can drive?

Hagar

This morning I was passed on a narrow country road, at a bend coming up to a hump-backed bridge by a genius in a "Crew Cab". About 2 km up the road I passed him parked in a lay-by chatting to a van driver. A few minutes later he caught up with me again and passed me as we entered a blind bend.
He had learner plates up.
Now my point is should learners be allowed drive vehicles of this size 3.0l TD? They have little or no experience and seem to think that they are invulnerable in a big 4x4. Should learners be restricted to say 1 litre vehicles until they at least pass their test?

Cuddlesworth

I think you will find that a bad driver is still a bad driver in a 1 litre car.

Hagar

Without a doubt, but he could do less damage to other road users than he could in a big yoke with bullbars on the front.


I've nothing against 4x4 with bullbars at all, just the invincible attitude their drivers seem to have.

Cathmandooo

No because people like myself learn in family member's cars and can't afford to buy themselves a car to learn in. I didn't and still don't have enough need for my own car to warrant buying one.

A muppet on the road will always be a muppet on the road no matter what car they drive.

pwd

Why not just restrict the size of all cars for this reason then? Smaller cars are more fuel efficient and therefore less damaging to the environment also. Plus it would reduce the "car as a status symbol" rubbish.

Cuddlesworth

I pointed this out in another thread but I might as well point it out here.

Motorbikes carry a weight to brake horse power restriction on a provisional, and for two full years after getting a full license.

Restricted bikes can in general do any speed limit. But because of the restriction, you can't go far beyond even with a 500c bike or a 1400cc sports bike.

You carry a cert for the restriction, you can choose to remove it and keep the cert but if in a accident the insurance company will hold you liable as you were driving outside of the terms of your license. You have people doing this but they are the same people who would drive drunk or without insurance anyway.

There is no good reason why it can't be applied to cars in this country. Cars around 1-1.2 litres with a low bhp would not need them(being classed as learner legal). Young lads with no experience would not be able to drive around in 200+bhp cars for around 2 years, or if they did the cars could be impounded if found to not be restricted properly.

I dont think it would be fair as most people learn to drive on a parents car and more often than not they are 1.6L or more so it would mean people would have to buy their own car which is not parctical for most people of that age or get heaps of expensive lessons in order to practice instead of just driving a parents car.

OP its quite possible that the person driving the pick-up was a parent or older brother/sister of a person learning to drive and just didnt take down the L plates.

Hagar

I saw the guy when he was stopped, he looked about 20/21. Hard to be 100% sure though.

Flyer1

How do you know the person driving the crewcab was a learner and didn't just have the plates up for someone else driving the car ?

A fool driving a car will be a fool no matter what size engine they have.

--amadeus--

Of course the answer would probably be to have a law that stopped learner drivers driving unaccompanied, then the relative power wouldn't matter as they would be supervised. You know, learner drivers only driving when they are actually learning type thing. But hey, knowing this country even if such a law was passed it'd never be enforced!

Eoin

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Of course the answer would probably be to have a law that stopped learner drivers driving unaccompanied, then the relative power wouldn't matter as they would be supervised. You know, learner drivers only driving when they are actually learning type thing. But hey, knowing this country even if such a law was passed it'd never be enforced!

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but that law is in place now.

Vegeta

I cant think of many cars that are not capable of breaking the speed limits

Cionád

Whats the obsession with cc size? I know of many 1 litre cars that accelerate faster & have higher top speed than my 2ltr diesel. - Yet some insurance companies wouldnt even consider me until I had 3 yrs no claims under my belt (even with a full license!).

Power to weight ratio may be an idea though.

SV

I said to restrict it to 1.6./

Not serious though, I drive a car with a normally aspirated 1.6 engine and it's quick enough to make a show of most everyday cars on the road.( As long as they're not above 2 litres )

Stark

Cionád wrote: »

Power to weight ratio may be an idea though.

A heavier car will still do more damage than a light car.

If there was some enforcement on supervision of learner drivers, then the cc of the car shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps in the current enforcement climate, a restriction on what someone is licensed to drive could be an idea. I would be in favour of a reasonably high cc though so as to avoid causing undue inconvenience to families who would own a 1.4L or 1.6L car and have children learning to drive. Not to mention that if Mummy and Daddy have to go out and buy a 1.0L car specially for Junior to learn to drive, what's the betting that the car is just going to be left sitting there while mummy and daddy are unavailable to accompany to Junior...

Cuddlesworth

Tbh, I'm quite young and I have a problem with 18 year olds with no driving experience getting a license in 8 weeks and driving high powered cars.

ronkmonster

Why do we need over 1.6L engines in general when speed limits are 100/120.

Rev limiters would probably be more useful for learner drivers.

Cuddlesworth

ronkmonster wrote: »

Why do we need over 1.6L engines in general when speed limits are 100/120.

Rev limiters would probably be more useful for learner drivers.

Because due to some absolutely horrendous drivers in this country, there are times when sharp acceleration is needed at speed. Learner drivers should not be putting themselves in those situations though.

markpb

Adelina Clever Rioter wrote: »

I dont think it would be fair as most people learn to drive on a parents car and more often than not they are 1.6L or more so it would mean people would have to buy their own car which is not parctical for most people of that age or get heaps of expensive lessons in order to practice instead of just driving a parents car.

Of course, that brings with it the extra benefit that the person is taught to drive by a competent, qualified, registered instructor and not just their Dad who has been driving for years and is, therefore, an expert.

ronkmonster

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Because due to some absolutely horrendous drivers in this country, there are times when sharp acceleration is needed at speed. Learner drivers should not be putting themselves in those situations though.

But they'd still have the acceleration but only up to the legal speed limit.
And 1.6L have more than enough power in terms of acceleration.

My two previous cars were lower litres and was hard to overtake but the car was still able to go over the limit.

but43r

If you are under 25 with no claims bonus it's very hard to find a company who would insure you on "high performance" cars and even if they do the premium is over the roof.

**** driver is going to be a **** driver no matter what car they drive... Instead there should be more Gards around to try to catch the instead of them just spinning around town and doing nothing....

Saab Ed

I think if you restrict certain drivers to certain cars you're gonna push the relative worth of that group of cars through the roof. Different rules for the first 2 years would be my answer. Display a P Plate ( i.e test passed provisonal licence but no full licence for 2 years) Zero Alcohol , All speed limits reduced slightly, 6 points to licence loss and not 12 with a full, 12 month driving compitence test, Any driving offence which results in a court apperance will meen a loss of provisonal licence and the test must be re-taken and provisional drivers must start on their own insurance policy and not that of a named driver on a parents policy etc.

Stark

markpb wrote: »

Of course, that brings with it the extra benefit that the person is taught to drive by a competent, qualified, registered instructor and not just their Dad who has been driving for years and is, therefore, an expert.

Unfortunately this is Ireland and what it will mean in practice is people will buy runabouts specially for "learning" to drive and we'll see more of "how can you expect me not to use my car after I bought it?". At least in the case of an expensive family car, the parents might be paranoid about letting their inexperienced youngster take the car out for a spin on their own.

positron

I am against restriction for various reasons - but I think some CBT (compulsory basic training) is a good idea.

And Government should part pay the cost. And the lower insurance for learner drivers and other road users, more tax to Government from trainers, more life's saved on the roads etc are the benefits - everyone wins!

GERMAN ROCKS

what trash some of ye post. so if there parents have a car above 1.0 which i would say is 90% of families have, you wanted the learner to go away and buy a car specially to regulate with these new laws some of ye propose. then when they have the license they are allowed get what they want. what about people who will then be doing high milage and need a diesel. what diesel car comes in 1.0. also what if they need to pull something like a caravan do ye think the 1.0 will then pull it away happily.

Toots

GERMAN ROCKS wrote: »

also what if they need to pull something like a caravan do ye think the 1.0 will then pull it away happily.

What learner driver is going to be pulling a caravan?????

kbell

GERMAN ROCKS wrote: »

what diesel car comes in 1.0.

I had a '93 Daihatsu Charade 1.0 turbo diesel :pac:

Eric Cartman

Toots85 wrote: »

What learner driver is going to be pulling a caravan?????

the parents might, why inconvenience them too.

i learned to drive in a 3.3 litre 270bhp and a 2.5 litre 170bhp car. My first and current car is a 2.5 litre 168bhp, ive never crashed into anything (with the exception of 1 mild scrape on a bumper of another car) , im only 19 and have had my full licence for 1 1/2 years , this sh1te about learner drivers being restricted by engine size in nonsense, a bad driver is a bad driver,

Sandwich

Yes.
And anyone under the age of 25.

challengemaster

Saab Ed wrote: »

Zero Alcohol

You might be surprised, but new drivers tend to be the ones who are taking this most seriously IMO. All of my friends, if they're driving on a night out, won't drink at all. Was at a house party (double 18th) 2 weeks ago, about 6 people didn't touch a drink as they were driving. It seems to be the older drivers who seem to think they don't need to pay attention to this law.

All speed limits reduced slightly

Erm... It's not exactly the speed of sound we're travelling. In fact, where I am, most of the speed limits are 80km/h already. If you seriously expect me to drive at 60km/h on a main road, where everyone else is doing 80 (or those few who like to do 100+), all you're doing is creating an obstruction on the roads. Other drivers will get even more annoyed with newer drivers, and you're more likely to cause an accident. Also the fact it takes so bloody long to get anywhere doing 80 already... wouldn't be worth my while going anywhere at a reduced speed.

12 month driving compitence test

Erm, a second driving test? I think that wouldn't work very well. We all already know how badly the government is dealing with 1 driving test per person already.

Any driving offence which results in a court apperance will meen a loss of provisonal licence and the test must be re-taken and provisional drivers must start on their own insurance policy and not that of a named driver on a parents policy etc.

Well that's all nice and dandy, except you're ignoring the fact that any Garda who's having a really bad week, or is just a pr!ck, can take you to court for going a few km/h over the speed limit, or pretty much anything small if he fancies. Meaning that a small mistake on behalf of the learner driver (who may just be getting to terms with the cars controls, maintaining speed etc) would end up without a license.

I don't think the size should be limited. I think most people are smart enough when choosing a car, not going for something with a big engine unless they've no choice (eg. parents car). Firstly, it will come down to insurance and the running costs. If some twats happen to get hold of high powered cars and kill themselves acting the maggot, so be it. Survival of the fittest, Evolution, etc etc. It's just another way of adding a bit of chlorine to the gene pool.

Power isn't the issue. Its possible to do lots of harm in a Fiat cinquecento.

Its just that some powerful cars tend to be a bit trickier to handle.

Eoin

challengemaster wrote: »

I think most people are smart enough when choosing a car, not going for something with a big engine unless they've no choice (eg. parents car). Firstly, it will come down to insurance and the running costs.

I think you've got it the wrong way around. You're right that the insurance is normally the first factor, but I'd say that an awful lot of young males get the quickest car their insurance allows for, rather than avoiding a big engine unless they have to.

challengemaster wrote: »

If some twats happen to get hold of high powered cars and kill themselves acting the maggot, so be it. Survival of the fittest, Evolution, etc etc. It's just another way of adding a bit of chlorine to the gene pool.

Bit of a pisser for the people they crash into though.

challengemaster

eoin wrote: »

I think you've got it the wrong way around. You're right that the insurance is normally the first factor, but I'd say that an awful lot of young males get the quickest car their insurance allows for, rather than avoiding a big engine unless they have to.

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but personally I decided to get a nice small car to learn in and then when I'm older, have experience and a nice NCB, get a decent car with a bigger engine. That way I probably won't end up killing anyone, or having a massive insurance cost

SAABMAN

challengemaster wrote: »

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but personally I decided to get a nice small car to learn in and then when I'm older, have experience and a nice NCB, get a decent car with a bigger engine. That way I probably won't end up killing anyone, or having a massive insurance cost

Hmmm. Something like a nice Nissan 350

challengemaster

SAABMAN wrote: »

Hmmm. Something like a nice Nissan 350

Oh, you guessed! I wonder how :pac:

Luke Crowley

Power to weight ratio is the real issue here, not engine size. I'm not in favour of imposing any limits, but if it had to be done, I reckon a limit of, say, 80 b.h.p. per tonne for learner drivers would be a lot more effective than any limit on engine capacity.

A 1.4 litre Honda Civic will blow the doors off an 8.2 litre Cadillac Fleetwood, but there's no getting away from power-to-weight ratio.

Vertakill

Cionád wrote: »

Whats the obsession with cc size? I know of many 1 litre cars that accelerate faster & have higher top speed than my 2ltr diesel. - Yet some insurance companies wouldnt even consider me until I had 3 yrs no claims under my belt (even with a full license!).

Power to weight ratio may be an idea though.

I completely agree.

People, along with insurance companies, have some strange notion about engine size and tend to disregard the actual power of a car sometimes.

Taking this poll into consideration, you could go out and buy yourself a Suzuki Cappuccino (650cc and 0-60 in under 9 seconds'ish) on your provisional license where you need absolutely no experience and I'm sure you're fairly likely to have some hairy moments.

challengemaster wrote: »

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but personally I decided to get a nice small car to learn in and then when I'm older, have experience and a nice NCB, get a decent car with a bigger engine. That way I probably won't end up killing anyone, or having a massive insurance cost

SAABMAN wrote: »

Hmmm. Something like a nice Nissan 350

That's actually exactly what I did. I went from a Colt (75bhp) to a Celica (190bhp) to the 350Z. I think it's a pretty good learning curve so I didn't lose the run of myself too early!

DonJose

The only car a learner should drive is a driving school car!!! No wonder we have such bad drivers when they learn the mistakes of their parents, partners or whoever in the family taught them. The sooner the guards crack down on learner drivers driving unaccompanied, the better for all of us.

Saab Ed

Challengemaster all I can say ( and Im sorry if this sound condescending but theres no other way ) when your're a little older you'll see the bigger picture. Its not us against them, its just that ( like your parents always said and it pis**es you off ) we've been there and done that and some have even been unlucky enough to have worn the T-shirt. Being older allows you to see the s**t that will happen that you just cant see when you're younger.