[Article] 6,000 learner drivers fined for breaking law

munchkin_utd

THOUSANDS of learner drivers face having to pay fines of up to €1,000 after being caught driving alone or without having an 'L' plate displayed.

The Irish Independent can reveal that gardai have caught almost 6,000 provisional licence holders breaking tough new laws introduced on July 1 last year.

snip.....

The figures show that between July 1 and December 1 last year, 2,966 drivers have been issued with summonses for failing to display 'L' plates.
There is no data available from December 2008 to June 2009.
Another 2,716 drivers have been issued with summonses for driving unaccompanied by a qualified driver.

snip....

Road safety groups criticised the lack of data readily available, and said that enforcing the law would send the message that inexperienced drivers would be prosecuted.

Susan Gray from Public Against Road Carnage said: "Many of these are young male drivers who are involved in so many of our serious and fatal crashes."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/6000-learner-drivers-fined-for-breaking-law-1807392.html

WOW.
I am stunned.
After years of turning a blind eye to this type of thing, the Guards are now coming down like a ton of bricks on people who are breaking the law.

I still expect the offenders to get away with nothing more than 20 euro for the court poor box and a slap on the wrist and a promise not to do it again. "Sure wasnt poor old johnny just driving to work" etc etc.
We'll have to wait and see.

Capt'n Midnight

What do they mean UP to €1,000 ?


http://www.rsa.ie/SERVICES/upload/File/Licensing/Summary%20of%20Changes%20effective%20after%20June%2030th.pdf

Summary of changes as it applies to learner permit holders (the changes also apply to persons holding a
provisional license). All provisional licenses are now considered to be learner permit.
The exemption that allows a second learner permit holder in license category B (car) to drive
unaccompanied ends on 30 June 2008.
After 30 June 2008 all learner permit holder driving cars, trucks, buses and articulated
vehicles must be accompanied by a person who holds a full driving license in the license
category for a continuous period of two years. Driving any of these vehicles without a
qualified person accompanying is a penal offence.
Penal Offences are being created for certain breaches of traffic law by learner drivers. These
offences are punishable by a fine of a minimum of €1,000 for a first offence.

Vorsprung

I know of one such driver who was fined a little over €2000 (friend my girlfriend's)

murphaph

T'is high time the roads were treated a bit more seriously by the powers that be. Hopefully this is the beginning of a realisation by An Garda Siochana that there's more to policing the roads than pointing a radar/laser gun at people on a motorway.

munchkin_utd

Irish journalism sometimes seems to be little more than a press release collation exercise.
And they cant even get that right.

But its good to see the minimum fine there, taking the power away from cranky district court judges to impose minimal poor box contributions.

Another legal measure was being spoken of to help improve driver competance. Was it not planned to make taking driving lessons compulsorary before taking the test?

Does anyone not get the conection between lack of formal driver training and road safety/ high driving test failure rates?

bmaxi

murphaph wrote: »

T'is high time the roads were treated a bit more seriously by the powers that be. Hopefully this is the beginning of a realisation by An Garda Siochana that there's more to policing the roads than pointing a radar/laser gun at people on a motorway.

I doubt it, anything else might involve using initiative.

Wow that should make some people think again about driving alone

What is the average wait for driving test now anyone know?

murphaph

Think it's only 6 weeks or so.

Tech3

murphaph wrote:

Think it's only 6 weeks or so.

Yeah waiting lists have been like that for the last year or so now. Theres no excuses for these learners illegally driving on their own. They have been warned several times and even given a year to pass their tests before the law was even enforced.

Vorsprung wrote:

I know of one such driver who was fined a little over €2000 (friend my girlfriend's)

That person must have been caught withouth their L plates displayed and without an accompanied fully licensed driver. If the L plates were displayed in that case the fine would have been 1000 euro.

jhegarty

murphaph wrote: »

Think it's only 6 weeks or so.

9.5 weeks from the RSA figures.

If you live in Tallaght it's 16 weeks.

Guy:Incognito

6,000 and all they managed to show on Traffic Blues is people being let go?

corktina

they should be shouting those figures from the rooftops...I see offenders of this nature every day.

You'd need to see a real breakdown of those figures.... off course there will be some, as there will be instances where someone has no NCT/Tax and is stopped at a checkpoint add in the lack of L plates,also learners who were breaking the law(speeding, breaking a light etc...) and add in the boy racers and i'd say that makes up quite a sizeable figure in that.

I doubt there was too many who were summoned who had everything in order.... i'm on a permit and while i'll drive without a driver i wouldn't dream off driving without plates, tax, insurance or NCT and i personally have no fear with those things in order

I believe these prosecutions have come as a result of added complications the driver brought on themselves

ardmacha

I doubt there was too many who were summoned who had everything in order.... i'm on a permit and while i'll drive without a driver i wouldn't dream off driving without plates, tax, insurance or NCT and i personally have no fear with those things in order

Hopefully you are naive, and there are at least some Gardai willing to do their job.

murphaph

gilberto_eire wrote: »

i'm on a permit and while i'll drive without a driver <snip>

You are not qualified to drive a car and simply should not be doing so gilberto. You may be the best driver in the world for all I know but we have a process for you to prove your ability to drive to the rest of us before we (society) let you drive unaccompanied.

Whatever excuse there used to be about year long waiting lists are long gone mate and you should have no more than about 2 months to wait for a test. For your sake I hope you pass your test before you're stopped and summonsed to court (driving without a licence is a court appearance, not an on the spot matter) but if you are summonsed I'm afraid to say I won't shed any tears.

Our driving test isn't even that demanding in comparison to most EU states.

Capt'n Midnight

gilberto_eire wrote: »

i'm on a permit and while i'll drive without a driver i wouldn't dream off driving without plates, tax, insurance or NCT and i personally have no fear with those things in order

self certification eh ?

judging by driving test pass rates it's 50:50 that a learner who thinks they can drive can pass what must be the easiest test in the OECD. And the standard of Irish drivers who have passed the test !

What's that thing called where someone who is learning thinks their competance is greater than it actually is ?


Government could make a lot of money if they enforced this fully

Alun

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

self certification eh ?

Indeed. I don't understand why these people don't understand what nonsense this is.

[sarcasm mode]
In fact, reflecting on it for a moment, that's such a great money and time saving idea, we really should be looking at extending it to other skills such as doctors, surgeons, nurses and airline pilots as well. Think of the money we'd save
[/sarcasm mode]

dowlingm

Ontario graduated licencing

G1

• vision and rules/signs exam (40 multichoice q's)
• must be accompanied (front seat) by licenced driver 4 years exp and <0.05 blood alcohol
• no motorway driving
• no driving from midnight to 05:00
• zero blood alcohol

G2

• must pass G1 Exit Road Test
• can drive unaccompanied
• can drive on motorways
• zero blood alcohol
• cannot carry more passengers than working seatbelts
• from midnight to 0500 G2s under 19 years old can only carry one passenger aged 19 or under.
• After the first six months, and until the G2 driver earns a full G licence or turns 20, they can carry only three passengers aged 19 or under.
• G2 status expires so you can't just not bother going on

G

• full licence
• must pass G2 Exit Road Test to get it
• Blood alcohol - if you’re caught driving with a blood alcohol concentration from 0.05 to 0.08 (the "warn range"), the police can immediately suspend your licence up to three days for a first occurrence, seven days for a second occurrence and 30 days for a third or subsequent occurrence. >0.08 is a criminal offence.

munchkin_utd

The law quoted in an earlier post shows that its a minimum of 1000Euro fine for breaking these rules.

Penal Offences are being created for certain breaches of traffic law by learner drivers. These
offences are punishable by a fine of a minimum of €1,000 for a first offence.

From a quick search of the local newspapers, the judges are issuing much lower fines that the statutory minimum.
example:

Fined for driving unaccompanied

A MAN WHO was driving without a qualified driver beside him has since passed his test Wicklow District Court heard last Tuesday.

Luke Day ( 19), 197 Season Park, Newtownmountkennedy was charged with failing to be accompanied by a qualified driver, failing to display L plates and driving without a driving licence at Rosanna, Ashford on February 16, 2009.

Appearing before Judge Murrough Connellan, Day said that the car had since been scrapped and he had passed his test.

He told Judge Connellan it was hard to have a qualified driver in the car at all time.

Judge Connellan fined him €150 for failing to be accompanied, € 150 for failing to display L plates and took the matter of driving without a driving licence into account

http://www.wicklowpeople.ie/news/fined-for-driving-unaccompanied-1933888.html
Theres other cases with similar fines if you search around at the end of last year. Only in repeated cases does it seem that you get a higher fine.

No doubt I am opening a can of worms here, but if you can get away with a mere 150 euro fine, then driving on your own is still a perfectly valid option across the praries of Ireland to consider if you need a way to get to work or college and dont have a public transport or other alternative.

Cookie_Monster

munchkin_utd wrote: »

The law quoted in an earlier post shows that its a minimum of 1000Euro fine for breaking these rules.


From a quick search of the local newspapers, the judges are issuing much lower fines that the statutory minimum.
example:

http://www.wicklowpeople.ie/news/fined-for-driving-unaccompanied-1933888.html
Theres other cases with similar fines if you search around at the end of last year. Only in repeated cases does it seem that you get a higher fine.

No doubt I am opening a can of worms here, but if you can get away with a mere 150 euro fine, then driving on your own is still a perfectly valid option across the praries of Ireland to consider if you need a way to get to work or college and dont have a public transport or other alternative.

WTF, what's the point in having a minimum fine if its not going to be imposed :mad:

The reason the fine is so high is to discourage all the idiots from driving by themselves, if you know it only going to be 100 or 150 thats not that big a deal.

whosedaddy?

A disgrace, but what do you expect.. more of the same. judges handing down those lenient fines (or sentences in other cases).

Btw, I was wondering what is the penalty for repeat offenders?
It's not in the "summary of changes doc" attached to the thread.

getting caught unaccompanied should get your license suspended (taken off you by the guards) for 6 weeks. repeat offenders should resit the test.... that should sort it.

Cookie_Monster

whosedaddy? wrote: »

repeat offenders should resit the test.... that should sort it.

the haven't sat the test in the first place, thats the problem :pac:

whosedaddy?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the haven't sat the test in the first place, thats the problem :pac:

true - I see the flaw in my argument

Davidth88

it's quite simple isn't it ?
if you don't have a valid licence you should not be insured.

No insurance , thanks we will have that car thank you , and crush it.

Capt'n Midnight

Davidth88 wrote: »

it's quite simple isn't it ?
if you don't have a valid licence you should not be insured.

No insurance , thanks we will have that car thank you , and crush it.

Learners on Daddy's or Mommy's car
Learners with a banger
not as easy as you think


Car should be stopped there and then, person told it will be a criminal offence to move it unless they get an accompanying driver, other options are call a tow truck or have it lifted and pay the resulting fines.

Capt'n Midnight

Davidth88 wrote: »

it's quite simple isn't it ?
if you don't have a valid licence you should not be insured.

No insurance , thanks we will have that car thank you , and crush it.

"Here are your messages: 'You have 30 minutes to move your car', 'You have 10 minutes', 'Your car has been impounded', 'Your car has been crushed into a cube', 'You have 30 minutes to move your cube'".

munchkin_utd

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

"Here are your messages: 'You have 30 minutes to move your car', 'You have 10 minutes', 'Your car has been impounded', 'Your car has been crushed into a cube', 'You have 30 minutes to move your cube'".

Slightly different matter, but seeing as you were speaking of impounding learner drivers cars, it can happen in Northern Ireland as southern learners/ provos aren't ever valid up there in the first place.
The threat of impounding sure has its dramatic effects!

A woman from the Belturbet area who went shopping in Northern Ireland last week and was driving on a provisional licence accompanied by a full licence holder had an interesting experience after being stopped her in the Derrylin area at a multi-agency checkpoint.

The lady was informed that they had the right to seize her car due to the fact that she was driving in the jurisdiction without a full licence. She had to pay over a few hundred sterling to retrieve her car, as they were going to take it away.

The Anglo-Celt understands that the gardaí do not have the power to seize a car under similar circumstances.

Published: Wednesday, 22nd April, 2009 11:57am
http://www.anglocelt.ie/news/roundup/articles/2009/04/22/38721-provisionals-banned-from-northern-ireland/print

EDIT:
I would contrast this with the Africian woman on the RTE programme Blue Patrol(??).
On a provisional with no accompanied driver, and a car with more children than seats,nor any belted in (let alone having proper child seats as is required) shes heading down the motorway.
The guard pulled her over. Said "Careful now", and sent her on her way down the motorway with children bouncing all about the car.

Comedy. You couldn't make it up.

Davidth88

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Learners on Daddy's or Mommy's car
Learners with a banger
not as easy as you think


Car should be stopped there and then, person told it will be a criminal offence to move it unless they get an accompanying driver, other options are call a tow truck or have it lifted and pay the resulting fines.

Learners with a banger , not a problem , they make a nice cube, 1000 euro fine.

Learners with parents ( or whoever car ) , get out of the car please , impound until someone with valid licence/insurance picks it up , 1000 Euro fine .

I really don't understand why these people are covered by insurance , after all they don't have a valid licence .

Cookie_Monster

Davidth88 wrote: »

I really don't understand why these people are covered by insurance , after all they don't have a valid licence .

This is the real problem, if people knew they wouldn't be insured most of them wouldn't drive. Insurance companies should refuse cover unless accompanied, or at least refuse to payout for anything other than 3rd party and seek that back off the learner via courts

Mitch Connor

Davidth88 wrote: »

Learners with a banger , not a problem , they make a nice cube, 1000 euro fine.

Learners with parents ( or whoever car ) , get out of the car please , impound until someone with valid licence/insurance picks it up , 1000 Euro fine .

I really don't understand why these people are covered by insurance , after all they don't have a valid licence .

they are and they aren't.

If you remove the insurance from them, it is not just them that suffer in a crash (that is their fault) - the victim then has no insurance to claim off, and would have to go to the Uninsured Drivers fund, which can be a pain in the ass.

The law states, basically, that once someone pays for insurance it can not be taken away to the determent of a third party.

What will happen is that the insurance company will pay out like normal, and can then go after the learner driver for the money paid out. So the victim gets their compensation through the learner driver's insurance, and the learner driver ends up paying the insurance company back.

Davidth88

Mitch Connor wrote: »

they are and they aren't.



What will happen is that the insurance company will pay out like normal, and can then go after the learner driver for the money paid out. So the victim gets their compensation through the learner driver's insurance, and the learner driver ends up paying the insurance company back.

Thats illuminating . So technically they are not covered .

So why are they not done for this too ?

Mad isn't it

slimjimmc

Davidth88 wrote: »

Thats illuminating . So technically they are not covered .

So why are they not done for this too ?

Mad isn't it

No, technically (and legally) they are covered regardless. It's a legal requirement to have minimum 3rd party insurance. Once a driver buys a policy the insurer must honour any 3rd party claim.

Breaking the conditions of the learner's permit does not invalid the insurance but it does allow the insurance company reclaim the cost of a claim from the holder. It's effectively the insurance company saying "you broke our contract but we still had to pay out so now you'll have to pay us back".

annieobrien8

I assume most posters so far in this thread have full licences?!

Ye're quoting 6 week waiting times for driving tests but what about the fact that you've to wait 6 months after getting a learner permit before you can take the test? And ye're talking about learner permit holders deciding for themselves whether they're good enough. What about if a qualified driving instructor has told a person that they're ready for the test. I'm not saying it stops a learner permit of breaking the law but someone who you've driven around with for many hours has a much better idea than a tester who sees you once, which could happen to be on a good day. And finally, why don't ye care that there are loads of people with full licences driving around who never did the test thanks to the amnesty in the late 70s?

Seems to me ye're just accepting what the government tell ye to frown on...

Cookie_Monster

annieobrien8 wrote: »

What about if a qualified driving instructor has told a person that they're ready for the test.

So what, they aren't a tester so their comment are irrelevant.

annieobrien8 wrote: »

And finally, why don't ye care that there are loads of people with full licences driving around who never did the test thanks to the amnesty in the late 70s?

That annoys me but they will never do anything about it and whatever way you want to look at they do have a valid licence which those on a learner permit don't

annieobrien8

There's no difference between a tester and an instructor except different job titles. In fact an instructor would probably be slower to tell a person they're ready because it's the end of their income stream. I've seen the fully qualified drivers that your oh so wise testers have released on the world so I see a big difference in being a capable driver and being legally deemed capable.

The government has no business introducing 6 month waiting periods. If a person's good enough they're good enough and that's that. They should be allowed take the test when they want.

So cookie monster who would you prefer to meet on the road, a competent learner driver without an accompanying driver or an incompetent full licence holder??

SteM

annieobrien8 wrote: »

The government has no business introducing 6 month waiting periods. If a person's good enough they're good enough and that's that. They should be allowed take the test when they want.
6 m
So cookie monster who would you prefer to meet on the road, a competent learner driver without an accompanying driver or an incompetent full licence holder??

My understanding is it was introduced because of the many hundreds of gob****es that felt they were capable of passing the test after a few lessons. The testing system was clogged up with people that had just received their provisional, had no chance of passing the test but thought they'd give it a crack and chance their arm. I knew people like this in work - the first thing they did after receiving their provisional was apply for their test.

No matter how you feel about it, the majority of people need at least 6 months training before they can take the test.

slimjimmc

annieobrien8 wrote: »

There's no difference between a tester and an instructor except different job titles. In fact an instructor would probably be slower to tell a person they're ready because it's the end of their income stream. I've seen the fully qualified drivers that your oh so wise testers have released on the world so I see a big difference in being a capable driver and being legally deemed capable.

Isn't that a reflection on the training system as well as the testing system. Testing system shouldn't pass them, but the training system shouldn't produce them.

annieobrien8 wrote: »

The government has no business introducing 6 month waiting periods. If a person's good enough they're good enough and that's that. They should be allowed take the test when they want.

There two benefits to setting a time limit a) it creates a situation where learners are likely to gain more practice and experience, hence competency and b) it helps reduce one of the problems that led to backlogs... learners doing the test who hadn't a hope of passing. Six months is not a long time, I'd consider it the minimum length of time for your average learner to gain experience and confidence before being allowed out on their own.

Cookie_Monster

annieobrien8 wrote: »

There's no difference between a tester and an instructor except different job titles. In fact an instructor would probably be slower to tell a person they're ready because it's the end of their income stream. I've seen the fully qualified drivers that your oh so wise testers have released on the world so I see a big difference in being a capable driver and being legally deemed capable.

The government has no business introducing 6 month waiting periods. If a person's good enough they're good enough and that's that. They should be allowed take the test when they want.

So cookie monster who would you prefer to meet on the road, a competent learner driver without an accompanying driver or an incompetent full licence holder??

Bear in mind that its not just about ability its also about experience. You need time driving on the roads to get used to the various situations you could encounter rather than just physically being able to drive the car

Davidth88

annieobrien8 ( and others ).

It really doesn't matter if the driving instructor says you can drive , the law as it stands in this country is you have to have passed the test ( assuming you didn't fall into the really stupid amnesty they had) before you can drive without a person with a full licence sitting next to you.

There are lots of people who are out on the road who shouldn't be ( with licences ) , Ill be honest, I passed my test 28 years ago , no one has tested me since I have no idea really if I am a good, bad or as I suspect an indifferent driver.

If you ignore this law , then what other laws do you suggest we should all ignore ? Perhaps we should disregard one way streets , after all that would allow us to make short cuts .

I find the disregard here ( in Ireland ) for driving laws terrible , so many people don't bother with an NCT ' its a money making racket for the gvmt ' , licences ' I have to use the car to get to work/collage ' , insurance ' it's so expensive ' and car tax ' why should I pay that ? the roads are in a terrible state ' ( never mind that the car tax doesn't go to roads ).

The laws/rules may be a stupid in your opinions , but until the law/rule changes.....

annieobrien8

6 months isn't a long time?? You try living in the countryside and working non-standard hours!

Agreed that people need time to learn but the 6 months is completely arbitrary. Loads of people now get learner permits before they've any intention of driving just so they won't have to wait 6 months when they do want to do the test. So for lots of people the 6 months doesn't lead to any extra experience. As regards waiting times being the excuse, why are SGS or any private company not still testing??

And as for thinking rules are stupid... driving the wrong way on a one way street is completely different. First of all it is actually dangerous and secondly rules like that don't single out one group of drivers.

irishguy

annieobrien8 wrote: »

6 months isn't a long time?? You try living in the countryside and working non-standard hours!

Agreed that people need time to learn but the 6 months is completely arbitrary. Loads of people now get learner permits before they've any intention of driving just so they won't have to wait 6 months when they do want to do the test. So for lots of people the 6 months doesn't lead to any extra experience. As regards waiting times being the excuse, why are SGS or any private company not still testing??

And as for thinking rules are stupid... driving the wrong way on a one way street is completely different. First of all it is actually dangerous and secondly rules like that don't single out one group of drivers.

The 6 month rule is actually quite good. If people can sit the test in a few weeks and pass it then they think they know it all, its just a recipe for disaster especially for younger drivers.

Saying that though I passed my test after 6 weeks of driving

Wishbone Ash

annieobrien8 wrote: »

why don't ye care that there are loads of people with full licences driving around who never did the test thanks to the amnesty in the late 70s?...

It's pointless to keep looking backwards. I'd estimate that less than 1% of current Licence holders obtained theirs in the 1979 amnesty.

There would be a lot more Full Licence holders out there (including my mother) who obtained their licence over the counter in the Post Office prior to the introduction of the driving test in 1964.

slimjimmc

annieobrien8 wrote: »

6 months isn't a long time?? You try living in the countryside and working non-standard hours!

Living in the country or working non-standard hours often means it's harder to get formal lessons because you have to arrange lifts, odd times, etc. On the other hand, country living usually involves more driving so if you have access to a qualified driver you tend to get more practice. That's my experience of it anyways.

annieobrien8 wrote: »

Agreed that people need time to learn but the 6 months is completely arbitrary. Loads of people now get learner permits before they've any intention of driving just so they won't have to wait 6 months when they do want to do the test. So for lots of people the 6 months doesn't lead to any extra experience. As regards waiting times being the excuse, why are SGS or any private company not still testing??

And as for thinking rules are stupid... driving the wrong way on a one way street is completely different. First of all it is actually dangerous and secondly rules like that don't single out one group of drivers.

Who is being singled out? You could apply the same logic to a whole host of groups who have to abide by restrictions.

You might feel 6 months is completely arbitrary but I doubt it is, for reasons mentioned previously. Of course some people will get their permit well in advance as you've said, but I'd be amazed if they're all passing their test first time, especially if they have insufficent driving training and experience.

We all know the system is not perfect, nobody would claim it to be. A better solution would be as used in other EU countries where learners must do a minimum number of hours of formal training, conducted and assessed by an instructor. Only learners who are deemed ready should then proceed to the Driving Tests (daytime and night time driving). Of course that would be much more expensive and the outcries from sections of the public would be deafening.

Wishbone Ash

annieobrien8 wrote: »

6 months isn't a long time?? You try living in the countryside and working non-standard hours!

Surely working non-standardised hours and having to be accompanied at all times is a lot more stressful than having to wait 6 months before sitting a driving test?

Davidth88

annieobrien8 wrote: »

And as for thinking rules are stupid... driving the wrong way on a one way street is completely different. First of all it is actually dangerous and secondly rules like that don't single out one group of drivers.

And driving without any training/ certified reaching required std isn't dangerous ?

For every L plated driver who has taken some real lessons etc , there are any number that just jump into a car with no lessons and most importantly NO EXPERIENCE. The requirement of having a certified person sitting next to you is to provide some of this expericence .

Of course the problem is there is no real way of knowing one group of L plated drivers from theother hence the requirement for a test.

Answer me this , would you be happy if your bus driver only had a learner permit ? , or even your pilot on a flight ? ( I would lay money the answer is no ) , then why are you happy to be driven in a car by someone like that ? I know the differences is we are not paying etc , but you are still driving a potential lethal weapon on the open road.

annieobrien8

Davidth88 wrote: »

And driving without any training/ certified reaching required std isn't dangerous ?

For every L plated driver who has taken some real lessons etc , there are any number that just jump into a car with no lessons and most importantly NO EXPERIENCE. The requirement of having a certified person sitting next to you is to provide some of this expericence .

Of course the problem is there is no real way of knowing one group of L plated drivers from theother hence the requirement for a test.

Answer me this , would you be happy if your bus driver only had a learner permit ? , or even your pilot on a flight ? ( I would lay money the answer is no ) , then why are you happy to be driven in a car by someone like that ? I know the differences is we are not paying etc , but you are still driving a potential lethal weapon on the open road.

I didn't say there should be no requirement to be accompanied while learning. That's fine and makes a reasonable degree of sense, although someone in the passenger seat can do very little if something goes wrong suddenly. But it should be up to each individual to decide when they're ready to take their test and then if they pass, be it after 2 days practice or 2 years, they needn't be accompanied anymore. Anyway, haven't you ever considered that most driving instructors wouldn't go out with students in the most dangerous situations, like icy roads etc?!

With regard to the bus driver/pilot etc, have you ever asked to see their licences?? You're happy putting faith in the bus company's testing policies, so why not trust the ordinary driver testers?

annieobrien8

slimjimmc that "if" in your comment that if you have access to a qualified driver you'll get more experience is the big problem. First of all a qualified driver has to have 2 years experience and secondly a lot of people that have been driving long enough to be a qualified driver don't want to sit powerlessly in the passenger seat!

And the odd hours etc aren't too stressful, trying to organise transport in and out every day is! If I didn't have to wait 6 months before I could sit the test that stress could be over a lot sooner!

Wishbone Ash

annieobrien8 wrote: »

You're happy putting faith in the bus company's testing policies, so why not trust the ordinary driver testers?

Driving tests in all categories are carried out by the state. Bus companies do not conduct their own tests.

Finbarire

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

self certification eh ?

judging by driving test pass rates it's 50:50 that a learner who thinks they can drive can pass what must be the easiest test in the OECD. And the standard of Irish drivers who have passed the test !

What's that thing called where someone who is learning thinks their competance is greater than it actually is ?


Government could make a lot of money if they enforced this fully

Hello, if you are driving unaccompanied you are also driving with out insurance as your insurance is void
Finbar

murphaph

I was explaining to my german gf that a lot of people in Ireland learn to drive in daddy's car. Her deadpan response was "But normal cars don't have extra pedals to stop the car in an emergency". Ah bless.

Cookie_Monster

murphaph wrote: »

I was explaining to my german gf that a lot of people in Ireland learn to drive in daddy's car. Her deadpan response was "But normal cars don't have extra pedals to stop the car in an emergency". Ah bless.

:D:D

Ah, ze Germans. Whatever will zay say next