RSA's proposed restriction for young male drivers

AugustusMaximus

Hi, I'm just wondering would the following proposed legislation for the the restrction of young male drivers fall foul of equality legislation.

1. Banning young male drivers from driving cars with engines over a certain size.
2. Banning young male drivers from carrying passangers.
3. Having a curfew for young male drivers.

Why I'm asking is because none of these will be implemented for young female drivers.

sunnyside

I'd say not. Everything in law has exceptions to the general rule and if thosse conditions can be justified for some reason (road traffic accident deaths) the law will be upheld.

The proposals would be welcomed be the public in general.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

sunnyside wrote: »

I'd say not. Everything in law has exceptions to the general rule and if thosse conditions can be justified for some reason (road traffic accident deaths) the law will be upheld.

Slippery slope tbh.

Would you be happy to see sports such as Sprinting or Swimming seperate blacks and whites due to the genetic differences which cause racial superiority in the events?

/edit: Forgot to check the forum.

smash

Equal Status Act 2000

3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where— (a) on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as ‘‘the discriminatory grounds’’) which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated,
...
(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:
(a) that one is male and the other is female (the ‘‘gender ground’’),
...
(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the ‘‘age ground’’),

maidhc

Don't mind that. Gay Byrne must have woken up from a long sleep or something and still thinks we live pre 1937 or something.

I think you will find the government will be more preoccupied with trying to keep the IMF from the door to be honest.

Our man in Havana

The High Court will be very busy dealing with challenges if it ever came to pass.

Jev/N

What's a "young male driver"?

U-21, U-23 or U-25?

maidhc

Jev/N wrote: »

What's a "young male driver"?

U-21, U-23 or U-25?

U-20 sank the Lusitania, so who knows.

ya-ba-da-ba-doo

What a load of rubbish. Sexist and discriminatory. I agree with the engine size maybe, but the passengers and the curfew. I for one will not fall lightly to this.

RCNPhotos

Gay Byrne should feel like a complete idiot for even suggesting this. How many people will suffer work wise because of this? It's simply an insane thing to even suggest seriously.

Overheal

ya-ba-da-ba-doo wrote: »

What a load of rubbish. Sexist and discriminatory. I agree with the engine size maybe, but the passengers and the curfew. I for one will not fall lightly to this.

Dont agree to any of it.

They argue a statistic that guys are more dangerous than girls. Yet I cant hire a guy over a girl on the Scientifically proven fact that girls are off work for months at a time for maternity leave. And they cant lift as much. Useless! :pac:

dermot_sheehan

Section 14 of the Equal Status Act exempts from its application any measure required by an enactment or court order. An amendment to the Road Traffic (Licensing of Drivers) Regulations would be an enactment and not covered by it.

The EU Equality Directive 2000/43/EC only covers race. There is a directive that covers age/gender but only affects access to employments

jhegarty

gabhain7 wrote: »

The EU Equality Directive 2000/43/EC only covers race. There is a directive that covers age/gender but only affects access to employments

So all we need is an 18 year old who wants to be a taxi driver ?

dermot_sheehan

They might have a case then

I'd imagine the State would try and rely on article 6 of the employment equality directive (2000/78/EC)

1. Notwithstanding Article 2(2), Member States may provide that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination, if, within the context of national law, they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
Such differences of treatment may include, among others:
(a) the setting of special conditions on access to employment and vocational training, employment and occupation, including dismissal and remuneration conditions, for young people, older workers and persons with caring responsibilities in order to promote their vocational integration or ensure their protection;
(b) the fixing of minimum conditions of age, professional experience or seniority in service for access to employment or to certain advantages linked to employment;
(c) the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment which is based on the training requirements of the post in question or the need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement.

Paul MCM

I agree with the restriction on engine sizes. 1.1ltr should be the limit for under 21's. Easy to implement if the insurance companies are on board.

Skatedude

engine size, limiting pasengers is within reason, but the curfew simply wont work.
so people can get prosecuted if they get stuck in traffic and are late getting home? what if like most people you work shift hours?

Greenmachine

Paul MCM wrote: »

I agree with the restriction on engine sizes. 1.1ltr should be the limit for under 21's. Easy to implement if the insurance companies are on board.

Sure that will work force gangs of teens/early 20's into micra/fiestas etc et al with poor NCAP rating that will teach them for wanting to drive.

Paul MCM

Greenmachine wrote: »

Sure that will work force gangs of teens/early 20's into micra/fiestas etc et al with poor NCAP rating that will teach them for wanting to drive.

They have to try something, so the easiest thing is a limit on the size of the engine.

But if I suppose if your gona drive like a dick it doesnt really matter what car it is.

Sangre

Paul MCM wrote: »

I agree with the restriction on engine sizes. 1.1ltr should be the limit for under 21's. Easy to implement if the insurance companies are on board.

So if both your parents have cars over 1.1l you have to buy a new car if you want to drive?

maidhc

But why do anything?

A car with a 1.1 engine can hit 100mph quite easily. My first car was a 1.8 which was slower than a modern yaris 1.0. Young people don't have access to fast cars as it stands anyway due to insurance.

Lets just educate people so they have decent skills to begin with and let things there.

There is some weird element of people in this country who feel everything should be legislated for.

ball

There would be a lot more "suped up" micras, puntos, fiestas etc. on the streets

AceofSpades001

maidhc wrote: »

But why do anything?

A car with a 1.1 engine can hit 100mph quite easily. My first car was a 1.8 which was slower than a modern yaris 1.0. Young people don't have access to fast cars as it stands anyway due to insurance.

Lets just educate people so they have decent skills to begin with and let things there.

There is some weird element of people in this country who feel everything should be legislated for.

That's dead right. I have a 1.4 mazda that might as well be going up Everest when trying to accelerate while my sibling used to have a 1.1. fiesta zetec which was like a little rocket.

The whole problem with not only some young male drivers, but a lot of drivers, is speed and stupidity, plain and simple. They don't drive to the conditions of the road (i.e. wet road, narrow boreen), overtake recklessly and take corners at speed. I mean it's all well and good to learn braking distances on paper for the driving test, but a lot of us would not be able to visualize in practice just how far we would go if we had to slam on the brakes.

Put in more speed checks and enforce penalties against those driving against the terms of their provisional licences. That would capture not only young males but all those who drive recklessly. The Gards already have the legislation and powers to combat this, just not the resources, in my opinion anyways.

Restricting passengers and placing a curfew... Congratulations, we'll have gards stopping any man unlucky enough to look 21 or under, which will be a damn lot of men considering the gards will only see them at night as they drive past... Unless they have checkpoints... which might as well have been set up as speed checks in the first place. Totally impractical legislation.


Remember, stupidity is for life, not just for young males.:P

gooch2k9

First when I'm learning to drive, they stop learners from driving alone, then proposals at the start of the year to persecute young drivers more. Now even if you have passed the driving test, which is the only paper qualification most drivers have, your still not trusted to drive? They have to RESTRICT. The engine size limitation isn't wrong, but won't have a major affect as most younsters can't afford to insure big cars. Curfew is the big issue for me. It is just impractical.

And is it just me or is there some kind of witch hunt against learners and young drivers? Even though its middle aged drivers who drive dangerously so they dont get stuck behind learners.

Also how can a crowd of 50 somethings be allowed to regulate young drivers without the younger people having a say. Don't see any proposals against older drivers, half of whom don't have a clue about the rules of the road

zynaps

gooch2k9 wrote: »

First when I'm learning to drive, they stop learners from driving alone, then proposals at the start of the year to persecute young drivers more. Now even if you have passed the driving test, which is the only paper qualification most drivers have, your still not trusted to drive? They have to RESTRICT.

Yeah, what happened to positive reinforcement - reach out to the groups they consider both most vulnerable and dangerous, and try to educate them better?

Instead, they come out with these draconian proposals, discriminating against drivers on the basis of sex and age? Not cool.

gooch2k9 wrote: »

And is it just me or is there some kind of witch hunt against learners and young drivers? Even though its middle aged drivers who drive dangerously so they dont get stuck behind learners.

+1 from a learner who's been overtaken dangerously (when travelling at the speed limit, of course) many times, or forced to give way at the last minute when an obstruction is on the other side of the road and we arrive at the same time. I wish the traffic Gardaí had some unmarked cars with fake learner plates, just to observe the behaviour of some "qualified" drivers.

Jev/N

gooch2k9 wrote: »

First when I'm learning to drive, they stop learners from driving alone

And this was a bad move?

gooch2k9

Not necessarily, but what i was saying that since i have started driving in 2007, it's been nothing but legislation against young drivers

techdiver

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Not necessarily, but what i was saying that since i have started driving in 2007, it's been nothing but legislation against young drivers

I'm not sure any legislation was brought in against young drivers directly. All legislation was brought in across the board for all drivers regardless of age.

Unfortunately, young male drivers have not heeded the warnings and continue to cause carnage on the roads. In saying that I don't think a cap of engine size will make a blind bit of difference. No matter what size the engine is it can go fast enough to kill.

gooch2k9

It was well known that the learner permit scheme would affect young drivers mostly as they represent the vast majority of learners. But i do get where you are coming from. I agree to the engine reduction, 1.4l is plenty for a young driver, any driver in fact. It's the curfew i disagree with. Unless they brought in something that exempted you from it if you have genuine reasons and aren't out driving around for the sake of it, otherwise i can't see it working.

Dimitri

i agree with techdriver on the engine size you can kill someone at 30 mph and you can do that on a cycle bike going down hill! They all seem pointless to me, the simple fact remains are that the vast vast majority of us have learned to drive in ireland as a means to passing a test which while difficult in no way address the real issues on our roads. Most of the country are driving day in day out on very poor single-cariggeway roads where over taking is a necessity to keep traffic moving yet we are not taught nor tested to do so safely. As has been mentioned above most of us probably cant visualise stopping distances, this doesn't just apply to young males like myself but to most road users. The problem is road deaths on irish roads, the solution being put forward is that young males should wait a while before driving properly and hopefully they'll be more slow, than they can join the rest of us badly educated drivers but by the time they do they'll do it a bit slower and even though its highly unlikely to have any meaningful effect on the number of road deaths, it will drastically reduce the real messy front page & 6.1 crashes thus success for the r.s.a.

Edit: sorry for ranting i know it has nothing to do with the legal discussion but it just makes me mad:mad::mad::mad:

zynaps

Dimitri wrote: »

They all seem pointless to me, the simple fact remains are that the vast vast majority of us have learned to drive in ireland as a means to passing a test which while difficult in no way address the real issues on our roads. Most of the country are driving day in day out on very poor single-cariggeway roads where over taking is a necessity to keep traffic moving yet we are not taught nor tested to do so safely. As has been mentioned above most of us probably cant visualise stopping distances, this doesn't just apply to young males like myself but to most road users.

Good point. The scope of our driving tests, as a small subset of realistic driving situations in Ireland (even within urban areas) excludes important and potentially very dangerous cases like driving on fast dual carriageways and motorways, busy roundabouts, emergency stops (which feature on the UK driving test afaik), etc.

Also in the UK they have a "pass plus" scheme - is there something official like that here? Why not have a secondary (maybe mandatory?) test which deals with the more difficult aspects of driving once the subject has passed their first test? I suppose it could be impractical or unenforceable if it was mandatory.
If we had a more advanced secondary test which was tied to reduced insurance costs across the board, maybe that would help. And it would be a positive move, not an entirely negative and discriminatory one like the proposed RSA restrictions.

Dimitri wrote: »

The problem is road deaths on irish roads, the solution being put forward is that young males should wait a while before driving properly and hopefully they'll be more slow, than they can join the rest of us badly educated drivers but by the time they do they'll do it a bit slower and even though its highly unlikely to have any meaningful effect on the number of road deaths, it will drastically reduce the real messy front page & 6.1 crashes thus success for the r.s.a.

Edit: sorry for ranting i know it has nothing to do with the legal discussion but it just makes me mad:mad::mad::mad:

Yes, it seems a little like the speed-camera-reduces-speeding fallacy - number of young male crashes at night is high, let's stop young males driving at night... oh look, the number of young male crashes at night has dropped. It does little to actually mitigate the problem of poor driving due to bad attitudes and habits, which are probably the root cause for most of these crashes.