Power restriction for new drivers?

KamiKazi

Thought I'd stick up a thread to see what the general consensus is on new drivers and what cars they can drive.

As it stands, there are no limitations on what a car driver can drive; anyone can pass the theory test, apply for the learners permit and hop into a Ferrari Enzo. They'll pay through the nose, but they won't be breaking any laws.

Some of you may know from past posts of mine in here that I'm a motorcylcist. So I'll be using motorcycle legislation as an example. Motorcyclists on their learners permit are not allowed to be on a bike with a power output greater than 33HP, there's also a clause to rule out really light bikes under the 33HP limit. This also applies to riders for the first two years from the day they pass their driving test.

So while a newbie biker is stuck on a bike that would struggle to outrun most cars of 1.6L and above for at least 30 months, any learner driver can get into a 400BHP car no problem. Now I don't think anyone will disagree that bikes are more dangerous and harder to control but when a fast car goes out of control it's a lot bigger and heavier and will do an awful lot more damage.

Am I alone in thinking that it's wrong for there to be such a huge contrast between car and motorcyclist legislation for new drivers?

ShiresV2

Power restriction for new drivers?

No thanks. I'll take better training for all drivers and mandatory, periodic re-testing.

KamiKazi

ShiresV2 wrote: »

No thanks. I'll take better training for all drivers and mandatory, periodic re-testing.

I agree that that would be the better option, but I can't see that happening in this country can you?

Max Power1

There is one in practice if not by law. Try and insure anything over 1.3 on a provisional and you are looking at north of 2.5k

bladespin

I don't agree with restrictions, they mean nothing in the end, better off having staggered tests, etc. I like the idea of drivers having to sit a basic test to renew their license, I'm sure that would have a pretty dramatic impact on the standard of driving here.

There's no restriction in practice, €2.5k is steep but many young drivers can and do pay those amounts.

KamiKazi

Max Power1 wrote: »

There is one in practice if not by law. Try and insure anything over 1.3 on a provisional and you are looking at north of 2.5k

I'm aware of that, and mentioned it in the OP.

What sort of logic would make it so that insurance companies are dictating which cars are and are not too powerful for new drivers though? It should be the Government, no?

Max Power1

bladespin wrote: »

I don't agree with restrictions, they mean nothing in the end, better off having staggered tests, etc. I like the idea of drivers having to sit a basic test to renew their license, I'm sure that would have a pretty dramatic impact on the standard of driving here.

and on the test at licence renewal we coud test motorway driving and use of lanes and roundabouts!

bladespin

Max Power1 wrote: »

and on the test at licence renewal we coud test motorway driving and use of lanes and roundabouts!

Absolutely, even on a simulator would mean they'd have to have some idea of how to negotiate a roundabout for example.

Max Power1

KamiKazi wrote: »

I'm aware of that, and mentioned it in the OP.

What sort of logic would make it so that insurance companies are dictating which cars are and are not too powerful for new drivers though? It should be the Government, no?

No I saw that, but I dont really see the need for a hard and fast rule tbh. Its not as if you have many newly qualified drivers in mercs etc, the problem is more with boyracer cars like the civics (which are 1.4 and under in most cases) IMO. And also, as I mentioned in my earlier post, people's use of motorways/dual carriageways and lane changes in general - something that is not really covered in the test to begin with.

Max Power1

bladespin wrote: »

There's no restriction in practice, €2.5k is steep but many young drivers can and do pay those amounts.

Well I was paying 1600 on a 1.3 when I started on a provisional. (for third party only). Cant see many wanting to pay much more than that. Often its more than the car would be worth

Maruney

I see what you are saying but its a bit of a hard call. The increased danger on a bike will never be overlooked, in fact its a bit exaggerated because most bikers realize the danger they are in if an accident happens so are very aware and alert to what is around them, it doesn't mean you wouldn't have idiots killing themselves though and most lads get a bike for the speed or accel. anyway. Being on a bike for a few years made me a way better driver though.

MetzgerMeister

You don't honestly think an L driver is gonna get insurance on an Enzo do ya??

I know a few people who drive bikes and have been in accidents. Each time it was the fault of a car driver. It's not really fair to say that all bike drivers cause their own accidents (i know you didn't, I'm only making the point with regard to insurance etc.)

Cuddlesworth

einheisserschre wrote: »

You don't honestly think an L driver is gonna get insurance on an Enzo do ya??

If you have the money to buy a Enzo you have the money to get insured on it.

KamiKazi

einheisserschre wrote: »

You don't honestly think an L driver is gonna get insurance on an Enzo do ya??

I know a few people who drive bikes and have been in accidents. Each time it was the fault of a car driver. It's not really fair to say that all bike drivers cause their own accidents (i know you didn't, I'm only making the point with regard to insurance etc.)

Three letters of refusal.
Hello Mr. Ombudsman.
Enjoy your Enzo.

biko

In theory a good idea, and with bike background it does make sense.
Restricting people to <1.2 would be ideal unless they are boy racers in which case they'll soup up their car anyway.
Sure, don't most of them just take mammys car when she bought a new and then they add cool lights and wings to it.
And the Garda can't test for BHP at the roadside I assume.

bladespin

Max Power1 wrote: »

Well I was paying 1600 on a 1.3 when I started on a provisional. (for third party only). Cant see many wanting to pay much more than that. Often its more than the car would be worth

When I started I was paying €2300 on a 1.2 Punto, had to, know plenty of others who paid more on bigger cars (they'd complain etc but paid up), tbh it wasn't a huge amount more to insure an Evo at the time :mad:

smellslikeshoes

The 33bhp bike limit is a mess as is, don't think I could imagine what it would be like on the scale of cars in Ireland.

metzengerstein

i kinda think itd be a good idea ,theres too many people with high powered cars and not enough knowledge or common sense and just want to be infront of everyone .

would have been good back when people could just get their provisional and hop in a car and drive with no lessons ,


as for bikes i love em ,i think every slams them as too dangerous ,it depends on whos driving it really like what i said above there are those who drive properly and those who just want to be infront of everyone else

KamiKazi

Just to point out I'm not saying that a similar power restriction should be brought in for cars, just showing how much of a joke it is that there's such a backwards approach for bikes and nothing for cars.

metzengerstein

KamiKazi wrote: »

Just to point out I'm not saying that a similar power restriction should be brought in for cars, just showing how much of a joke it is that there's such a backwards approach for bikes and nothing for cars.

is there anything not backwards about any of the systems in our country :rolleyes:

KamiKazi

LIGHTNING wrote: »

What difference does will it make, you can quite easily kill yourself or other in a 20hp engine. A restriction wont make any difference.

So you'd be in favour of all restrictions for motorcyclists abolished?

metzengerstein

LIGHTNING wrote: »

What difference does will it make, you can quite easily kill yourself or other in a 20hp engine. A restriction wont make any difference.

they should get the electric cars he he he he he .that might make a diffrence

keithclancy

The restrictors would have to come factory fitted, same as on bikes.

Most lads remove them anyway.

Restrictor wouldn't make any difference anyway, still makes the car just as dangerous.

KamiKazi

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Did I say that?

Well your argument is that you can still kill yourself regardless of engine size no?

seanybiker

I whipped the restriction outta my bike about 2 weeks after buying it. Balls to that shyte. Was great fun.

KamiKazi

seanybiker wrote: »

I whipped the restriction outta my bike about 2 weeks after buying it. Balls to that shyte. Was great fun.

Wouldn't have expected any less from ya Seany

ShiresV2

LIGHTNING wrote: »

What difference does will it make, you can quite easily kill yourself or other in a 20hp engine. A restriction wont make any difference.

It would give sandal wearing old farts something else to be smug about.

Cuddlesworth

LIGHTNING wrote: »

What difference does will it make, you can quite easily kill yourself or other in a 20hp engine. A restriction wont make any difference.

A power to weight restriction would remove the ability for young drivers to have any real acceleration and might possibly teach them to be patient and gain some good driving habits.

bladespin

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

A power to weight restriction would remove the ability for young drivers to have any real acceleration and might possibly teach them to be patient and gain some good driving habits.

Wow, have to say you're being very naive there.

Cuddlesworth

bladespin wrote: »

Wow, have to say you're being very naive there.

It wouldn't be the only step I would take. I would couple it with a proper testing center which would require things like skid testing, emergency stops from speed and motorway driving tests.

Nearly everybody I know who drives bikes has had both the restrictor and advanced lessons outside of their license. I don't know any car drivers who have had any lessons outside of their test.

Theta

So what you let them drive an underpowered or restricted car for 2 years then crank it up to regular power and watch how they try to control something they have no idea how to handle.

Its better to train someone correctly from the start.

KamiKazi

Theta wrote: »

So what you let them drive an underpowered or restricted car for 2 years then crank it up to regular power and watch how they try to control something they have no idea how to handle.

Its better to train someone correctly from the start.

Exactly.

bladespin

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

It wouldn't be the only step I would take. I would couple it with a proper testing center which would require things like skid testing, emergency stops from speed and motorway driving tests.

Nearly everybody I know who drives bikes has had both the restrictor and advanced lessons outside of their license. I don't know any car drivers who have had any lessons outside of their test.

TBH I done my test on a full power Gsxr7/11 without lessons the first time.

Do you really think that reducing the acceleration of the car an aggressive driver uses will make them safer?

That was the assumption when they introduced the restriction to the motorcycles but I don't recall it working out that way.

I'd imagine it'd make them twice as bad, like young lads riding 125s (berore the 33bhp thing) every overtake was do or die.

daveharnett

KamiKazi wrote: »

Am I alone in thinking that it's wrong for there to be such a huge contrast between car and motorcyclist legislation for new drivers?

Seems ok to me tbh.
Power isn't an issue in the vast majority of cases - it's excessive speed rather than acceleration that causes the 'going too fast' type of crash.

So, looking at the small percentage where power is a factor: accelerating too quickly is much more likely to stuff a bike than a car.
- Cars don't fall over.
- Cars have nowhere near the same power/weight ratio.
- Most cars here are FWD and will tend to understeer under acceleration - very easy to correct.
- All high-powered RWD cars sold here in the last 15 years have driver aids to combat throttle-induced oversteer.

ART6

Theta wrote: »

So what you let them drive an underpowered or restricted car for 2 years then crank it up to regular power and watch how they try to control something they have no idea how to handle.

Its better to train someone correctly from the start.

Entirely true, but having been young once, when I passed my test I was quite satisfied that I was an expert driver and didn't need any lecturing about how to drive. It needed a tree that wouldn't get out of the way to teach me how wrong I was.

In any case even a small family car nowadays will easily go way over the speed limit and certainly weighs enough to kill people. So rather that try to limit the recklessness of new young drivers, perhaps we should try "P" plates for provisional licence holders, who must always be accompanied, followed by "L" plates for those who have passed their test but not held a full licence for at least (say) three years. Drivers with those plates would be limited to the maximum speed they could drive at, maybe max 60 clicks irrespective of the maximum speed limit on the road they are using. At the end of the three year period an assessment by a driving school before they can convert to a full licence without plates.

If nothing else it would warn the rest of us who to keep the feck out of the way of:D

KamiKazi

ART6 wrote: »

In any case even a small family car nowadays will easily go way over the speed limit and certainly weighs enough to kill people. So rather that try to limit the recklessness of new young drivers, perhaps we should try "P" plates for provisional licence holders, who must always be accompanied, followed by "L" plates for those who have passed their test but not held a full licence for at least (say) three years. Drivers with those plates would be limited to the maximum speed they could drive at, maybe max 60 clicks irrespective of the maximum speed limit on the road they are using. At the end of the three year period an assessment by a driving school before they can convert to a full licence without plates.

Or we could give L plates back to our nanny state neighbours and just train new drivers properly.

Theta

ART6 wrote: »

Entirely true, but having been young once, when I passed my test I was quite satisfied that I was an expert driver and didn't need any lecturing about how to drive. It needed a tree that wouldn't get out of the way to teach me how wrong I was.

In any case even a small family car nowadays will easily go way over the speed limit and certainly weighs enough to kill people. So rather that try to limit the recklessness of new young drivers, perhaps we should try "P" plates for provisional licence holders, who must always be accompanied, followed by "L" plates for those who have passed their test but not held a full licence for at least (say) three years. Drivers with those plates would be limited to the maximum speed they could drive at, maybe max 60 clicks irrespective of the maximum speed limit on the road they are using. At the end of the three year period an assessment by a driving school before they can convert to a full licence without plates.

If nothing else it would warn the rest of us who to keep the feck out of the way of:D

They use a similar system in the UK or is it the IOM where you use R plates for the first year after passing your test?

Max Power1

Theta wrote: »

They use a similar system in the UK or is it the IOM where you use R plates for the first year after passing your test?

Its in the UK AFAIK

(not sure if the comment was sarcastic, its dificult to tell with written text)

Theta

Max Power1 wrote: »

Its in the UK AFAIK

(not sure if the comment was sarcastic, its dificult to tell with written text)

No it was a question sorry if it sounded sarcastic.

bladespin

If we're going to copy any of our neighbours systems then we really should look a little further and have a set-up like Germany or the US where a genuine driver school is employed. Germany especially has a terrific training method, it's expensive but seems to produce the goods.

Joe 90

daveharnett wrote: »

- All high-powered RWD cars sold here in the last 15 years have driver aids to combat throttle-induced oversteer.

Wanna Bet?

ART6

bladespin wrote: »

If we're going to copy any of our neighbours systems then we really should look a little further and have a set-up like Germany or the US where a genuine driver school is employed. Germany especially has a terrific training method, it's expensive but seems to produce the goods.

I would agree that a proper driving school should be employed. In fact I'd be inclined to take it further. I would regulate all driving schools and regularly inspect them. Then I would require that anyone learning to drive must take lessons from the schools, who would evaluate their progress and only approve them for a full licence when satisfied with their competence. No formal driving test with a government examiner because that is a one-off thing that only shows that the learner was able to drive around a predetermined road network for a short time without hitting anything and could pass the written test. That would save public money and the examiners could go and get jobs with driving schools.

OK. Expensive. But anyone who can afford to buy and insure a car should also be able to afford proper lessons. It might even lead to a reduction of insurance premiums for the rest of us.

metzengerstein

ART6 wrote: »

I would agree that a proper driving school should be employed. In fact I'd be inclined to take it further. I would regulate all driving schools and regularly inspect them. Then I would require that anyone learning to drive must take lessons from the schools, who would evaluate their progress and only approve them for a full licence when satisfied with their competence. No formal driving test with a government examiner because that is a one-off thing that only shows that the learner was able to drive around a predetermined road network for a short time without hitting anything and could pass the written test. That would save public money and the examiners could go and get jobs with driving schools.

OK. Expensive. But anyone who can afford to buy and insure a car should also be able to afford proper lessons. It might even lead to a reduction of insurance premiums for the rest of us.

things like this you would have thought would have been put in place along time ago ,the government are too busy calculating the stats thnking this might stop the speeders instead of trying to actually help the situation.it should be taught in schools like in america ,or even the above comment should be put in place

daveharnett

Joe 90 wrote: »

Wanna Bet?

Not really . I take it that you drive an exception?
Probably should have gone with "the vast majority".

daveharnett

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Funnily enough I drove a mid 00`s Porsche 911 that didnt have any form of traction control.

I thought about the 911, but afaik the models without TC are primarily intended for trackdays?

P.C.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

What difference does will it make, you can quite easily kill yourself or other in a 20hp engine. A restriction wont make any difference.

KamiKazi wrote: »

So you'd be in favour of all restrictions for motorcyclists abolished?

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Did I say that?

KamiKazi wrote: »

Well your argument is that you can still kill yourself regardless of engine size no?

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Even if you put a restrictor on a car it will limit its acceleration, but if you fire you car into a tree a 60mph or a ditch at high speed it doesnt really matter if the car had a restrictor or not. Its not acceleration thats killing all the young drivers its over confidence something no technical device will limit.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Funnily enough I drove a mid 00`s Porsche 911 that didnt have any form of traction control.

LIGHTNING - the question remains unanswered.

MetzgerMeister

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If you have the money to buy a Enzo you have the money to get insured on it.

KamiKazi wrote: »

Three letters of refusal.
Hello Mr. Ombudsman.
Enjoy your Enzo.

Good points. I stand corrected

Shane Slv

Well iam a newish driver (full licence) Started out driving my dads 1.6 petrol and now have my own car a 1.3 petrol and i honestly feel much safer in a car with more power. Not just for overtaking but for everyday stuff like building up speed joining a motorway.

P.C.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I dont think they will be of any use so I would say no to power restrictrions.

So you do NOT agree with the power restrictions imposed on motorcycle riders for the first two years after passing their test?

P.C.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I was talking about cars, this is the motoring forum not the motorbikes forum. I couldnt care what rules/restritctions are applied to Bikers (no offense to Bikers).

This is the Motors section of the motoring forum.
Last time I checked, motobikes had motors.

The original question was about cars 'in relation' to motorbikes.

KamiKazi wrote: »

Thought I'd stick up a thread to see what the general consensus is on new drivers and what cars they can drive.

As it stands, there are no limitations on what a car driver can drive; anyone can pass the theory test, apply for the learners permit and hop into a Ferrari Enzo. They'll pay through the nose, but they won't be breaking any laws.

Some of you may know from past posts of mine in here that I'm a motorcylcist. So I'll be using motorcycle legislation as an example. Motorcyclists on their learners permit are not allowed to be on a bike with a power output greater than 33HP, there's also a clause to rule out really light bikes under the 33HP limit. This also applies to riders for the first two years from the day they pass their driving test.

So while a newbie biker is stuck on a bike that would struggle to outrun most cars of 1.6L and above for at least 30 months, any learner driver can get into a 400BHP car no problem. Now I don't think anyone will disagree that bikes are more dangerous and harder to control but when a fast car goes out of control it's a lot bigger and heavier and will do an awful lot more damage.

Am I alone in thinking that it's wrong for there to be such a huge contrast between car and motorcyclist legislation for new drivers?

Donnelly117

I think that restriction on a bike is more important as you can buy an extremely fast bike relativity cheap but a fast car is too expensive for new drivers to afford (running cost, tax, petrol, insurance). Also an insurance company will give a new driver a quote so high on a fast car they wont be able to afford it.