Passenger ban for newly qualified drivers?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cynder

What if they had kids?

im sure there are a lot of young parents out there and maybe a few married ones. (My brother was 22 when he got married to a 21 year old).

So how can they bring in the ban when families cant travel together in the same car????

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sudzy

Sure you can't drive on a provisioal without being accompanied by someone. Silly idea I think.
When your on your provisional you need to be accompanied.
When your on your full licensce you're not allowed to be accompanied.
Don't think it makes sense at all.

Cathmandooo

So when you're learning to drive you have to have a fully licenced driver with you, it doesn't cap how many can be in your car so you can have plenty of distractions. Then you pass your test and suddenly you're completely on your own and it will be illegal to have your wonderful fully licenced tutor along with you?

Sounds like a terrible idea. It's tarring everyone with one brush that their 'mates' will egg them on to doing something stupid. Passengers can be a distraction to every single driver, no matter how long they're driving. I can't see how this will improve anything, it would simply annoy drivers.

Sinemo

I can see their point on putting safety first, but honestly I'm quite shocked at this.
Us learner drivers already have many restrictions imposed on us, (with having an expreinced driver present etc) and passing the test requires alot of skill. So I'd feel like it was a kick in the teeth to be told "Congradulations! After much hard work you passed your driving test, but don't forget you can't make full use of your licence for another year..."
One of my main reasons for learning to drive was so I wouldn't be so dependant on my parents. But obviously I would still need them if BOTH my friends and I needed to go somewhere.
The 17-24 year olds already have high insurance payments down to the safety issue, and imo it would be too much to introduce this driving ban also.

Quazzie

I can't see the Greens letting this get passed with them wanting us all to carpool as much as possible.

Professey Chin

All im reading in that story is nonsense. Usual twisted RSA statistics for their zany schemes

wayne0308

I'm a learner driver, I've never drove unaccompanied and I've never drove on a motorway before. I'd still want to have someone with me the first time I head on to a motorway to be honest, it's a very different driving environment that the one you trained for for your test.

I suppose its not that big an issue as most people have to do it sometime or later, on their own or with someone. I understand the reasoning behind this rule but it seems like they're shooting themselves in the foot and giving the Gardai another law that is very hard to enforce.

daveharnett

In fairness, I think people are misinterpreting the intent. I would expect that if this were to go ahead, it would bar learners AND new license holders from carrying passengers other than a single qualified 'accompanying' driver.

I can see the point - a fair number of young lads do drive differently with their friends on board - showing off in other words. Still a stupid proposal for a law, mind.

Stubs

This one of the daftest things I have ever heard. Do the RSA put any sort of thought into these things. What kind of ridiculous justification is it that one lad might say 'Hey, Mick, this is a high-performance car. Let's see what she can do'. I would be more worried about a group of lads heading off somewhere and being forced by the RSA to drive seperately leading to more dangerous driving, IMO, as they try to race eachother to whatever destination.

My conclusion is thus. 17-24yr olds are more likely to have an accident. Rather than reduce the liklihood of this age group being involved in a car accident the RSA has decided that by forcing them to drive alone fewer ppl will be killed. This leads to the question is the RSA more concerned about public preception and being seen to reduce the number of deaths on the roads each year rather than actually improving the safety on or roads.

bambera

They can fec off with themselves. First they say you're not competent enough to drive by yourself, then once you prove you are they say your only competent enough to drive by yourself. Only in Ireland :rolleyes:

Skid

So you turn up to your driving test accompanied by a qualified driver, because you want to obey the rules of the road.

You pass the test. Under this new law, your passenger would then have to get a taxi home.

Utter nonsense.

Quazzie

I'm 28, married, a parent, and at present am drving on a provisional licence. I am due to take my test in July and then (hopefully) I will have a full licence. I currently drive to and from work in my car alone. Due to living in the counrty with no viable public transport system I need to my car for the commute. When (hopefully) I pass my test I (legally) won't be able to go to work? Taxi's would cost me more than I would earn so in theory I can't get to work without breaking the law, which I currently do every day, twice a day. I rarely if ever use my car for anything other than the work commute as I don't take risks I shouldn't take. If this gets passed I'll have to risk it for another year because of boy-racer types that like to drive fast. Why should I and others like me be punished for something that they do. I need my car to keep my job and supply for my family. Sweeping rules that punish all for the sake of a few are one of the most disgusting things about this country, and thats why I think this rule is a crock of shít.

johnnyjb

I would like to drive over gay byrne while listening to my passengers jokes. Does he not want people driving at all. Im over the age bracket he wants banned but come on who does he think he is. People of every age are liable to lose concentration. He probably hates seeing young ones overtaking his old ass on the way to collect his huge pension.

He has a cheuffeur the cheeky clown.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Quazzie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would, just not legally which is my point. I think the RSA forgets sometimes about the people who live outside of the major bus corridors. Anyone who doesn't like on a bus route should be a farmer from their own land and therefore shouldn't have to commute anywhere. I'm not saying I'm proud that I break the law but its something I have to do and will do. The RSA puts everyone into brackets and groups based on their age and sex and doesn't take individual needs into consideration and thats what sickens me personally.

I know its the old argument that its the few bad eggs that are ruining it for everyone but more consideration should be made to catch the 'bad eggs' than to punish the good ones.

Kind of ironic me saying that considering theoretically I'm one of the 'bad eggs'.

Crash

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nowhere it says that? the article states that 17-24 year olds were the most likely age group, but doesnt state that such a ban would apply only to them.

daveharnett

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Would that even be legal?

Something that I haven't seen raised so far - this could criminalize half of the designated drivers in the country. I'll allow that learners/newly licenced drivers aren't ideal for the job - drunk passengers can be very distracting, but it's much better than a lot of the alternatives.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Quazzie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you sure about this bit. It names that age bracket as the most likely to have a fatal crash but I took it as being across the board for all newly qualified drivers.

Also just to clarify my issue, which I admittedly didn't make that clear is the RSA putting ridiculous restrictions on drivers, even after they have passed their test.

alexlyons

Quazzie wrote: »

I'm 28, married, a parent, and at present am drving on a provisional licence. I am due to take my test in July and then (hopefully) I will have a full licence. I currently drive to and from work in my car alone. Due to living in the counrty with no viable public transport system I need to my car for the commute. When (hopefully) I pass my test I (legally) won't be able to go to work? Taxi's would cost me more than I would earn so in theory I can't get to work without breaking the law, which I currently do every day, twice a day. I rarely if ever use my car for anything other than the work commute as I don't take risks I shouldn't take. If this gets passed I'll have to risk it for another year because of boy-racer types that like to drive fast. Why should I and others like me be punished for something that they do. I need my car to keep my job and supply for my family. Sweeping rules that punish all for the sake of a few are one of the most disgusting things about this country, and thats why I think this rule is a crock of shít.

First off you got it a bit mixed up if i read that correctly. Your complaining that you won't be able to get to work legally if this law is passed and you pass your test in july. You will be able to, once you aren't bringing your kids to work or anywhere else on the way to and from. Or anyone else for that matter. So your point about taxis etc doesn't really work..?

Secondly, even if you did have to bring your kids to school etc on the way, what is the difference between breaking the law by driving unaccompanied on a provisional/learners permit, and driving with the kids in the car once you pass your test. Your still breaking the law, which you shouldn't.

Also, if it is passed and you get hit with it, your family will be at no further loss as you say you don't really use the car unless absolutely necessary anyway, it'd be just as if you fail your test in july and kept going, except for the fact that you'd be going to work legally for a change.

Quazzie

alexlyons wrote: »

First off you got it a bit mixed up if i read that correctly. Your complaining that you won't be able to get to work legally if this law is passed and you pass your test in july. You will be able to, once you aren't bringing your kids to work or anywhere else on the way to and from. Or anyone else for that matter. So your point about taxis etc doesn't really work..?

Secondly, even if you did have to bring your kids to school etc on the way, what is the difference between breaking the law by driving unaccompanied on a provisional/learners permit, and driving with the kids in the car once you pass your test. Your still breaking the law, which you shouldn't.

Also, if it is passed and you get hit with it, your family will be at no further loss as you say you don't really use the car unless absolutely necessary anyway, it'd be just as if you fail your test in july and kept going, except for the fact that you'd be going to work legally for a change.

As above I admit I could have been a lot clearer about my point, which is that the RSA apply restrictions on people without fully thinking through the implications that it can have. This being another example.

Also just to add that I don't condone anyone driving illegally but am just pointing out that not every case is black and white.

JustAddWater

No, because when you leave the test centre after passing you're still only on the learners permit. You'd need him to get home! :rolleyes:

Stupid law though! Made up statistics to bring in stupid rules.

Here's on for ya; Find out the percentage of people who never sat a driving test for their licence then go and make that percentage of full licenced drivers sit a test for a bit of craic. It's just as stupid and pointless! Look at us here in the RSA actually doing stuff!

SkidMark wrote: »

So you turn up to your driving test accompanied by a qualified driver, because you want to obey the rules of the road.

You pass the test. Under this new law, your passenger would then have to get a taxi home.

Utter nonsense.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cosmic

Gay Byrne wrote:

And one of the boys is bound to say 'Hey, Mick, this is a high-performance car. Let's see what she can do'.

Oh Uncle Gaybo, don't let anyone tell you you're not 'down with the kids' :rolleyes:

ha-ya-said-what

Already have this going in the motors as well.

As a learner they must have a fully licensed driver with them at all times. Yet they could be on a permit for up to 4 years or more cos not for the life of them can they pass a test as they are a complete & utter danger ... yet by law they must have the fully licensed passenger.


After passing the test & the RSA certifying them a competent driver they won't allow them to carry any passengers.

Now in which one of them cases are they putting the passengers life at risk??

Also he blamed high preformance cars, if that's the case limit the engine size of the car for that age bracket, not only will it rid the accidents & crashes they claim are caused by the "boy-racers" of that age bracket but it will bring down the cost of insurance for others. I'd have no objective to them limiting the engine size cos I have seen many a mammys boy or girl being handed a 1.9 Golf or some fancy BMW as their first car, they write it off mammy & daddy hand them another one.

Max Power1

SkidMark wrote: »

So you turn up to your driving test accompanied by a qualified driver, because you want to obey the rules of the road.

You pass the test. Under this new law, your passenger would then have to get a taxi home.

Utter nonsense.

QFT

as ridiculous an idea as this is (perhaps old gaybo has finally lost it), I have to admit I Lol'ed at the above

**Timbuk2**

This is so backwards.

When I pass my test, I will want somebody (e.g. one or both of my parents) with me when I am driving for the first time on a motorway, or in any condition that I am not completely comfortable with, but I won't be allowed!

I am 17 (about to turn 18) so this is relevant to me if it is introduced, and I certainly would not be in favour of it, although I understand the purpose that friends could be off-putting.

Maybe it would make more sense if you were allowed to carry passengers if you had at least one person in the car who had their full licence for over 3 years, or something similar.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JustAddWater

That'd be impossible to enforce

So would the rule in general anyhow!

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.