When will they learn?

Mint Sauce

Just heard on the news of 7 teenagers being treated in hospital following a car crash in mayo early this morning, thankfully none of their injuries are life threatning

Seven teens injured in Mayo road crash

Seven teenagers have been taken to hospital following a road accident in Co Mayo.

They had been travelling in a car which hit a wall and a pole at Church Street in Foxford at 4.30am.

Gardaí say the seven are all in their late teens.

They were attended at the scene by the emergency services.

They were removed to Mayo General Hospital in Castlebar.

None is said to have life-threatening injuries.

The area around the crash scene remains sealed off for a technical examination.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0830/rta.html

Following the horific incidents in donegal and kerry, and this near miss, when are people going to learn about the dangers they are facing and the risks they are putting on them selves and others

Surly now its also coming to the time when authorities have to rethink their stratigies and the message they are trying to get arcross before another family have to be woken up to the news that their loved ones have been killed.

Or prehaps a change in the policing or rules on licencing on new drivers.

Tallon

I was actually only talking about this with my nephew yesterday.

I never listen to the radio, but when he was in the car he popped on the news and they were talking about the 3 deaths this weekend. We were trying to get our head around how the hell are people dying every single weekend yet noone is changing their attitude?

I mean, all it takes is a little ajustment in your driving, slowing down in built up areas and where you know there are busy junctions around the corner.

I was in the car with a friend a while back and he was weaving around the roadworks at the N4/M50 upgrade and when I said slow down, he said sure he knows the layout! What a stupid thing to say, he may know it, but all the other drivers don't. You have to allow for other people to make mistakes.

As me aul lad used to always say, "When you get into the car, you are the best driver on the road. Everyone else is an idiot"

Mint Sauce

Exactly, its not your driving you have to look out for, but others as well, no matter how much you know the road, you dont know whats coming around that corner.

mecanoman

Its our whole atitude towards everything "sure it won't happen to me"

When things do happen "its some one else's fault"

If i get done for speeding - "How do i get out of it" What loophole can i use. Rather than owning up and admitting it.

biko

They had been travelling in a car which hit a wall and a pole at Church Street in Foxford at 4.30am.

At that time it was probably drink involved. It tends to cloud judgement badly.

Mr. Presentable

You know what? If they keep themselves to single vehicle "accidents" then, fine, let them cull themselves. The only sympathy I have is for the emergency services who have to clean up after them.

In the case of adults who are too stupid or arrogant to drive responsibly, we are better off without them.

With teenagers you may as well be talking to the wall - they cannot or will not listen, so their parents have to take responsibility and it is they who need to be educated.

Gophur

Tallon wrote: »

................ We were trying to get our head around how the hell are people dying every single weekend yet noone is changing their attitude?
..............

Not quite true to say no one is changing his/her attitude. Many people are, but too many continue to feel invincible.

A long thread was hosted here, recently, where the "he drives, she dies!" campaign was discussed. More people objected to the advertisement because it was an affront to their masculinity than commented on the purpose of the ad.

Every RSA bulletin/campaign seems to be mocked. Gay Burne and Noel Brett are ridiculed, yet it seems to take a dreadful crash in the family of some of these people to get them to wake up to the reality of the dangers on the road.

A road crash is a very violent and savage happening. One should never have to experience it and one can only hope that more and more people will learn and pay heed.

djimi

Gophur wrote: »

Not quite true to say no one is changing his/her attitude. Many people are, but too many continue to feel invincible.

A long thread was hosted here, recently, where the "he drives, she dies!" campaign was discussed. More people objected to the advertisement because it was an affront to their masculinity than commented on the purpose of the ad.

Every RSA bulletin/campaign seems to be mocked. Gay Burne and Noel Brett are ridiculed, yet it seems to take a dreadful crash in the family of some of these people to get them to wake up to the reality of the dangers on the road.

A road crash is a very violent and savage happening. One should never have to experience it and one can only hope that more and more people will learn and pay heed.

Im not going to rehash that "he drives, she dies" arguement again, but the problem with the RSA campaigns is that they immediately get the backs up of a large percentage of those who they are trying to reach out to (as you saw in that thread), and if they left out the "slow down boys" element from every campaign and just concentrated on giving the message to the general driving populus then they might get taken more seriously.

They ran a speeding campaign a few years ago, some young lad driving a Civic crashes into two people sitting on a wall; the message of the ad was very pertinant and should have been taken on board by everyone, but because of the way it was presented (young male Honda driver cripples innocent young girl) my first reaction was "its another slow down boys RSA campaign" rather than its a campaign to try and make people aware of the unseen dangers of driving at excessive speeds.

A change of approach is very much needed by the RSA if they are going to be effective. By all means run the "slow down boys" campaigns, Im not for a second suggesting that they shouldnt be trying to reach out to young drivers, but it doesnt need to be in every campaign they run.

Tallon

Gophur wrote: »

Not quite true to say no one is changing his/her attitude. Many people are, but too many continue to feel invincible.

I obviously didn't mean everyone, it's a generalisation

peasant

This isn't just an Irish problem. All over the world young drivers are represented disproportionally in the accident statistics. Younger people (and in particular young men) really do think that they are invincible.
Even in Germany, where you have extensive driver training and driver education before you can get your licence you get a disproportionate amount of young people killed on the road ...most of them "young bucks" who think that they are invincible and that rules are for losers. No amount of training / road safety messages will educate these people, the best they can hope for is a long run of good luck undtil they finally calm down. Some of them, unfortunately, will end up populating the statistics.

There are factors though that make the Irish problem worse:
- vitually no driver training whatsoever, driving on a learners permit
- lethal roads (especially in the country) that have zero margin for error
- lack of alternatives (again, particularly in the country) to the car
- a general driving population that can't drive properly

gurramok

It does not say it in this case but putting children(and thats what they are) as named drivers on mammy & daddys insurance should be banned. They'd be forced to get a taxi home and will live another day.

Gophur

gurramok wrote: »

It does not say it in this case but putting children(and thats what they are) as named drivers on mammy & daddys insurance should be banned. ..............

How do you propose drivers gain sufficient experience to ever drive on their own?

Gophur

djimi wrote: »

............. the problem with the RSA campaigns is that they immediately get the backs up of a large percentage of those who they are trying to reach out to...............

It really says something that such people (the offended ones) get so upset about what is a campaign to make our roads safer.

There is no problem with the RSA campaigns, only the heads of those who take umbrage with them

R.O.R

Gophur wrote: »

How do you propose drivers gain sufficient experience to ever drive on their own?

Learn with an instructor.
Buy and insure own car.

Might be less likely to take ridiculous chances if it's your own insurance.

Del2005

irish-stew wrote: »

Exactly, its not your driving you have to look out for, but others as well, no matter how much you know the road, you dont know whats coming around that corner.

Since most of these tragic events are single vehicle accidents that doesn't really count, as it was the drivers fault for whatever reason.

Anan1

I'm going to be unpopular for asking this, but there's mounting evidence that the brain (and particularly the part that deals with risk assessment) hasn't fully developed until ca age 25. Might 20 year olds simply be too young to be in control of a car?

peasant

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm going to be unpopular for asking this, but there's mounting evidence that the brain (and particularly the part that deals with risk assessment) hasn't fully developed until ca age 25. Might 20 year olds simply be too young to be in control of a car?

Probably.
But if you denied under 25's access to a car, you'd have to change the fabric of society. (most countries would let you drive a tank once you're over 18 (and joined the army))

Anan1

peasant wrote: »

Probably.
But if you denied under 25's access to a car, you'd have to change the fabric of society. (most countries would let you drive a tank once you're over 18 (and joined the army))

And perhaps rightly so - the purpose of a tank is to cause destruction.;)

biko

I've said it before and I'll say it again: 1 litre Micras for 5 years for all new drivers.

peasant wrote: »

This isn't just an Irish problem. All over the world young drivers are represented disproportionally in the accident statistics. Younger people (and in particular young men) really do think that they are invincible.

Too true. There is even evidence that young males take more risks because of the RSA ads, stupid but there you go.

“Driving is tied up in their self-concept and telling them not to drive fast because they might die, or they may kill others, is perceived as being an assault on their self-esteem. They react defensively by reporting a more marked intention to drive fast because, for many, doing so bolsters their self-esteem” src

mikemac

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm going to be unpopular for asking this, but there's mounting evidence that the brain (and particularly the part that deals with risk assessment) hasn't fully developed until ca age 25. Might 20 year olds simply be too young to be in control of a car?

Maybe, but then you'll have 18 year olds who can buy a beer or serve in overseas mission with the Irish army with a risk of taking a bullet but are too immature to drive a car here?

That's the comparisons that people will bring up

Ilovelucy

Where that crash happened there is an acute bend leading in to a straight road out of the town. Seven people in a car - what were they thinking of. No amount of education is going to stop these accidents as some folks will just go and do what they want to do anyway. Teenagers you are not invincible!

The Big Red Button

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm going to be unpopular for asking this, but there's mounting evidence that the brain (and particularly the part that deals with risk assessment) hasn't fully developed until ca age 25. Might 20 year olds simply be too young to be in control of a car?

But I'm pretty sure that there's also evidence that it's easier to learn to drive and to form good driving habits when you're younger! Problem is, there are too many young drivers who don't learn how to drive properly and who get into bad habits from the very start. I wouldn't be in favour of raising the minimum driving age to 25 at all, but I'd be in favour of the introduction of a certain amount of mandatory driving lessons before taking the test, and of stricter enforcement of the laws re. learners driving unaccompanied.

cadaliac

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm going to be unpopular for asking this, but there's mounting evidence that the brain (and particularly the part that deals with risk assessment) hasn't fully developed until ca age 25. Might 20 year olds simply be too young to be in control of a car?

Tell that to the 18 year old population of Ireland.
Whether or not they are fully functional human beings - I mean that in a non-sarcastic way, won't change the fact that some young people will still behave like teenagers and some won't.
I just don't think that it is really feasable to push out the starting point on a persons driving experience to be in their 20's.
Banning named drivers solves nothing either.
Driver edcucation is key I think.
Also, we will never completely get rid of joyriders in our society as long as there are cars that can drive really fast.

Anan1

feelingstressed wrote: »

Maybe, but then you'll have 18 year olds who can buy a beer or serve in overseas mission with the Irish army with a risk of taking a bullet but are too immature to drive a car here?

That's the comparisons that people will bring up

Perhaps that is the case. Although i'd imagine poor risk assessment is a prerequisite for joining the army.;)

Anan1

cadaliac wrote: »

I just don't think that it is really feasable to push out the starting point on a persons driving experience to be in their 20's.

Me neither. But if that's part of the problem then it's a part that legislation can't solve. We'd just have to accept a certain excess of deaths as the price of letting, say, 17-25 year olds drive.

gurramok

gurramok wrote: »

It does not say it in this case but putting children(and thats what they are) as named drivers on mammy & daddys insurance should be banned. They'd be forced to get a taxi home and will live another day.

I disagree, I think people are less lightly to risk coming home telling their mother or father they wrecked their car than if they wrecked their own car. Its also unfair on the vast majority of people who start out driving like this and often use their parents car after they have passed their test as they cannot afford their own car.

Have you any evidence that its named drivers that are crashing cars?

Dacelonid

I think we need to change how young drivers are introduced to driving in the first place. The problem as I see it is that most teenagers first experience of cars are movies, games and motorsport, and they think they can emulate what they see on their tv when they get behind the wheel.
We need to educate them, not only of the dangers involved in driving, but also how to handle a car, and handle a car safely.
For example we could introduce something like class based lectures on driving, followed by a minimum number of hours of instructor led driving, following by a theory test and driving test, and say do all this before leaving cert. You could also have continuous assesment, eg continually checking that you are using indicators correctly, or using rounabouts properly or whatever.
After all that, they can have their provisional licence, limited to 1l cars and city driving for example. Once on provisional, they can move to more advanced driving school and learn how to drive on motorways, how to control a skid, driving in heavy rain or on ice etc.
Again have a minimum number of hours and at the end another test. Pass that test and you are fully qualified.

If there was that amount of training and education, we would have a way better class of driver that would understand how to drive properly and would hopefully reduce the number of deaths caused by driver error.

kirving

biko wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again: 1 litre Micras for 5 years for all new drivers.

That's not going to solve the problem either (although it would stop 7 people piling into a car), a 1 litre Micra can still get up to a letal speed very easily, and can still be driven badly.

I don't know what the solution is, but I think that educating ALL students, from say, 3rd year in secondary school as to the dangers on the road would help.

Saying that single vehicle accidents are fine, because the drivers are at fault isn't really fair. I doubt that any of the pessengers were at fault, or deserved it. That said, I would never get into an overloaded car, or not wear my seatbelt.

si_guru

Dacelonid wrote: »

I think we need to change how young drivers are introduced to driving in the first place. The problem as I see it is that most teenagers first experience of cars are movies, games and motorsport, and they think they can emulate what they see on their tv when they get behind the wheel.
We need to educate them, not only of the dangers involved in driving, but also how to handle a car, and handle a car safely.
For example we could introduce something like class based lectures on driving, followed by a minimum number of hours of instructor led driving, following by a theory test and driving test, and say do all this before leaving cert. You could also have continuous assesment, eg continually checking that you are using indicators correctly, or using rounabouts properly or whatever.
After all that, they can have their provisional licence, limited to 1l cars and city driving for example. Once on provisional, they can move to more advanced driving school and learn how to drive on motorways, how to control a skid, driving in heavy rain or on ice etc.
Again have a minimum number of hours and at the end another test. Pass that test and you are fully qualified.

If there was that amount of training and education, we would have a way better class of driver that would understand how to drive properly and would hopefully reduce the number of deaths caused by driver error.

We need to educate them that the roads are a cummunial service not a place for careless recreation. Driving a car is not a right and it is a huge responsibilty.

There needs to be a curfew... really.. think how many lives would have been saved just this year if under 21s were not allowed out at night.

plus use ANPR to police insurance, license and tax. IT IS NOT HARD!

RIP those poor kids in Kerry..

SG

cadaliac

Anan1 wrote: »

Me neither. But if that's part of the problem then it's a part that legislation can't solve. We'd just have to accept a certain excess of deaths as the price of letting, say, 17-25 year olds drive.

You are right; no legislation will be able to fix that. I don't know if society as a whole would accept "deaths as the price of letting, say, 17-25 year olds drive" either. This is un chartered territory for society - having young people dieing every single weekend. It has only come to bear over the last couple of years - well as far as I am aware of anyway.

Anan1

cadaliac wrote: »

You are right; no legislation will be able to fix that. I don't know if society as a whole would accept "deaths as the price of letting, say, 17-25 year olds drive" either.

That's exactly what we're doing at the moment.

cadaliac wrote: »

This is un chartered territory for society - having young people dieing every single weekend. It has only come to bear over the last couple of years - well as far as I am aware of anyway.

I think it's only become a media issue recently, as a result of a few crashes involving multiple fatalities. AFAIK young people have always been dying in disproportionate numbers on our roads.

oldyouth

There are laws that are being broken every day such as speeding, learner drivers without qualified driver alongside, drink driving, every occupant to wear a seat belt, no NCT etc.

The time is coming where draconian laws will be enforced on all our driving, but particularily the younger ones, if we do not cop on as a society. You can expect time curfews for certain groups, restrictions on the size and type of vehicles and very expensive driving instruction requirements.

I personally think it is to late to prevent this scenario, but if it stops further carnage (and I was criticised for using that word on a previous thread), I would have to accept it as being the only solution, given that we have learnt nothing in recent years

Wibbs

irish-stew wrote: »

Just heard on the news of 7 teenagers being treated in hospital following a car crash in mayo early this morning, thankfully none of their injuries are life threatning

Well for a start I would put in place serious penalties for car overloading. It's a big problem in rural areas. Understandably so with the lack of alternatives, but 7 up in an Opel astra is a bit mad Ted. Clearly people have not learned from the horrific crash in Donegal on this score alone.

peasant wrote: »

This isn't just an Irish problem. All over the world young drivers are represented disproportionally in the accident statistics. Younger people (and in particular young men) really do think that they are invincible.
Even in Germany, where you have extensive driver training and driver education before you can get your licence you get a disproportionate amount of young people killed on the road ...most of them "young bucks" who think that they are invincible and that rules are for losers. No amount of training / road safety messages will educate these people, the best they can hope for is a long run of good luck undtil they finally calm down. Some of them, unfortunately, will end up populating the statistics.

Agreed, sadly like the poor they'll always be with us.

There are factors though that make the Irish problem worse:
- vitually no driver training whatsoever, driving on a learners permit
- lethal roads (especially in the country) that have zero margin for error
- lack of alternatives (again, particularly in the country) to the car
- a general driving population that can't drive properly

+1

Now this is just my humble, but having driven in a fair few european countries I would say the Irish driver contrary to popular belief is in reality not that bad or unsafe as others. We have actually a low death rate compared to quite a few of our neighbours. We certainly seem to drive slower than some of the countries around the Mediterranean and in eastern Europe you're taking your life in your hands.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/d/d7/Transport_accidents%2C_by_NUTS_2_regions%2C_2003_to_2005_Standardised_death_rate_per_100_000_inhabitants_in_males_aged_0_to_64.PNG
Many of those worse countries have much more stringent driver instruction and restrictions than we have. Our low population and traffic density certainly is a factor of course, but maybe its time to take a different tack? I would certainly agree that the sometimes third world quality of our road system needs a serious look at. Then again that costs way more than a "lets blame the 18 year old boogieman TV ad. More transport resources in rural areas another avenue that needs exploration. Again finance is the issue. Maybe government help for local communities to run their own would be easier there.

gurramok wrote: »

It does not say it in this case but putting children(and thats what they are) as named drivers on mammy & daddys insurance should be banned. They'd be forced to get a taxi home and will live another day.

Good theory and I agree, but I suspect especially in rural areas not well patrolled you may just have more uninsured drivers taking a risk at three AM. Plus taxi's are all very well in urban areas, not so good in rural.

Mint Sauce

irish-stew wrote: »

Exactly, its not your driving you have to look out for, but others as well, no matter how much you know the road, you dont know whats coming around that corner.

Del2005 wrote: »

Since most of these tragic events are single vehicle accidents that doesn't really count, as it was the drivers fault for whatever reason.

Sorry to disagree, but it does still count to a certain extent, you may now the road like the back of you hand, but there could be a harazd around that corner, it does not have to be another car or driver, and you may be simply going to fast or not have the skill/experience to react. Basically expect the unexpected.

biko wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again: 1 litre Micras for 5 years for all new drivers.

Hmm, wouldn't quite go that far, but would certainly be in favour of limiting the engine size you can drive for a period of time after your test. 6 months to a year maybe.

Also in favour of manitory lessons, ie, having to build up a certain amount of time with an approved instructer before going for test.

Put guards on the single carriage way, no hardshoulder roads, where most of the accidents are happening, and not all equiped for driving at 80 to 100kph. And not just the by passes, duel carriage ways and moterways, where you can maybe safely sometimes get away with going over the limit. Stop using speed testing as revenue collecting exercise, and have a visable presence on our secondary roads.

Rethink the speeds. I'm allowed within the law to drive at a 100km along a windy road, with dips and creasts, no hard shoulders, no place to run off, with corners hidden by trees and over grown hedges, and consealed enterences. But cant go any faster on a high quality duel carriage way, straight for as far as the eye can see, hard shoulders, cats eyes, no vegitation to block the view, long slip roads, etc. Not saying they need to UP the speeds on HQDC, but maybe reduce the speeds on the secondary roads, not all of us drive within our limits, or within the conditions in front of us.

peasant

From my personal experience, good driver education does make a difference.
Believe it or not, I too was once young and reckless, but in my case education helped. We weren't just told "slow down,boys !", we learned why. During theory lessons (mandatory in order to take the theory test) we learned about the physics of driving, friction forces, g-forces, what happens when you overload a car, go too fast; how tyres work, how your car works; and we were shown films of what happens when things go wrong as well as pictures from real accidents with an analysys of what happed why.

Whenever I was feeling particularly invincible on the road, these pictures kept flashing back and helped to reign myself in.

There is another point that is seriously lacking in Ireland though and that is the actual road safety.
In order to assess risks on the road, you need to be able to see them. Irish country roads are dismal in that respect.
There is crap signage, road markings are dire, cats eyes nonexistent, speed limits are arbitrary, often nonsensical and the positioning of the signs themselves sometimes borders on cynical.
The height of actual road safety is an "accident black spot" sign.
That simply isn't good enough.

threebeards

biko wrote: »

At that time it was probably drink involved. It tends to cloud judgement badly.

Quite possible and probable, but whether it was or not, surely, especially after the Donegal incident more so than the Kerry one (with no disrespect to the Kerry crash), surely young guys would cop on and not overload a car. At a minimum, 2 of the occupants couldn't have had seat belts on.

I drive a big family car and it would be well full with myself and 4 others, but 4 in an Astra???? How many have to die before these young guys get the message. I've read threads here before where boy racers were criticised for speeding etc and I've seen the "responsible" response from boy racers to say they know how to handle the car and the roads and any situation and what would those doing the criticising know......6 months driving a modified Japanese import does not sufficient driving experience give. To quote the ad, it really is time to wise up. If for no other reason, think how your parents would feel to get a knock at the door at 6.00 in the morning only to be met by 2 Gardai who have to break the worst news a parent will ever hear - that their child is DEAD!!!

gurramok

Mira Tangy Triceps wrote: »

I disagree, I think people are less lightly to risk coming home telling their mother or father they wrecked their car than if they wrecked their own car. Its also unfair on the vast majority of people who start out driving like this and often use their parents car after they have passed their test as they cannot afford their own car.

Have you any evidence that its named drivers that are crashing cars?

Parents cars are generally more powerful than that of a young driver's car who is starting out on their own.(very high insurance rates show this)
Thats just a crazy situation allowing inexperienced youngsters to drive these cars just because the insurance is a pittance via the named driver route.

They have a less responsibility attitude too with 'its not my car attitude'. 'Ah sure Daddy will pay for the damage I do cause to the car'. If the youngster actually owned the car, he will give it TLC as its his personal possession.

There are no stats in these type of crashes on what type of insurance the victims were driving but its too easy to spot when you hear of a 17yr old crashing a 2L car. That 17yr old can only get behind of the wheel of said car either as a named driver or by stealing it and most do not steal them.

Stark

gurramok wrote: »

Parents cars are generally more powerful than that of a young driver's car who is starting out on their own.(very high insurance rates show this)
Thats just a crazy situation allowing inexperienced youngsters to drive these cars just because the insurance is a pittance via the named driver route.

They have a less responsibility attitude too with 'its not my car attitude'. 'Ah sure Daddy will pay for the damage I do cause to the car'. If the youngster actually owned the car, he will give it TLC as its his personal possession.

There are no stats in these type of crashes on what type of insurance the victims were driving but its too easy to spot when you hear of a 17yr old crashing a 2L car. That 17yr old can only get behind of the wheel of said car either as a named driver or by stealing it and most do not steal them.

My use of my parents' car was based on the "prove to us when you're driving with us that you can drive responsibly and we'll think about letting you have it for a half an hour or so on your own" principle. Far better than handing me the keys to my own car and saying "here you go, go off and do what you like" imo. Especially when a scratch would mean loss of driving privileges.

If "D4 Daddy" doesn't give a **** about the kids coming home with the family car half wrecked, he's probably not going to give a **** about paying out €3,000 for them to get insured on a powerful car either. Banning named drivers is only going to affect the less well off.

gurramok

gurramok wrote: »

They have a less responsibility attitude too with 'its not my car attitude'. 'Ah sure Daddy will pay for the damage I do cause to the car'. If the youngster actually owned the car, he will give it TLC as its his personal possession.

Personally I would disagree. I started out driving as a named driver and I would certainly rather wreck my own car than have to go home and tell my mother her car was in bits. I lived in the middle of no where and it was my only way to start driving and get a bit of independence, you cannot just take it away from everybody because of a tiny number who abuse it.

On the topic of their cars being more powerful, just take for example the two car involved in the crash in mayo and the fatal one in kerry. An Astra (most likely a small engine) and a 1.3 Hyundai, hardly rocket ships.

In general you very rarely if ever see powerful cars or modified cars (despite getting the blame all the time) involved in fatal accidents.

Tea 1000

Raising the age from 17 to 18 might help a little. The provisional license thing where they have to have a fully licenced driver? That driver should have to be over 25 at least, maybe even over 30. Insurance companies should just get together and say that from 17 to 21 you can insure anything up to a 100bhp car and are only insured between 7am and 10pm unless you're on night shift, and provide proof to the fact, and then are only insured on your to and from work route during off-hours. Also you're not able to get insurance unless you can provide documents to prove that you've had x amount of lessons.
After that the Guards should rigidly enforce existing laws (and yes, that does mean that some members will need to be patrolling roads at night time), and they should also produce the figures for the number of crashes where the driver had alcohol in their system, and what state the cars tyres were in, etc.
Only then can they start narrowing down the real problems.
Rosmary Ryan has been trying to get driving education into schools for the last 10 or 15 years and got nowhere, so it proves the mind-set that you're up against for anything of this sort.
"Introduce more laws, that'll keep the public quiet for another week" seems to be the attitude.

Atomic Pineapple

irish-stew wrote: »

Hmm, wouldn't quite go that far, but would certainly be in favour of limiting the engine size you can drive for a period of time after your test. 6 months to a year maybe.

Engine size doesn't equate to power though, you can get 1.3 Glanza's with power over 200bhp (130bhp standard) and I believe Golf TSFI's can be got in 1.4 form with 170bhp.

Basing it on power output might be a better idea.

Anyway thats beside the point, why is everyone coming up with over complicated ideas to try to deal with it when the solution is simple?

Wind up the RSA who are costing money and getting no results.
Stop funding Gay Byrnes retirement, hiring someone like Gay Byrne as a road safety spokesperson makes no sense, he will never relate to or be respected in anyway by the highest risk group on our roads so paying him for that is a waste of money.
Implement proper driving education both theory and practical in secondary schools.
Implement proper enforced restrictions for learner drivers.
Help them afford insurance on cars that meet certain safety criteria.
Provide track days where young lads can get it out of there system in a controlled enviroment.
Pump money into upgrading national/regional roads to safer levels.
Implement a test that actually works, add motorway testing for example
Re test drivers up to the age of 25 every 2 years (would have to be free of charge)

Of course this will never happen as it will cost the government money rather than the current set up where the RSA and Gay Byrne act as smoke screen to the general public and spout rubbish about speeding as the root of every single traffic related problem so the GTC can get out there speed guns and rake in a bit more cash from motorists.

Stark

Mira Tangy Triceps wrote: »

In general you very rarely if ever see powerful cars or modified cars (despite getting the blame all the time) involved in fatal accidents.

Probably because they have safety features unlike a Nissan ****ebox.

Wibbs

Mira Tangy Triceps wrote: »

In general you very rarely if ever see powerful cars or modified cars (despite getting the blame all the time) involved in fatal accidents.

+1000. But ahh you see, they're a lazy target to go for and people have a tendency to look at these easy explanations for complex problems. Makes for better PR and makes it look like being seen to do the right thing, which is very very common in this country of ours. "Dose dangerous Jap import yokes are the cause of all this, to be shure to be shure" the latest daft meme.

If we look back at the fatal crashes in the news for just this year, show me just one where it was a powerful or modified car involved. Show me a fatal or near fatal crash involving a BMW m5 or Porsche or Mitsibishi Evo or any other turbo nutter bastid car you care to mention. Actually go back as much a you like and show me an example. 9 times outa 10(or higher) its a family runabout or old secondhand econobox.

Stark wrote:

My use of my parents' car was based on the "prove to us when you're driving with us that you can drive responsibly and we'll think about letting you have it for a half an hour or so on your own" principle. Far better than handing me the keys to my own car and saying "here you go, go off and do what you like" imo. Especially when a scratch would mean loss of driving privileges.

Ditto for me too. Problem there is Stark, open the pages of any newspaper most days of the week and you will read tragedies on the road(and others) where the parents acted... Well suffice to say the understandable scale of the resulting tragedy overpowers the all too valid question of WTF?

gurramok

Stark wrote: »

My use of my parents' car was based on the "prove to us when you're driving with us that you can drive responsibly and we'll think about letting you have it for a half an hour or so on your own" principle. Far better than handing me the keys to my own car and saying "here you go, go off and do what you like" imo. Especially when a scratch would mean loss of driving privileges.

If "D4 Daddy" doesn't give a **** about the kids coming home with the family car half wrecked, he's probably not going to give a **** about paying out €3,000 for them to get insured on a powerful car either. Banning named drivers is only going to affect the less well off.

Sounds like you had responsible parents. Others do not and look at the young people dying in cars that they clearly cannot afford themselves to run insurance wise(unless there were extremely rich!). They only got to drive those cars by being down as a named driver.

Mira Tangy Triceps wrote: »

Personally I would disagree. I started out driving as a named driver and I would certainly rather wreck my own car than have to go home and tell my mother her car was in bits. I lived in the middle of no where and it was my only way to start driving and get a bit of independence, you cannot just take it away from everybody because of a tiny number who abuse it.

On the topic of their cars being more powerful, just take for example the two car involved in the crash in mayo and the fatal one in kerry. An Astra (most likely a small engine) and a 1.3 Hyundai, hardly rocket ships.

In general you very rarely if ever see powerful cars or modified cars (despite getting the blame all the time) involved in fatal accidents.

Why didn't you start off with your own car and insurance?

What I meant by 'powerful' was anything more than lets say 75BHP. I was not talking about modified cars. I'm talking about bigger cars that a parent can afford to run.
Their children should be learning to drive in a Micra and not in their parents cars unless its a Micra type car itself.

Gophur

draffodx wrote: »

.............

Wind up the RSA who are costing money and getting no results....................................................

Are you serious? You , obviously, have not looked at the Road Accident statistics over the past years. Do and come back and report any trends.

draffodx wrote: »

.............

.........................
Stop funding Gay Byrnes retirement, hiring someone like Gay Byrne as a road safety spokesperson makes no sense, he will never relate to or be respected in anyway by the highest risk group on our roads so paying him for that is a waste of money..................................

1. How much is he getting from the RSA? Buttons, in reality, an insignificant amount.

and

2. Why has there never been one word from Aarton McHale, a board member of the RSA? Would he be of the ilk you want, "to be respected..... by the highest risk group.? Or do you mean Lady GaGa, or the like?

Personally, I think the so-called high risk group will not listen to any Public figure, so the way to get them is via their Parents and their peers. (Which is the way a lot of the RSA pronouncements work!)

Wibbs

gurramok wrote: »

Why didn't you start off with your own car and insurance?

Cost no doubt. Its a catch 22. Young person starting out has little or no choice but to go the named driver route(unless funds allow). Since costs are so high for that market.

gurramok

Wibbs wrote: »

Cost no doubt. Its a catch 22. Young person starting out has little or no choice but to go the named driver route(unless funds allow). Since costs are so high for that market.

So the cost prevented you from starting on your own. If young named drivers insurance was scrapped, what would you have done in order to learn to drive?

Stark

Probably wouldn't have been able to drive. Would that make you happy? Of course all the rich kids and the kids who left school at 16 to become builders would still be able to drive, just not the lower middle class ones. You're essentially proposing a minimum income requirement as the solution to the young drivers issue, not the most fair solution imo.

There's also the issue which no-one has mentioned yet about all the 60+ year old drivers who are killed crashing into trees on a regular basis.

Gophur

gurramok wrote: »

.........If young named drivers insurance was scrapped, what would you have done in order to learn to drive?

It wasn't, so your question is irrelevant.

The named-drivers issue is a red-herring, lads.

gurramok

Stark wrote: »

Probably wouldn't have been able to drive. Would that make you happy? Of course all the rich kids and the kids who left school at 16 to become builders would still be able to drive, just not the lower middle class ones. You're essentially proposing a minimum income requirement as the solution to the young drivers issue, not the most fair solution imo.

There's also the issue which no-one has mentioned yet about all the 60+ year old drivers who are killed crashing into trees on a regular basis.

The topic is will they(young drivers) ever learn. Googling 'teenager car crash' brings obvious results. Alot of drivers who died were in their late teens(one driver was 16). They could not of all been insured on their own due to the sky high cost. The insurance must of been provided for them.

If that insurance was taken away due to economics(via named drivers) and driver learning enforcement(those new mandatory lesson laws), those people would have a greater chance of been alive today.

Gophur wrote: »

It wasn't, so your question is irrelevant.

The named-drivers issue is a red-herring, lads.

No its not. What i'm saying is if we try to make it hard for a teenager to drive without adequate supervision, they can be forced to wait a few years until they are mature enough and well trained in order to drive properly.

gurramok

gurramok wrote: »

Sounds like you had responsible parents. Others do not and look at the young people dying in cars that they clearly cannot afford themselves to run insurance wise(unless there were extremely rich!). They only got to drive those cars by being down as a named driver.

Why didn't you start off with your own car and insurance?

For a start I couldn't have afforded to buy, run or insure a car in my own name. Going down as a named driver is also just the done thing. I did it, then got my own car, my sister did it and then got her own car and my younger sister is now learning as a named driver on my mothers car.

gurramok wrote: »

What I meant by 'powerful' was anything more than lets say 75BHP. I was not talking about modified cars. I'm talking about bigger cars that a parent can afford to run.
Their children should be learning to drive in a Micra and not in their parents cars unless its a Micra type car itself.

The issue I have is that again look at the cars people are getting killed in, its these small cars an awful lot of the time. I dont buy into this "they should be driving a 1ltr"car stuff. Ok I'm not saying learners should be out driving Evo's or M3's but standard family cars in the 80 bhp to 130 bhp range I wouldn't have a problem with. At the end of the day you can travel just as fast in the micra on a country road once you get up to speed and things are much more likely to go wrong in the Micra.

I actually think small cars are a death trap tbh, would you not rather see your child driving your lets say Passat or Avensis with all modern safety features, abs, airbags etc than some s**t box Micra that you haven't a chance in if things go wrong.