learner drivers getting hung out to dry once again

Ickle Magoo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the reverse around the corner is to simulate this. they obviously can't do it into a smaller space with cars in case you **** it up and damage cars. There is no parallel park though... (or many many other things)

If I remember correctly - it was a wee while ago now - I had to do a reverse park, a parallel park, reverse round a corner, go on a dual carriageway, uphill start and all the rest. They found places with spaces between walls or bollards to do the parking - I don't think there is any reason not to include it in the test. I've had to reverse peoples cars in and out of spaces for them they are so bad at it! :eek:

johnmurphy2010

bluewolf wrote: »

I've been driving a 1l micra for the last year or so. I saw the most gorgeous 2.4 convertible I'd love. Can I get insurance on anything above 1.4? can I fcuk. I'll have to have my licence a couple more years for that, or pay out 2 grand insurance.
Whatever about the rules the insurance companies are enforcing that one!

You have just proven my point. thank you.

From what you have just stated, I gather you are on the road probably 1 year at the most. You are driving a 1.0 litre micra which I may only assume is the car you done you test in and now, only being on the road for a very short period of time want to drive a 2.4 litre car which you are in no way capable of handling. (I don't care how much you say that you are a "great driver")

Doesn't it further emphasise my points the fact that the insurance company will charge you alot of money to insure you on a 2.4 litre. They are assuming (with good cause) that you will end up either creaming yourself, or worst, someone else.

However, if you had money, you could legally still insure yourself on the 2.4 litre car and drive it and no guard can stop you (unless you break the law in some way).

If it were up to me, assuming the car you done your test in was a 1.0 litre micra, you would only be legally allowed to drive a car with a max engine capacity of 1.2.

Also, another thing I don't get is that....
Even if you drive a 1.0 litre micra, a 1.6 litre golf, a 2.0 trooper, or whatever...you can only drive an absolute max of 120km/hr.

Actually, if the RSA brought this rule in, they would also make a mint in the process of assisting saving lives because everytime someone wants to change their car for one that has a far bigger capacity engine, they must go through the system and sit a test.

A cant see the downside of this one really.

Noreen1

johnmurphy2010 wrote: »

You have just proven my point. thank you.

From what you have just stated, I gather you are on the road probably 1 year at the most. You are driving a 1.0 litre micra which I may only assume is the car you done you test in and now, only being on the road for a very short period of time want to drive a 2.4 litre car which you are in no way capable of handling. (I don't care how much you say that you are a "great driver")

Doesn't it further emphasise my points the fact that the insurance company will charge you alot of money to insure you on a 2.4 litre. They are assuming (with good cause) that you will end up either creaming yourself, or worst, someone else.

However, if you had money, you could legally still insure yourself on the 2.4 litre car and drive it and no guard can stop you (unless you break the law in some way).

If it were up to me, assuming the car you done your test in was a 1.0 litre micra, you would only be legally allowed to drive a car with a max engine capacity of 1.2.

Also, another thing I don't get is that....
Even if you drive a 1.0 litre micra, a 1.6 litre golf, a 2.0 trooper, or whatever...you can only drive an absolute max of 120km/hr.

Actually, if the RSA brought this rule in, they would also make a mint in the process of assisting saving lives because everytime someone wants to change their car for one that has a far bigger capacity engine, they must go through the system and sit a test.

A cant see the downside of this one really.

Er, I think you just missed his point. He cannot get insurance for a car with an engine capacity over 1.4L, at any price. Therefore, he cannot legally drive a 2.0L.

Noreen

FlashGordon1969

HavingCrack wrote: »

I never thought Fianna Fail would ever come out with anything I approve of but every suggestion in this is worthwhile.

Lets face facts within a short period after passing test -your good test habits will pass. So put what you like in the test-have them driving around hazards like lunatics its all to no avail long term. The R plate thing and the double penalty points are good ideas as are speed modifiers BUT what chance of these when you rarely see the Cops these days anyway. Driving five years I can recall one drink driving check and despite frequently speeding (say 10-20 MPH) here and there= no tickets.

coffee_cake

johnmurphy2010 wrote: »

You have just proven my point. thank you.

Since I said I can't reasonable get insurance and therefore cannot drive the car, regulations aside, I have indeed proven it and shown you regulations are hardly needed

From what you have just stated, I gather you are on the road probably 1 year at the most. You are driving a 1.0 litre micra which I may only assume is the car you done you test in and now, only being on the road for a very short period of time want to drive a 2.4 litre car which you are in no way capable of handling. (I don't care how much you say that you are a "great driver")

Couple years in all
Did most of my lessons in instructor car but no idea what engine that was

If it were up to me, assuming the car you done your test in was a 1.0 litre micra, you would only be legally allowed to drive a car with a max engine capacity of 1.2.

Ok, good thing it's not up to you

Also, another thing I don't get is that....
Even if you drive a 1.0 litre micra, a 1.6 litre golf, a 2.0 trooper, or whatever...you can only drive an absolute max of 120km/hr.

And It would be nice not to have to take 5 mins to merge up to motorway speed

noreen wrote:

Er, I think you just missed his point. He cannot get insurance for a car with an engine capacity over 1.4L, at any price. Therefore, he cannot legally drive a 2.0L.

She

Well techincally I did get one for 2k but I have no intention of paying 2k insurance for a 5k car

edit:
I'd nearly be for the re-testing for larger cars simply for
1/ people in big cars taking any excuse to tailgate me or other small cars, doing some seriously dangerous driving and having no concept of safety distance
2/ people not knowing to turn the lights on their big cars on :mad:
and 3/ learn what the lanes on a motorway are for.
That should be on the theory test. Instant fail if you say "fast lane" or think the middle lane is the one to be in.

FlashGordon1969

Tend to agree with you about big cars tail gating-are they hiding a deficiency by driving such a big vehicle ,particularly an SUV in Dublin? On another point-if you are on M50 according to guy in AA (conor) you aint meant to be "just cruising in the outer lane" which confused me-if you are going max speed limit in outer lane surely that is not cruising??Perhaps he meant those going under it?

coffee_cake

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

Tend to agree with you about big cars tail gating-are they hiding a deficiency by driving such a big vehicle ,particularly an SUV in Dublin? On another point-if you are on M50 according to guy in AA (conor) you aint meant to be "just cruising in the outer lane" which confused me-if you are going max speed limit in outer lane surely that is not cruising??Perhaps he meant those going under it?

Would read to me as "outer [assuming you mean rightmost lane] is for overtaking not driving in" which is a major pet peeve of mine
So now you know, don't drive in the overtaking lane :pac:

stovelid

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

On another point-if you are on M50 according to guy in AA (conor) you aint meant to be "just cruising in the outer lane" which confused me-if you are going max speed limit in outer lane surely that is not cruising??Perhaps he meant those going under it?

They're called overtaking lanes.

The clue to their correct usage is cunningly contained in the name.

starlit

I cannot understand why they don't have driving lessons for first timers driving on a motorway who are newly passed full driving licence holders!

johnmurphy2010

Noreen1 wrote: »

Er, I think you just missed his point. He cannot get insurance for a car with an engine capacity over 1.4L, at any price. Therefore, he cannot legally drive a 2.0L.

Noreen

I suggest you read back what I wrote and your response. I got his point quite well. My point is that he CAN LEGALLY drive a 2.0L. For example, if he won the lotto tomorrow and offered 30,000 to be insured on a 2.0L, are you seriously telling me that they are going to refuse him? Not at all. Therefore, LEGAL / ILLEGAL has nothing to do with it from an insurance companies point of view because it is simply the insurance companies choice to not insure him. It is not that they are not insuring him because it is illegal for him to drive a 2.0L.

coffee_cake

johnmurphy2010 wrote: »

I suggest you read back what I wrote and your response. I got his point quite well. My point is that he CAN LEGALLY drive a 2.0L. For example, if he won the lotto tomorrow and offered 30,000 to be insured on a 2.0L, are you seriously telling me that they are going to refuse him? Not at all. Therefore, LEGAL / ILLEGAL has nothing to do with it from an insurance companies point of view because it is simply the insurance companies choice to not insure him. It is not that they are not insuring him because it is illegal for him to drive a 2.0L.

She
And my original point was if I could barely get insurance there's hardly a need for regulation. It was a flippant remark.

flash1080

stovelid wrote: »

They're called overtaking lanes.

The clue to their correct usage is cunningly contained in the name.

Ditto for fog lights and parking lights.

gollem_1975

snuggles285 wrote: »

I cannot understand why they don't have driving lessons for first timers driving on a motorway who are newly passed full driving licence holders!

My instructor ( Ascari ) gives a free motorway lesson after you pass your test.

It is possible to have driving lessons after you pass your test. driving schools don't market them though .. the market seems to be for learner drivers only.

perhaps there should be another exam before you can drive unaccompanied on the motorways also ? could be incentivised by a lower insurance premium ?

Sofiztikated

bluewolf wrote: »

She
And my original point was if I could barely get insurance there's hardly a need for regulation. It was a flippant remark.

Not really. They are not "not insuring you," as they cannot refuse to quote you, especially if you have tried 3 other insurance companies. They can however offer you an outrageous quote.

Then again, even for new drivers, and technically even provisional drivers, 2.0l engines are not outrageously expensive. I don't mean to sound offensive, but because you cannot afford it, does not mean the next learner cannot.

I don't think it should be capacity, but BHP/PS decisive. You can get more bhp out of a standard glanza than out of a standard passat. Having said that, and I would love to see the statistics for this, how many people killing themselves are in modified cars, boy racer cars, (I hate that term.)

Because any time I see horrific crashes, what I can make out of the cars, they are standard.

Dempsey

flash1080 wrote: »

Ditto for fog lights and parking lights.

Dont confuse parking lights with DRL's though.

Personally, I do have parks on whilst driving when light levels are low, its proven to reduce accidents.

FlashGordon1969

The test will be made more complex next few years but driving on the roads will remain appallingly bad. Monitoring young drivers is a good idea with double penalty points etc but making the test more complex is a ton of nonsense because we all slipped back into some bad habits once the test was over.
As for the smart arse telling me about the over taking lane-I actually didnt know that because going on the drivers around me (you probably)I assumed it was the fast lane!! Shame on me!



I normally run a few yellow lights a day for example.

BTW-I know this will elicit the usual pedants and smug drivers but I wont be back so blast away and my sympathy to all learner drivers. I do have my test.

gurramok

'Thousands of Learner Drivers escape the rap'
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thousands-of-ldrivers-avoid-rap-2393120.html

AH response. Fair play, rap is crap

indo wrote:

HALF of all learner drivers due before the courts last year for two basic driving offences escaped without a conviction.

The new figures come after gardai mounted an October bank holiday road safety campaign targeted especially at learner drivers -- statistically among the riskiest road users.

According to the figures from the Courts Service, around 6,700 charges were brought against learner drivers last year for driving without L-plates and driving unaccompanied.

Just 50pc of the 2,118 learner drivers summonsed for driving without L-plates were convicted, and just 51pc of the 2,344 learner drivers summonsed for driving unaccompanied were convicted.

Those brought before the courts represent only a fraction of the 275,000 learner drivers in the country.

The biggest single reason for learner drivers escaping a conviction last year was that -- in around 2,000 cases -- the drivers could not be tracked down by gardai. This resulted in the courts recording these cases "strike out, not served".

Guy:Incognito

Morlar wrote: »

Well a lot of people especially growing up on farms will know how to drive a car without needing 16x lessons from a driving instructor. A lot more people are more comfortable learning from a partner or a parent so making lessons from driving schools/instructors compulsory to those people simply means additional un-needed cost. The cost of lessons has gone up a lot - someone recently told me (this could be way wrong) it was now €50 per lesson. I'd prefer them to overhaul the TEST system rather than making driving instructors compulsory.

The other parts about R plates for 2x years and increased penalty points I would agree with.

Is what your describing above not the same type of haphazard rubbish going on in other aspects of the running of the country that everyone is giving out about? It's all well and good moaning about reforms in other sectors but as soon as it affects you (not you in particular) it's suddenly an attack.

TheDoc

Thank god I found this thread

Was putting my test on the long finger.

Gonig to get it done now this month, save myself some money.

Its tough enough getting moeny to provide for the OTT priced insurance I'm going to have to pay ( quoted €3000 on a 1.4 car at 23yrs of age)

And they want me to pay for 12 hours lessons aswell, kiss me fat one.

If the lessons were provided by a government department, and free of charge, part of the theory test, then I'm all for it.