Road safety issues

Gannicus

A few friends and I were discussing road safety in work and the lads and girls had some input into improvements that could be made. I've posted them here to see what the boardsies think. Now bear in mind we do work for a large motor insurance company (not quinn)

1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get
7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road

Now I must say I agree totally with the drink driving ones and I am quite fond of the Taxi idea.
Also I can understand the one about the age limit on driving but that's not to say I agree with it but I do understand.
The one about no full licence by 50 or 3 strike rule I think is kinda harsh.

Gophur

For a start your suggestions are ageist. (Surely' it's one's driving ability that should determine one's right to drive, not the number on your birth cert?)

FatherLen

no some of them are crazy.
if i was a twenty year old who has had a full license for two years i would still need a baby sitter in the car??

and the perma ban is unrealistic

jester77

Getting rid of the provisional license would be a start. The most ridiculous system I've ever come across. Just go in, get a license and start driving with zero knowledge. Sit your test, fail and drive home. Bloody joke

Gannicus

Gophur wrote: »

For a start your suggestions are ageist. (Surely' it's one's driving ability that should determine one's right to drive, not the number on your birth cert?)

For read the whole post I said they were ideas from a group. and at the bottom i said that I didn't agree with the max age on a driver but i do understand. I'm not condoning it i just get it from a drivers perspective.

NothingMan

Is there an IQ test you have to fail before working in that company?

orourkeda

Gophur wrote: »

For a start your suggestions are ageist. (Surely' it's one's driving ability that should determine one's right to drive, not the number on your birth cert?)

Age sometimes affects ones ability to drive.

With youth comes inexperience and certain older drivers face the added risk of health issues hindering their ability (70 to 75 year olds as mentioned)

MarkR

Women. Don't forget women. Let's put them off the road. And men with BMW's. And people with mobile phones. And left handed people. Sumo wrestlers probably shouldn't get a licence either.

/sweeping generalization.

orourkeda

jester77 wrote: »

Getting rid of the provisional license would be a start. The most ridiculous system I've ever come across. Just go in, get a license and start driving with zero knowledge. Sit your test, fail and drive home. Bloody joke

There are thousands of drivers with full licences that are as great a risk to the drivers arounds them than some provisional licence holders

Gannicus

FatherLen wrote: »

and the perma ban is unrealistic

no its not a perma ban on someones life is unrealistic. accidents happen and thats going to be navoidable but GROSS NEGLIGENCE isn't. We are all very aware on the effects drink has on a persons ability to drive. Its like taking up smoking the info is there now so there's no excuse anymore (btw i am a smoker). I have never drank even one beer and driven so i don't see why everyone that drives should not do the same.

I would prefer something like retesting for everyone every 10 years or something like that
most of the OP suggestions are, eh, thick

oh and proper enforcement of current driving rules by gardai

GrizzlyMan

not a realistic list but it might have been if you added:

anyone with an exhaust which was stolen from an aeroplane and makes my ears bleed when they drive by should be banned for life!

Gannicus

NothingMan wrote: »

Is there an IQ test you have to fail before working in that company?

I honestly think that is an excellent idea.. the mental and intellectual capacity to be allowed to drive.

orourkeda

MarkR wrote: »

Women. Don't forget women. Let's put them off the road. And men with BMW's. And people with mobile phones. And left handed people. Sumo wrestlers probably shouldn't get a licence either.

/sweeping generalization.

Or anyone who cant drive properly

NothingMan

NothingMan wrote: »

Is there an IQ test you have to fail before working in that company?

Big Steve wrote: »

I honestly think that is an excellent idea.. the mental and intellectual capacity to be allowed to drive.

Eh........ never mind.

Gannicus

MarkR wrote: »

Women. Don't forget women. Let's put them off the road.

Not really. Women are involved in more accidents in general (scrapes, fenders benders etc) but men are involved in more road fatalities.

MarkR

orourkeda wrote: »

Or anyone who cant drive properly

Knew I forgot something.

jester77

orourkeda wrote: »

There are thousands of drivers with full licences that are as great a risk to the drivers arounds them than some provisional licence holders

And that is because they also started on provisionals. Joke of a system. If everyone had to go to driving school and take professional lessons (instead of their dad with his bad habits), then those on full licenses would be better drivers.

EverEvolving

1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.

It fairly zero tolerance as it is, tiny amount of leeway for extenuating circumstances.

2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)

While drink driving is wrong one mistake shouldn't hang over you for the rest of your life, you can get out in 7 for murder. Plus insurance costs make it damn near impossible to drive after a conviction anyway.

3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.

Seriously, you already know this is ridiculous.

4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.

Transition year would be good for this possibly.

5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.

Why? Apart from some irresponsible younger drivers why should they all be tarred with the same brush? It would kind of defeat the purpose of learning to drive if you have to have someone with you and would be hard to enforce.

6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get

Again, why? If the car is kept well and in good condition there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to taxi in it. Some cars were built to last much longer than that and with proper care they do.

7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road

No. Just no.

NothingMan

jester77 wrote: »

And that is because they also started on provisionals. Joke of a system. If everyone had to go to driving school and take professional lessons (instead of their dad with his bad habits), then those on full licenses would be better drivers.

Hasn't that just been brought in? You now need 20 hours or so with an approved instructor before applying for your test.

I started on a moped when I was 17 so when I was 21 and started driving a car I got my 2nd provisional and legally didn't even need a full licensed driver with me. That was crazy, I'd never driven a car and I had free reign.

My Dad, many moons ago, just applied for a license, no test or anything just a small fee and away you go for life. Crazy.

They are reforming the prerequisites now so no need to get all panicky, I think they're going in the right direction.

Then again, I drive a bmw so the rules of the road don't apply to me anymore.

orourkeda

jester77 wrote: »

And that is because they also started on provisionals. Joke of a system. If everyone had to go to driving school and take professional lessons (instead of their dad with his bad habits), then those on full licenses would be better drivers.

Not necessarily.

Surely the whole point of obtaining a full licence is that you've demonstrated your ability to drive to the appropriate standard.

Gophur

orourkeda wrote: »

There are thousands of drivers with full licences that are as great a risk to the drivers arounds them than some provisional licence holders

A statement of the bleeding obvious!

Was this nugget a result of some research? Or just an opinion plucked from the ether?

orourkeda

orourkeda wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Surely the whole point of obtaining a full licence is that you've demonstrated your ability to drive to the appropriate standard.

And then they go off driving in the middle lanes of motorways and refusing to move

Anyway it's true that you need a minimum of hours with an approved driving instructor now, no more driving around a field on your own then applying for the test...

Cookie_Monster

Big Steve wrote: »

1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
in what regard, 0 blood level, impractical and unfair, mouthwash, morning after etc
2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
don't agree with permanent, too much effect on a person, 10 years plus attending traffic school. If cause a death or serious accident then maybe permanent bans as well as custodial sentence for murder / assault
3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
ridiculous and discriminatory. the motorway bit is absurd. I'm all for more frequent tests once at the age to ensure people are still competent but a blanket ban is not on
4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
agree

5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
what possible reason do you have for this, it's absurd

6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.
9 year rule already in place, should really have a standard fleet and colour too

7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road[/B] harsh, fail 5+ maybe and once again ageist

see above

Liam Byrne

The one I've never understood - for all the red tape and opt-outs that are in an insurance contract - there's no obligation on the driver to be obeying the law at the time!

If you're exceeding the limit (or being an idiotic prick making black rubber circles on motorways) then you should not be covered.

I remember doing a radio show with opinions of young people who supposedly just wanted lower insurance prices to get from a to b, but NONE of them would have accepted a speed limiter even if it brought their insurance price down from €4,000 to €2,000

Gannicus

I did put in my O/P that they weren't my ideas they were collective but I whole-heartedly agree with the drink driving thing. I've seen the results of it (a drunk friend of mine killed someone; his brother) so I guess I'm just hard line on that issue.

orourkeda

Gophur wrote: »

A statement of the bleeding obvious!

Was this nugget a result of some research? Or just an opinion plucked from the ether?

It is a statement of the obvious because if youve ever driven a car in Ireland you dont need researchers to tell you how shyte the standard of driving is.

orourkeda

bluewolf wrote: »

And then they go off driving in the middle lanes of motorways and refusing to move

Anyway it's true that you need a minimum of hours with an approved driving instructor now, no more driving around a field on your own then applying for the test...

Every has annoying habits as drivers.

Some more annoying than others.

Gannicus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

standard fleet and colour

That is one idea I whole heatedly endorse

orourkeda

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The one I've never understood - for all the red tape and opt-outs that are in an insurance contract - there's no obligation on the driver to be obeying the law at the time!

If you're exceeding the limit (or being an idiotic prick making black rubber circles on motorways) then you should not be covered.

I remember doing a radio show with opinions of young people who supposedly just wanted lower insurance prices to get from a to b, but NONE of them would have accepted a speed limiter even if it brought their insurance price down from €4,000 to €2,000

But driving offences affect insurance premiums. While the driver may be breaking the law, any infringement will have consequences in accordance with the seriousness of the offence committed.

Dyr

Big Steve wrote: »

A few friends and I were discussing road safety in work and the lads and girls had some input into improvements that could be made. I've posted them here to see what the boardsies think. Now bear in mind we do work for a large motor insurance company (not quinn)

1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get
7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road

Now I must say I agree totally with the drink driving ones and I am quite fond of the Taxi idea.
Also I can understand the one about the age limit on driving but that's not to say I agree with it but I do understand.
The one about no full licence by 50 or 3 strike rule I think is kinda harsh.

zero tolerance for insurance companies would be good too.

Gophur

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The one I've never understood - for all the red tape and opt-outs that are in an insurance contract - there's no obligation on the driver to be obeying the law at the time!

If you're exceeding the limit (or being an idiotic prick making black rubber circles on motorways) then you should not be covered.

.....

There is an obligation to adhere to the Road Traffic Legislation, already, with specific penalties outlined in the Irish Statute.

So, given it's impossible to have an accident if one is 100% compliant with the Law, doesn't your argument mean one shouldn't have any insurance at all?

What about people who are hit by someone breaking the Law? How would they be compensated?

Biggins

Big Steve wrote: »

1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get
7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road

1. Agree
2. We're human, not perfect - everyone is entitled to make a mistake and at least get a chance to learn from it.
3. Besides being ageism, its daftness to assume that you can apply a wide blanket of reasoning that everyone over that age loses their senses or is automatically too ill to drive!
Aaa... no they don't - and the senses of all don't fail just because also you hit a certain age!
4. Would be more practical and useful than the time wasted on religion classes daily!
5. Hard to enforce, would be hard for some to comply due to economic, timing, or other reasons.
6. Sounds reasonable. Probably some small details would have to be ironed out.
7. Part (a) Not everyone is good in exams - but a lot are much better when exam pressure is off!
Part (b) More un-necessary blanket ageism.

MarkR

Big Steve wrote: »

Not really. Women are involved in more accidents in general (scrapes, fenders benders etc) but men are involved in more road fatalities.

I thought the sumo wrestlers might have given you a sense that I wasn't being entirely serious.

biko

Give bicycles to everyone except me.
Give me a Hummer.

Keith186

NothingMan wrote: »

Eh........ never mind.

LOL

If that went over his head probably shouldn't be discussing road safety.

dilallio

Big Steve wrote: »

3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.

Unless accompanied by both parents.

NTMK

Big Steve wrote: »

A few friends and I were discussing road safety in work and the lads and girls had some input into improvements that could be made. I've posted them here to see what the boardsies think. Now bear in mind we do work for a large motor insurance company (not quinn)

1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
Agreed
2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
Agree to a certain extent 2 strikes for just over the limited permanent ban for being way over it
3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
dont agree with this
4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
Completely Agree
5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
dont agree with this we are not all idiots and maybe car insurance companies should stop ripping us off
6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get
Alot of taxis are in great condition despite being 12-15yo
7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road
Agree with the 3 strikes but not the age limit

Now I must say I agree totally with the drink driving ones and I am quite fond of the Taxi idea.
Also I can understand the one about the age limit on driving but that's not to say I agree with it but I do understand.
The one about no full licence by 50 or 3 strike rule I think is kinda harsh.

.

Viper_JB

These feel like ideas that the RSA would think up, except all those would finish with "for male drivers".

MitchKoobski

Big Steve wrote: »

1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get
7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road

1. Fair enough, caught drink driving, no "just this one time".
2. I would put that down to depending highly on the circumstances. I have one mate who was asked to move his car so a neighbour could get out. Had 3 or 4 drinks in him. Moved it 10ft so the neighbour could get out, and got back out of the car. Two guards walking past asked him how much he had and told him he should have just left it off. Banned for a year, pending 2. He accepts it entirely. To suggest he should be banned for life because of this is stupid imo.
3. Not fair on those of that age that are perfectly competent drivers.
4. Completely agree.
5. You haven't a hope in hell.
6. I don't care what car they're driving as long as it's road-safe.
7. Completely ridiculous. Took my best mate 4 times, and he's the best driver I know.

AudreyHepburn

Big Steve wrote: »

A few friends and I were discussing road safety in work and the lads and girls had some input into improvements that could be made. I've posted them here to see what the boardsies think. Now bear in mind we do work for a large motor insurance company (not quinn)

1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get
7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road

Hi Steve,

Some good ideas there.

I am all for zero tolerance on drink driving and think it should apply to dricing on drugs. To me getting into a car with drink on you is the most dangerous and irresponsible thing anyone can do. I would add here that there needs to be much harsher penalties on speeding.

Regarding the young and old drivers, I think generalising the limits put on them is unfair. Age is not necessarily indicative of the kind of driver you'll be.

I would agree with teaching driving and preparing for the theory test at school.

The taxi driver point I agree with 100%

The driving test thing......I wouldn't agree with permanently banning a person from driving but perhaps you should have to wait a decent period of time before you try again and have to get a certain number of lessons in that time.

I also think the poster who said we all ought to have to do tests every few years is spot on.

Daegerty

I don't know what is it with people on boards and clamouring for new regulations. They think that making the law more restrictive can solve all their problems, what a load of cods wollop

Orando Broom

If everyone had fighter jets......

Ray Palmer

How about using the actual facts about what causes accidents to determine rules?

The idea of not having NCT giving 4 points is strange as so few accidents are put down to a faulty vehicle.

How many accident are a result of drink driving? It seems to me that it is an overreaction to keep reducing the limit unless there is proof that it is causing so many accidents. I know studies have suggested lack of sleep is much more likely to cause an accident than alcohol.

Lower enforced speed limits on rural roads would appear to make the most difference to fatalities.

I don't think many old people are involved in accidents so I don't get why the OP wants them off the road.

mikemac

Here is an idea

Remember those lads who were killed in Monaghan, two cars playing chicken. Whole thing wasn't reported clearly and journalists who asked questions were accused of being insensitive. It was a tragedy and leave it at that was the attitude.

Same for the accident on the M7 where a lady drove into the back of a fire truck in heavy fog. Her sister went on national radio crying over the questions being asked how you drive into the back of a fire truck with flashing lights and why can't the media be quiet.

The vast majority of accidents are driver error and I'm not saying criticize the dead but if lessons can be learned why not publish it.

So.......
Once a month in the national papers you publish a report.
No names, just details with speeds, road conditions and the critical factors.
People will read these and be more aware. Make it realy technical, not emotional.
And give the different factors and how they could have been avoided. And give the main reason why it happened.
Should read like a risk analysis

A lot of families will hate this idea though

AudreyHepburn

Actually I change my mind re taxis. Rather than just banning cars of a certain age I think every taxi driver/company should be required to have their cars tested by the NCT regularly. If a problem is found the car must be brought back soon after to make sure it's been fixed. If its not fixed the first time you get a verbal warning, second time maybe a warning again and perhaps a small fine and three strikes and the car is off the road and the driver/company pays a larger fine and/or depending on how serious the fault is perhaps the Gardai/Courts could get involved.

I write this having watched that program on taxis a few weeks back on RTE. Scary stuff.

There also needs to be tougher regulations on who is allowed a taxi licence and on who the NCT employ imo.

Gannicus

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I don't think many old people are involved in accidents so I don't get why the OP wants them off the road.

I never said i wanted old people off the road. read my OP again.

If we can save even one more life a year by a perma-ban on drink drivers I think that is definitely worth it.

I also agree that speed limits need to be enforced but also re-assessed as Some roads that are quite straight and in great condition are only 60kph but winding country roads that are in bits, narrow and have a ditch on each side are 80kph

gonedrinking

mikemac wrote: »

The vast majority of accidents are driver error and I'm not saying criticize the dead but if lessons can be learned why not publish it.

So.......
Once a month in the national papers you publish a report.
No names, just details with speeds, road conditions and the critical factors.

But the people who knew the person who died will know its about them, so the effect is just the same had they of published the name. Still its not a bad idea, although they should not publish it until about 3 years after the accident if there was a death.

Liam Byrne

orourkeda wrote: »

But driving offences affect insurance premiums. While the driver may be breaking the law, any infringement will have consequences in accordance with the seriousness of the offence committed.

That's the aftermath - we're talking about prevention.

If someone knew that going 10kmph over would cost them €100,000 if they crashed then they might cop themselves in. I just can't understand why a document that means an insurance company is legally liable even if someone was blatantly breaking the law.

hondasam

Big Steve wrote: »

A few friends and I were discussing road safety in work and the lads and girls had some input into improvements that could be made. I've posted them here to see what the boardsies think. Now bear in mind we do work for a large motor insurance company (not quinn)

1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get
7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road

Now I must say I agree totally with the drink driving ones and I am quite fond of the Taxi idea.
Also I can understand the one about the age limit on driving but that's not to say I agree with it but I do understand.
The one about no full licence by 50 or 3 strike rule I think is kinda harsh.

Number 4, that is the only one I would agree with, the others are just silly.

Mickeroo

3 strikes and your out is ridiculous, people rarely fail driving tests because of their level of competence, its usually because they're so damn nervous they make mistakes they usually wouldn't. Anyway the way you drive in a driving test is not the way people drive in the real world.