new "n plates "for learner drivers

jamescc

hi i just passed my test about two months ago
does this now mean that i will have to go and get "n plates" for my car or is it for anyone after it is brought in.

gavmcg92

jamescc wrote: »

hi i just passed my test about two months ago
does this now mean that i will have to go and get "n plates" for my car or is it for anyone after it is brought in.

Has it been brought in yet? I thought they were just talking about it.

Remmy

Just going by the article on independent.ie it is meant to come into effect next summer.

Maggie 2

They need to start policing L drivers properly before they start on this!

gavmcg92

Maggie 2 wrote: »

They need to start policing L drivers properly before they start on this!

Completely agree. Hope I get my test by next summer :P Don't want to be driving around with N plates for 2 years.

Faith+1

Another beauty from the RSA. Hopefully they'll make BMW drivers have "A" plates. I won't say what the it stands for though!:P

redsovine

If you read the full article here:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/n-for-novice-plate-in-new-learner-driver-laws-3264735.html

You will find this sentence which will make you happy:

"The new rules will only affect motorists who get a permit or pass their test after the legislation is signed into law."

Having recently passed myself - it came as a big relief

gavmcg92

redsovine wrote: »

If you read the full article here:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/n-for-novice-plate-in-new-learner-driver-laws-3264735.html

You will find this sentence which will make you happy:

"The new rules will only affect motorists who get a permit or pass their test after the legislation is signed into law."

Having recently passed myself - it came as a big relief

When is it being signed into law?

Sir123

This is absolutely ridiculous. Never heard so much nonsense in my life. There are a lot of good Learner drivers and new fully licenced drivers that are better than half the idiot drivers on our roads. They should be the ones putting the N plates up... :mad:

Mycroft H

Sir123 wrote: »

This is absolutely ridiculous. Never heard so much nonsense in my life. There are a lot of good Learner drivers and new fully licenced drivers that are better than half the idiot drivers on our roads. They should be the ones putting the N plates up... :mad:

If they're so good they can go pass their test

areyawell

Sir123 wrote: »

This is absolutely ridiculous. Never heard so much nonsense in my life. There are a lot of good Learner drivers and new fully licenced drivers that are better than half the idiot drivers on our roads. They should be the ones putting the N plates up... :mad:

Very true. The majority of learner drivers are decent drivers. Its people with there full license who never bother to indicate or who don't know what lane to be in on a roundabout are the problem. Generally learner drivers don't speed because if they even get 2 penalty points there insurance will increase by 500 euro. People also bring up learner drivers account for 10% of accients on the roads, so this means 90% of full license drivers cause the other 90%.

Sir123

BX 19 wrote: »

If they're so good they can go pass their test

Exactly, but having to waiting six months isn't really fair is it? Then having to take 12 EDT lessons that previous drivers never had to do, not to mind the drivers that never had to sit a test. Then having to wait another 6-8 weeks for a test date. Sounds like the system is getting more unfair by the day.

areyawell

BX 19 wrote: »

If they're so good they can go pass their test

Yes they will pass there test eventually. 90% of accidents are caused by full license drivers and half the full license dont bother indicating going around a roundabout or know when to use there mirrors correctly, correct lanes etc. Its quite sickening and most of the full license drivers should be made retake the test again

Sir123

areyawell wrote: »

Very true. The majority of learner drivers are decent drivers. Its people with there full license who never bother to indicate or who don't know what lane to be in on a roundabout are the problem. Generally learner drivers don't speed because if they even get 2 penalty points there insurance will increase by 500 euro. People also bring up learner drivers account for 10% of accients on the roads, so this means 90% of full license drivers cause the other 90%.

Couldn't agree with you more.:D Yet learners are seen as the ones that cause all the accidents. Mind boggling.

uck51js9zml2yt

As far as I can see its to deal with their inexperience which is a good thing.

They've had R plates in NI for years.

Mycroft H

Sir123 wrote: »

Exactly, but having to waiting six months isn't really fair is it? Then having to take 12 EDT lessons that previous drivers never had to do, not to mind the drivers that never had to sit a test. Then having to wait another 6-8 weeks for a test date. Sounds like the system is getting more unfair by the day.

Sounds fair to me. Easier than most countries.

areyawell

BX 19 wrote: »

Sounds fair to me. Easier than most countries.

Not really, too much for learner drivers to do and sometimes its urgent what they need the car for. And the idiots I encounter on the road everyday who have there full are terrible as I stated allready in the thread who refuse to get in the right line, use there mirriors and never indicate on roundabouts. Its diabolical really!

3 months maybe but definitly not six months. I drove on my provisional for nearly a year and got stopped a couple of times. Gaurds dont care unless you do something wrong

Tigger08

Strictly driving could nearly be a tv show!!!

Mycroft H

areyawell wrote: »

Not really, too much for learner drivers to do and sometimes its urgent what they need the car for. And the idiots I encounter on the road everyday who have there full are terrible as I stated allready in the thread who refuse to get in the right line, use there mirriors and never indicate on roundabouts. Its diabolical really!

3 months maybe but definitly not six months. I drove on my provisional for nearly a year and got stopped a couple of times. Gaurds dont care unless you do something wrong

Perhaps you could learn to drive in 3 months but most people aren't ready by then. The limit is there for a reason. I could have done with a car when I was on a provisional, I just had to wait like the rest of us.

Not all learners are saints too.

areyawell

BX 19 wrote: »

Perhaps you could learn to drive in 3 months but most people aren't ready by then. The limit is there for a reason. I could have done with a car when I was on a provisional, I just had to wait like the rest of us.

Not all learners are saints too.

Yes I know all of them arn't saints. But full license drivers are definitely not saints either.

Full license drivers should be made take the test again every 10 years in my opinion.

Mycroft H

areyawell wrote: »

Yes I know all of them arn't saints. But full license drivers are definitely not saints either.

Full license drivers should be made take the test again every 10 years in my opinion.

I would fully support a "CPD" like theory and a refresher test every ten years.

Iwannahurl

areyawell wrote: »

Very true. The majority of learner drivers are decent drivers. Its people with there full license who never bother to indicate or who don't know what lane to be in on a roundabout are the problem. Generally learner drivers don't speed because if they even get 2 penalty points there insurance will increase by 500 euro. People also bring up learner drivers account for 10% of accients on the roads, so this means 90% of full license drivers cause the other 90%.

It depends on what you define as "the problem".

Young, male, inexperienced drivers are at the highest risk in terms of fatal crashes. This is a consistent phenomenon across many developed countries.

Novice drivers, particularly those who are males aged 17-24, may believe they are good drivers, and in many cases they may be right, but an organisation like the RSA has to look at the big population-level picture.

Young male drivers are about five times more likely to be killed on the road than the 'average' driver.

Merch

areyawell wrote: »

Yes they will pass there test eventually. 90% of accidents are caused by full license drivers and half the full license dont bother indicating going around a roundabout or know when to use there mirrors correctly, correct lanes etc. Its quite sickening and most of the full license drivers should be made retake the test again

The problem is, you have to start somewhere with changing how things are done.
Also, Im not sure where you are getting these statistics? nolt everyone will pass their test eventually and how do you know these 90% of people you mention are fully licensed at all, maybe they dont have a license, maybe they are on learner permits?
I have a bit of bee in my bonnet about indicating too, but this is a step to improving things and it has to start somewhere.
Adequete enforcement of the new N system and of existing road users would be necessary, but there is ony so much money to do this, dont think the money is out there anyway, but would you be willing to pay extra for such a thing?

Im sure when you get your licence you will be saying its sickening you are made to re sit the test after you were forced to have N plates for two years!

Faith+1

BX 19 wrote: »

I would fully support a "CPD" like theory and a refresher test every ten years.

Jesus no! I already have to do them for my truck licence and the thought of doing them for the car will send me over the edge!:eek::mad:

areyawell

Merch wrote: »

The problem is, you have to start somewhere with changing how things are done.
Also, Im not sure where you are getting these statistics? nolt everyone will pass their test eventually and how do you know these 90% of people you mention are fully licensed at all, maybe they dont have a license, maybe they are on learner permits?
I have a bit of bee in my bonnet about indicating too, but this is a step to improving things and it has to start somewhere.
Adequete enforcement of the new N system and of existing road users would be necessary, but there is ony so much money to do this, dont think the money is out there anyway, but would you be willing to pay extra for such a thing?

Im sure when you get your licence you will be saying its sickening you are made to re sit the test after you were forced to have N plates for two years!

I got my full after failing twice for the stupidest of things. Said I never looked right at a junction in a housing estate even though I did(just didnt move my head 180 degrees) and cant remember now the other one.

Yes young male drivers are the main cause of accidents on the roads but most of these young male drivers have there full license or else they wouldnt be able to afford 4000 euro insurance on there turbo powered cars. This is a different situation to learner drivers altogether. 10% of crashes are caused by learner drivers which is nearlt equal to the percentage of learner drivers on the road. People give out that learner drivers are the main cause of accidents and dont know how to drive and this really irratates me

kudos73

Its regulation for the sake of regulation if you ask me.

What difference does it make to other drivers If a person is a 'novice' or not? Will this make fully licensed non 'novice' drivers try and avoid 'novice' drivers to the detriment of road safety awareness...

to the people it actually matters to, the Gardai, have all the details in their Pulse database already, and in my mind if your pulled over by the Gardai usually they've pulled you over for some Road Traffic Offence.

areyawell

kudos73 wrote: »

Its regulation for the sake of regulation if you ask me.

What difference does it make to other drivers If a person is a 'novice' or not? Will this make fully licensed non 'novice' drivers try and avoid 'novice' drivers to the detriment of road safety awareness...

to the people it actually matters to, the Gardai, have all the details in their Pulse database already, and in my mind if your pulled over by the Gardai usually they've pulled you over for some Road Traffic Offence.

Its just the stereotype of people looking at learner drivers with L plates up. Its hard to explain but amount of people who pulled out in front of me when I had my L plates up was unbelievable and had to slam on my brakes more times. I took down my L plates after three months and they didnt chance it half as much.

Merch

areyawell wrote: »

I got my full after failing twice for the stupidest of things. Said I never looked right at a junction in a housing estate even though I did(just didnt move my head 180 degrees) and cant remember now the other one.

Yes young male drivers are the main cause of accidents on the roads but most of these young male drivers have there full license or else they wouldnt be able to afford 4000 euro insurance on there turbo powered cars. This is a different situation to learner drivers altogether. 10% of crashes are caused by learner drivers which is nearlt equal to the percentage of learner drivers on the road. People give out that learner drivers are the main cause of accidents and dont know how to drive and this really irratates me

I'm not sure where you got these Statistics? care to back them up?
Either way, statistics can be read and interpreted how they are meant to seem, how many crashes were fatal? how many serious? As a percent 10% of road crashes caused by your post suggests learners are creating a hell of a lot of accidents, 10% too much, I can see that there will be accidents involving learners, but thats a hell of a lot and that gives enough reason to implement something.

kudos73 wrote: »

Its regulation for the sake of regulation if you ask me.

What difference does it make to other drivers If a person is a 'novice' or not? Will this make fully licensed non 'novice' drivers try and avoid 'novice' drivers to the detriment of road safety awareness...

to the people it actually matters to, the Gardai, have all the details in their Pulse database already, and in my mind if your pulled over by the Gardai usually they've pulled you over for some Road Traffic Offence.

Its an easy, cheap means of identifying a person that has recently passed their test, if there are limitations on that licence holder and they are driving at a time they shouldnt be or breaching some other form of restricition, then there is no problems with training/access to the database, they will be identified themselves.
I for one dont want to have to re sit my test, i think there are people that could do with it, but then whats done? that admits that the test isnt a viable means to prove someone is safe to drive, id be afraid it would end up being a xash exercise to extract a few euros from us.

its in operation in Northern ireland, Australia? and Canada also have some form of limited licence for a number of years.

Merch

areyawell wrote: »

Its just the stereotype of people looking at learner drivers with L plates up. Its hard to explain but amount of people who pulled out in front of me when I had my L plates up was unbelievable and had to slam on my brakes more times. I took down my L plates after three months and they didnt chance it half as much.

You sound like a self entitled driver with limited experience, ie its everyone elses fault. If you were having to slam on your brakes all the time, you were not anticipating in advance, sounds like a lack of experience to me.

areyawell

Merch wrote: »

You sound like a self entitled driver with limited experience, ie its everyone elses fault. If you were having to slam on your brakes all the time, you were not anticipating in advance, sounds like a lack of experience to me.

Yes with cars pulling out in front of me, they see the L plates and think Oh well it'll be grand. Stopped when I took down the L plates and drove without them for 9 months. Happened numerous times on roundabouts when I had right of way and other times

kudos73

If one passes a test, one passes a test... why do they need to be identified from rest of car driving population? They have passed the standard that is set out in the RSA's 'manual' and don't need to be segregated.... RSA claim its so those newly qualified drivers are restricted to lower drink driving limits etc, but the only way to check if they are over the limit is to be stopped and checked by An Gardai, who will have all the information they need anyway without the 'N' on the window.

one could argue, they are 'safer drivers' because they have taken a minimum 12 driving lessons fairly recently, compared to someone who has been driving for 10 or so years.

Its like passing the leaving cert and only to wear a visivest for 2 years to let everyone know you passed it within the previous 2 years.

its a handy way for the insurance industry to keep inflated prices though, that's for sure!

Merch

Not sure if the statistics have been collected here in Ireland, others have i believe.
The last link is brief enough.

FYI

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/washington/03traffic.html?_r=0

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-licence-to-save-young-lives-20111107-1n31m.html

http://acrs.org.au/about-us/policies/safe-road-users/passenger-restrictions/

http://www.youngdriverfactbase.com/the-issues/hot-issues-night-time-restrictions/

arleitiss

This new **** law definitely encouraged me to apply for test asap. (applied today)

areyawell

My final opinion on this is that every driver has to take the driving test again every ten years cause some of them with the full or brutal.
Don't slate all provisional drivers because a lot of them are better than full license drivers who take wrong lanes, refuse to indicate, cut the nose off the car from ya when overtaking.

The main problem is the lack of traffic corp now available for offenses and this is the governments fault with reducing the numbers in the gaurds. Gaurds should be driving around in unmarked cars spotting the mistakes and issusing penalty points. Best time is 8am when people are going to work and 5pm when people are going home from work. Until there are more gaurds on the road there is not going to be an improvement in driving.

teR_

They should go with R plates .. R for Rallying :pac:

Diabhal Beag

So if I have my full license since August I don't have to get the n plate?

arleitiss

If I pass my test before 2013, will this **** apply to me?

Sir123

The amount of people giving out about this are the one's that will never have to display N plates, probably didn't have to do 12 lessons and never had to wait 6 months +. Get real

And yes, anything to get passed a Learner. I see it all the time and I'm not imagining it.

Gingernuts31

I agree it full licence holders who are more dangerous on the rds than L drivers. More so the 1s who never had to do a test so they'd be in theirs 50's, 60's by now. My mother-in-law never had to do her test and I don't like getting into the car with her. I passed my test back in 2004 before all this b8llsh!t came into play thank god and I know the rules of the rd and I abide by them. The 1s that never did a test you can be guaranteed they hardly know half of them. How many drivers that didnt take a test do you know that know about the 2 second rule? Point is it's not always L drivers fault when it comes to accidents or not and it is a well known fact that people tailgate, flash, beep at L drivers purely because of the L plates and if they are taken down in the same situtation none of the above happens. Go figure. Its full licence holders who need to be taught how the road works and what rd signage and safety is and means, not L drivers.

Mayo_Boy

So when is this law being enforced?

Sir123

Mayo_Boy wrote: »

So when is this law being enforced?

From what i've heard it's going to come into effect by summer 2013. Not too sure. Can anyone clarify?

Merch

Gingernuts31 wrote: »

I agree it full licence holders who are more dangerous on the rds than L drivers. More so the 1s who never had to do a test so they'd be in theirs 50's, 60's by now. My mother-in-law never had to do her test and I don't like getting into the car with her. I passed my test back in 2004 before all this b8llsh!t came into play thank god and I know the rules of the rd and I abide by them. The 1s that never did a test you can be guaranteed they hardly know half of them. How many drivers that didnt take a test do you know that know about the 2 second rule? Point is it's not always L drivers fault when it comes to accidents or not and it is a well known fact that people tailgate, flash, beep at L drivers purely because of the L plates and if they are taken down in the same situtation none of the above happens. Go figure. Its full licence holders who need to be taught how the road works and what rd signage and safety is and means, not L drivers.

What you're saying is arbitrarily get all full licence holders to re sit the test, based on your mother in law?
You really need to back this with some facts?

I would suggest a graduated licence, with gradula removal of restrictions but at the same time a graduated penalty system,
ie a fault wont mean an automatic ban, but a temporary ban, of say 30-45 days, Ive seen this on one of the sites above about US/Canadian licences, if a full ban is imposed then re sit the test. But to say force all full licence holders to re sit the test arbitrarily regardless of their abiltiy to drive is pointless and an unsupportable argument. If someone is facing penalties or repeated short bans, then when it adds up to a certain amount then you could insist on re sitting the test with good reason.
Dont think anyone read the links I put up, young and learner drivers are more likely to be involved in certain accidents and at certain times, makes sense to put certain restrictions that allow them to build experience before the restrictions are lifted, eg at night (certain hours).

challengemaster

Merch wrote: »

Dont think anyone read the links I put up, young and learner drivers are more likely to be involved in certain accidents and at certain times, makes sense to put certain restrictions that allow them to build experience before the restrictions are lifted, eg at night (certain hours).

I think you need to learn to read stats properly, and then actually think do they make sense rather than outright believing them. And then figure out the difference between cause and correlation.

Perhaps young drivers happen to be involved in more accidents at night than elderly people because elderly people are at home in bed?

Think about things logically. Younger drivers might have school/college/work between 9-6pm, so you'll probably see a decrease in accidents involving them around that time. After that time, you'll probably see an increase in accident numbers involving younger drivers. Younger people also stay up later than a lot of older people.

Similarly, you wouldn't expect a huge population of 70+ year olds on the road at 3am.

Does that mean that younger drivers are caused to have accidents by the time of day it is? No it does not. So putting a curfew on them won't change anything.

Merch

challengemaster wrote: »

I think you need to learn to read stats properly, and then actually think do they make sense rather than outright believing them. And then figure out the difference between cause and correlation.

Perhaps young drivers happen to be involved in more accidents at night than elderly people because elderly people are at home in bed?

Think about things logically. Younger drivers might have school/college/work between 9-6pm, so you'll probably see a decrease in accidents involving them around that time. After that time, you'll probably see an increase in accident numbers involving younger drivers. Younger people also stay up later than a lot of older people.

Similarly, you wouldn't expect a huge population of 70+ year olds on the road at 3am.

Does that mean that younger drivers are caused to have accidents by the time of day it is? No it does not. So putting a curfew on them won't change anything.

The research, logic and colection of stats has already been done, seems to suggest otherwise, not by me, but by Australian, NZ, Canadian and even US studies.
2 years restriction is a small price to pay even if the outcome was a possibility.
The reference between young people and accidents at night wasnt compared to 70 year olds, it was compared to those above 23, above 26 and below 55 I believe, compared to those drivers young drivers and learners were involved in more collisions and consequences of that.

This is all kind of moot, it looks like it is something that will be implemented.
its not the be all and end all of road safety, the limitations are not that onerous, they seem to help bring the improvements to driving standards that the people who are opposed to them, use as the reason that older licenced drivers are bad.

challengemaster

Merch wrote: »

The research, logic and colection of stats has already been done, seems to suggest otherwise, not by me, but by Australian, NZ, Canadian and even US studies.
2 years restriction is a small price to pay even if the outcome was a possibility.
The reference between young people and accidents at night wasnt compared to 70 year olds, it was compared to those above 23, above 26 and below 55 I believe, compared to those drivers young drivers and learners were involved in more collisions and consequences of that.

This is all kind of moot, it looks like it is something that will be implemented.
its not the be all and end all of road safety, the limitations are not that onerous, they seem to help bring the improvements to driving standards that the people who are opposed to them, use as the reason that older licenced drivers are bad.

I don't think you can really compare another countries driving studies to our own. Different tests, different rules and regulations, different mindsets towards driving and even vastly different cars.

If you want people to learn how to drive properly at night, you don't ban them from driving at night.

Since I've started driving (nearly 5 years ago IIRC) certainly more than half of any driving I've done was after 9 or 10pm. That in my case could be around 25-30k miles, most of which served a purpose, I wasn't just out driving for the sake of it. I was actually going somewhere. Based on that alone I think it's ridiculous to put a curfew on driving times.

As for people saying older licensed drivers are bad.... they're not entirely wrong. It's not a valid argument against new legislation towards new drivers, but it is a valid point that ONLY targeting newer drivers is a big mistake in terms of proper driver education and enforcement. I know older people with licenses that would never pass a test, as they don't even know how to use basic roundabouts, put fuel in their car, check tyre pressures.... and could even be considered dangerous to other drivers. Yet these people are qualified to sit in with learners and pass on these bad habits....

Merch

challengemaster wrote: »

I don't think you can really compare another countries driving studies to our own. Different tests, different rules and regulations, different mindsets towards driving and even vastly different cars.

If you want people to learn how to drive properly at night, you don't ban them from driving at night.

Since I've started driving (nearly 5 years ago IIRC) certainly more than half of any driving I've done was after 9 or 10pm. That in my case could be around 25-30k miles, most of which served a purpose, I wasn't just out driving for the sake of it. I was actually going somewhere. Based on that alone I think it's ridiculous to put a curfew on driving times.

As for people saying older licensed drivers are bad.... they're not entirely wrong. It's not a valid argument against new legislation towards new drivers, but it is a valid point that ONLY targeting newer drivers is a big mistake in terms of proper driver education and enforcement. I know older people with licenses that would never pass a test, as they don't even know how to use basic roundabouts, put fuel in their car, check tyre pressures.... and could even be considered dangerous to other drivers. Yet these people are qualified to sit in with learners and pass on these bad habits....

you dont think its necessary, I do
both opinions
you dont seem to have read the research in favour of it, I've read some.
The people responsible for this think it is, doesnt mean its right but seems to be on the way.

Im saying I think its a good idea and ireland is not some special case, we have have similarities with most of the countries mentioned in certain aspects.
No point in arguing your case with me, you should lobby those responsible.

starlit

I am not surprised that they will introduce 'N plates' its only right that they do it, most other countries have something similar like in Oz they have 'P plates' for those that just passed.

You be surprised those that just passed the test are just as high a risk as newly learner drivers. The more experience you have the better.

The thing is people get a bit carried away when they just passed, they are technically just novice drivers after transitioning from learners to full licence holders. You don't become an experienced driver over night it takes years!

Its a measure of safety in my opinion as how full licence holders treat learners and fellow full licence holders differ greatly sometimes, I find that myself as a learner. So in a way it be a good think to have N plates displayed at least they are full license holders but only recently passed at least other driver be aware and more cautious and courteous like they should be regarding their behaviour towards learners.

Though I do not agree with it for 2 years, I think a couple of months aprox 6-9 months 12 months max should be sufficient enough though, as N plates I would imagine might be seen as a nuisance to other drivers like learners might be, but like that now its a good thing it makes other drivers aware at least that novice drivers do exist.

They are at more risk as they just passed and got the full license. They need more experience really before being more than just a novice! They can be a bit full of oneself and assume they great drivers but being a great/confident driver takes time and with lots of driving experience! They need to be realistic based on their standard of driving, passing a test is just basic standard of driving which may or may not be that easy to pass. Requires a lot of practise, skill and experience to get to a basic standard/level of driving to pass the test and at that you are only at a basic/standard level when reaching the novice stage after learner stage!? People forget that!

Maybe the time limit should be placed on depending how long you have had a learner permit and based on number of years learning. Its like the 6 month rule regarding sitting the test after holding 1st learner permit for 6 months/learning for 6 months in order to gain experience and learn before sitting a test but is it sufficient enough even with the new EDT's imposed.

Now regarding those that got their full license in the 50's, 60's they should at least sit a driving test once they hit a certain age like 70 perhaps, they still have to get a license after every 3 years why couldn't they sit a simple driving test catered for them if they never sat a test? Those that got them back in the 50's/60's at the post office should at least sit the driving test at some point or be compulsory at 70! Might make it a bit safer on the roads as well??? All in the name of safety, they might have experience behind them but there is still lot to be said for having sat the driving test!

I would probably agree on that for those who are full license holders some often don't seem to know the rules of the road! As a learner I'd be stunned, I'd understand if as a new learner driver they only getting used to driving but for a full license holder they should be setting a good example for us learner drivers!!

Sitting a test every 10 years of renewing your full license, I don't know depends really I think it depends on the circumstances, if there is something that might affect them while driving like an illness/disability, eyesight, age, type of job say or those that didn't sit the driving test or those that took a few goes to pass it maybe under those circumstances but to be honest it be either be fair for all those to do it after every 10 years or not at all just a selective few which be fairer??

If not one it be for all that be more fair but I still think its those who in the older population are just as high a risk as younger/new learners/novice drivers. So think those at 70 whether or not they have sat a driving test or not and have a full license should either sit a test catered to them at 70 or say every three, five or ten years. That be more fair? Or specifically those who never sat a test, that by 70 they should that if they the generation that didn't sit a test and got their full license in the PO during the 50's and 60's that is!

I still be in favour of the 'N plates' based on safety and awareness reasons but otherwise the time limit on it is a bit over stretching it to be honest, it doesn't add up if you only got 6 months to learn, sit and pass a test, done your EDT's? Though you can have a learner permit up to 2 years depending which one you get and if you have applied/sat a test/failed when renewing a learner permit.

Though hopefully won't have to worry about having an N plate but wouldn't bother me if I have to! I am only too happy to have my L plates up makes others aware. The N plates well that law could change yet by the time I do pass my test when ever that will be! They could introduce it sooner or later!? They just trying to reach similar standards as UK and other countries, its like them soon to introduce the hazard awareness test I be all for it to be honest, it be no different to introducing the theory test, 6 month rule and EDT rules.