Garda caution.

ordinary farmer

my son was stopped and one of the rare times i was'nt with him in the car. He was pulled over about 4 miles from the house at our farm. The guard said that he was getting a caution for driving unaccompanied. took his license details. He gave him bit of a talk about driving unaccompanied but my son said the guard was very nice the whole way through it. Anyways just wondering what happens now what does a caution mean and what effect will it have?

serious3

nothing, a caution is just that, a cautionary warning. if you are that worried tip down to the barracks and have a word

Layinghen

The guard seems to have given him a chance. If he is caught again by the same guard driving unaccompanied he won't be as lucky.

corktina

I imagine it will be recorded and if he gets caught again, he won't get another caution.

When's his test? I assume he must have it booked if you are confident enough in his driving to let him out.

ordinary farmer

he has all 12 lessons done and is fairly handy on the road i never have to correct him while im with him. cant get any thing until nearly november but hopefully ill get a cancelation for him and get it over with.

Merl1n

as a parent you shouldnt allow him drive on his own until he passes his test
How would you feel if he was injured/killed on the road or injured or killed someone else

johndaman66

Merl1n wrote: »

as a parent you shouldnt allow him drive on his own until he passes his test
How would you feel if he was injured/killed on the road or injured or killed someone else

Bit of an over reaction? Same could be said perhaps if he done the same thing a week after passing his test. Ordinary Farmer may still be asking why did I get behind him in his driving in the first place if that were to happen too, god forebid. Remember not too long back a guard would hardly bat an eyelid if a learner driver was driving unaccompanied....don't do it again, no note taken and be on your merry way. Its probably still not seen as the biggest misdemeanor seen as Guard left the lad off with a caution.

I am of the opinion that serious accidents caused by learner drivers are moreso caused by downright wrecklessness and bad driving behaviour that could have being controlled. If his father mentions he doesn't need to correct him behind the wheel ever I'm sure the chap has the necessary skills and judgement to drive. All of my friends had a crash at some stage soon after starting driving (a few moons ago at this stage). More than a few of the crashes they had were within a month or 2 after passing their driving test...

Lambofdave

ordinary farmer wrote: »

my son was stopped and one of the rare times i was'nt with him in the car.

So it happens a bit. We all know the terms of the rules for a learner driver if you break them well thats the risk you take

dobman88

Merl1n wrote: »

as a parent you shouldnt allow him drive on his own until he passes his test
How would you feel if he was injured/killed on the road or injured or killed someone else

What??????

You could say that about 100% of drivers. Cars are lethal weapons. Anyone can die in them, not just inexperienced people.

Chiparus

Merl1n wrote: »

as a parent you shouldnt allow him drive on his own until he passes his test
How would you feel if he was injured/killed on the road or injured or killed someone else

Careful now, you could fall off that horse , it's very high.

R.O.R

Hopefully, the €1,000 fine he'll be hit with, will make him think twice about ignoring the law just because it doesn't suit.

Possibly even €2,000 if he didn't have the L plates up.

Padkir

Chiparus wrote: »

Careful now, you could fall off that horse , it's very high.

R.O.R wrote: »

Hopefully, the €1,000 fine he'll be hit with, will make him think twice about ignoring the law just because it doesn't suit.

Possibly even €2,000 if he didn't have the L plates up.

You too!!

R.O.R

Padkir wrote: »

You too!!

Don't worry, I can handle the high horse, just wondering if you can hear me down there?

Jesus.

R.O.R wrote: »

Hopefully, the €1,000 fine he'll be hit with, will make him think twice about ignoring the law just because it doesn't suit.Possibly even €2,000 if he didn't have the L plates up.

Muppet

Padkir

R.O.R wrote: »

Don't worry, I can handle the high horse, just wondering if you can hear me down there?

From where? The pits of hell because I dare to condone a learner driver being unaccompanied?

You'll do well to find many drivers who never drove on their own on a provisional licence. Just because it wasn't enforced back in the day, doesn't mean it wasn't still the law.

hfallada

Merl1n wrote: »

as a parent you shouldnt allow him drive on his own until he passes his test
How would you feel if he was injured/killed on the road or injured or killed someone else

If a person can drive a car. Having a plastic saying drivers license doesnt make them a better drivers. Unfortunately we live in a country with extremely wait times for anything related to the public sector. You have to wait months to get an appointment for a drivers license.

My 80 year old grandmother has been "driving" for 60 years and is sh1t at it. She got her license as the backlog of applications was so long in the 1950s everyone applied got a license without a test.

So the fact me grandmother has a license makes her a better driver than the OPs son? No, but thats Ireland for you. A piece of a plastic/card suddenly makes you a competent driver

R.O.R

Jesus. wrote: »

Muppet

Neither marionette, not puppet. Just someone who believes that the shocking state of the majority of drivers in the this country, is because it's socially acceptable to just jump in a car and drive.

Take it that is another of your outdated beliefs as well? Sure, it's not doing anyone any harm is it? :rolleyes:

Chris_Heilong

Things have changed a lot, Driving a car is a very simple act and I drove by myself for years before I got my full license, best way to learn but enforcement is the issue now a days, glad for the introduction of the mandatory lessons because I think kids these days are better than ever, at least they know the ROTR. Getting the test ASAP would be good for him, not because it makes him a better driver(not in the slightest) but because it will keep the law off his back and get him started on his own insurance policy so by the time he is 25 he can actually drive a car he likes and not be skewed by high premiums.

Jesus.

R.O.R wrote: »

Neither marionette, not puppet. Just someone who believes that the shocking state of the majority of drivers in the this country, is because it's socially acceptable to just jump in a car and drive.Take it that is another of your outdated beliefs as well? Sure, it's not doing anyone any harm is it? :rolleyes:

Yes because that's just what the OP's son did :rolleyes:

What is it with this Board having so many BLEEPs on it? Seriously, is there another Forum on the World Wide Web, on any subject matter, with as many BLEEP BLEEP BLEEPersjust waiting to act all high and mighty with someone?

The place is saturated with the BLEEPs

Mod note, user banned

Zubeneschamali

Padkir wrote: »

Just because it wasn't enforced back in the day, doesn't mean it wasn't still the law.

I was legally entitled to drive unaccompanied on a provisional after my first.

djimi

hfallada wrote: »

If a person can drive a car. Having a plastic saying drivers license doesnt make them a better drivers. Unfortunately we live in a country with extremely wait times for anything related to the public sector. You have to wait months to get an appointment for a drivers license.

My 80 year old grandmother has been "driving" for 60 years and is sh1t at it. She got her license as the backlog of applications was so long in the 1950s everyone applied got a license without a test.

So the fact me grandmother has a license makes her a better driver than the OPs son? No, but thats Ireland for you. A piece of a plastic/card suddenly makes you a competent driver

That piece of paper/plastic is the only way to differentiate between those who can drive and those who cant. It might not make them a better drive, but it proves that they meet the minimum competency level in this country. If someone is able to drive, then they should be able to pass the test. The wait time is an inconvenience for sure, but it is what it is.

The amnesty license comparison is a bit ridiculous in fairness. It was a nonsense situation brought in for a short time, and was given to a relatively small number of drivers. The fact that your grandmother cannot drive has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the current drivers license.

corktina

it doesn't make you a competent driver, but it does (or should) eliminate all those who aren't competent .

djimi

Jesus. wrote: »

Rant

What is pretentious or self righteous about criticizing somebody for driving without a license? Its all of our safety that is at stake; maybe if more people stopped and thought about what it means to have unlicensed drivers on our roads driving unaccompanied (and there is a frightening number of them) rather than just peddling the old Irish "ah sure itll be grand" attitude then maybe it might start to become socially unacceptable to drive unlicensed and unaccompanied when learning, and the standard of driving in this country might actually rise to an acceptable level.

Merl1n

Merl1n wrote: »

as a parent you shouldnt allow him drive on his own until he passes his test
How would you feel if he was injured/killed on the road or injured or killed someone else

My parents were of the opinion that the only way to really lean to drive is to get out there on your own after you have got to grips with the basics. Myself and both my sisters had almost perfect driving tests passed first time and I think driving for months alone in the run up to the test played a major part in it especially for my sisters who wouldn't have had the experience of driving machinery on private property from a young age and driving machinery on the road from 16 that I had.

corktina

whatever your parents opinion is doesn't transcend the Law. you should learn with a qualified instructor and pass your test before going out on your own

djimi

Kiara Putrid Connoisseur wrote: »

My parents were of the opinion that the only way to really lean to drive is to get out there on your own after you have got to grips with the basics. Myself and both my sisters had almost perfect driving tests passed first time and I think driving for months alone in the run up to the test played a major part in it especially for my sisters who wouldn't have had the experience of driving machinery on private property from a young age and driving machinery on the road from 16 that I had.

Your parents would be wrong. You might have gotten lucky that you have decent ability to drive, but most people I know who have failed their driving test have done so because of bad habits that they picked up by driving unaccompanied from pretty much the start.

corktina

corktina wrote: »

whatever your parents opinion is doesn't transcend the Law. you should learn with a qualified instructor and pass your test before going out on your own

I leaned to drive in tractors from about the age of 8. Was driving tractors on the road at 16. Got my car licence at 17 and drove for 6 months mostly alone.

Only in the run up to the test did I go for a lesson. Just to get the routes and tips etc and point out any bad habits. Was advised by my instructor that I would be wasting money getting lessons as I didn't need them just come back for one more to check I had ironed out any small things and then do a pre-test the day of the test. So essentially all I did were two lessons and a pre-test and passed the test with plenty to spare.

I'd would be sick if the rules were in like now and that I had to do 12 lessons, wasting 100's of euro. I'm not saying there are not people who need 12 lessons or even more but there should not be a hard rule on it imo.

djimi wrote: »

Your parents would be wrong. You might have gotten lucky that you have decent ability to drive, but most people I know who have failed their driving test have done so because of bad habits that they picked up by driving unaccompanied from pretty much the start.

Well I could drive easily for years but both my sisters just learned from my parents from 16 onward (private road) and got a couple of lessons each when they turned 17 before spending a few months driving to and from college etc for practice and they both easily passed also.

tallaghtmick

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I was legally entitled to drive unaccompanied on a provisional after my first.

Me too but apparently new drivers aren't as good as we where :pac:

corktina

Kiara Putrid Connoisseur wrote: »

I leaned to drive in tractors from about the age of 8. Was driving tractors on the road at 16. Got my car licence at 17 and drove for 6 months mostly alone.

Only in the run up to the test did I go for a lesson. Just to get the routes and tips etc and point out any bad habits. Was advised by my instructor that I would be wasting money getting lessons as I didn't need them just come back for one more to check I had ironed out any small things and then do a pre-test the day of the test. So essentially all I did were two lessons and a pre-test and passed the test with plenty to spare.

I'd would be sick if the rules were in like now and that I had to do 12 lessons, wasting 100's of euro. I'm not saying there are not people who need 12 lessons or even more but there should not be a hard rule on it imo.




Well I could drive easily for years but both my sisters just learned from my parents from 16 onward (private road) and got a couple of lessons each when they turned 17 before spending a few months driving to and from college etc for practice and they both easily passed also.

None of that makes you right.

corktina

corktina wrote: »

None of that makes you right.

It may not have been legally right but that didn't really enter the equation nor did I know any one bothered about that aspect.

It was right from the point of view that it is proving my point that driving alone before the test makes you a much more competent driver on the day of the test.

There is no way I would have gotten even 1/4 of the miles under my belt if I only drove accompanied and having all them miles under my belt made the test a much easier experience.

I am not saying people should be driving alone who cannot drive or who haven't learned. What I am saying is that when someone has learned the mechanics of driving and is able to control their car the only way to get comfortable behind the wheel and really learn how to manage out on the road and in city traffic etc is to get out there and get miles under your belt without someone there to help you all the time. This is invaluable in passing the driving test quickly imo.

djimi

Kiara Putrid Connoisseur wrote: »

It was right from the point of view that it is proving my point that driving alone before the test makes you a much more competent driver on the day of the test.

The problem with that is that, as I have said, I can point to several people who failed their tests due to bad habits that they picked up from months or even years of driving unaccompanied as a learner. Getting comfortable driving is not necessarily a good thing when it comes to passing the driving test.

creedp

Merl1n wrote: »

as a parent you shouldnt allow him drive on his own until he passes his test
How would you feel if he was injured/killed on the road or injured or killed someone else

It amazes how strong people's view can be to the effect that a driver can going from being incompetent to a star driver as soon as he receives a piece of paper ... once in the pocket you are effectively almost immune to bad driving. There are many a driver with a full licene who would be better off being accompanied but that doesn't matter as they have got the test. Granted the law is the law but in fairness is this not a tad over reaction? Presumably you never did 61mph on a wide open national road/dualcarriageway. I mean we can't be breaking the law.

djimi

creedp wrote: »

It amazes how strong people's view can be to the effect that a driver can going from being incompetent to a star driver as soon as he receives a piece of paper ... once in the pocket you are effectively almost immune to bad driving. There are many a driver with a full licene who would be better off being accompanied but that doesn't matter as they have got the test. Granted the law is the law but in fairness is this not a tad over reaction? Presumably you never did 61mph on a wide open national road/dualcarriageway. I mean we can't be breaking the law.

Nobody has said any of that to be fair.

A full license proves that you are a competent driver, as opposed to a leaner who could potentially be a competent driver, but could also be a complete beginner who is a danger on the road. Until a learner passes the test there is no way of knowing who is competent and who isnt.

kippy

I doubt there are many here that didnt do the same thing - perhaps it wasn't "as illegal" as it was then as it is now but it was definetly something I did myself out of necessity for a few months anyhow.

As for the logic of having a piece of paper = making you a competent driver - well, just have a look around you on the roads on a daily basis for evidence against that particular gem of wisdom.


That said, your son learned a lesson, one that didnt cost him or anyone else.

Best of luck with his test.

djimi

kippy wrote: »

I doubt there are many here that didnt do the same thing - perhaps it wasn't "as illegal" as it was then as it is now but it was definetly something I did myself out of necessity for a few months anyhow.

It wasnt illegal at all when I was learning; you could drive unaccompanied on the second provisional license (if memory serves me right). As it turned out I never did drive unaccompanied until I had a full license.

kippy wrote: »

As for the logic of having a piece of paper = making you a competent driver - well, just have a look around you on the roads on a daily basis for evidence against that particular gem of wisdom.

I dont think that a single person has suggested that having a license makes you a competent driver. You have a license because you are a competant driver.

kippy

djimi wrote: »

I dont think that a single person has suggested that having a license makes you a competent driver. You have a license because you are a competant driver.

If you can tell me the difference I'd appreciate it........


I drove unaccompanied out of necessity (and I dont think it was illegal then either)

corktina

it's a "piece of paper" to keep incompetent drivers off the road, not to allow competent ones on.. that's the difference, but you won't want to hear that, although it's been said often enough

kippy

corktina wrote: »

it's a "piece of paper" to keep incompetent drivers off the road, not to allow competent ones on.. that's the difference, but you won't want to hear that, although it's been said often enough

So you are telling me that a "test", done once in your entire life - at worst (and perhaps having changed a lot since you first did it) is a true indication of your competency?

Theres plenty incompetent drivers that get through the test - again have a look around you.

djimi

kippy wrote: »

If you can tell me the difference I'd appreciate it........


I drove unaccompanied out of necessity (and I dont think it was illegal then either)

A driver is not competent because they have a full license; they have a full license because they are competent. And it is only that piece of paper that can prove that a driver is competent.

kippy

djimi wrote: »

A driver is not competent because they have a full license; they have a full license because they are competent. And it is only that piece of paper that can prove that a driver is competent.

So you firmly believe that anyone with that piece of paper is a competent driver?

Let me tell you what that paper means.

In the eyes of the law you are a competent driver - in reality it aint all that otherwise we'd never have any "accidents".

kippy

Not posting again as am dragging OT but again,
Best of luck to your son OP.

djimi

kippy wrote: »

So you are telling me that a "test", done once in your entire life - at worst (and perhaps having changed a lot since you first did it) is a true indication of your competency?

Its the system that we have at the moment. Its not perfect granted, but until it changes then its what we have to work with.

Its far less likely that an incompetent driver will pass the driving test than it is a competent driver will fail. Im sure some drivers fall through the cracks and end up with licenses where they dont deserve them, but as far as Im concerned until a driver can get that license, they must be considered to be incompetent. There is no way to prove otherwise.

tallaghtmick

Take a look at the M50 any day and you will see some of the worst and most dangerous drivers in Ireland and guess what 90% of them have a full license.

corktina

kippy wrote: »

So you are telling me that a "test", done once in your entire life - at worst (and perhaps having changed a lot since you first did it) is a true indication of your competency?

Theres plenty incompetent drivers that get through the test - again have a look around you.

no doubt, but there are a lot of incompetent drivers kept off the road (legally) and that is the point.

djimi

kippy wrote: »

So you firmly believe that anyone with that piece of paper is a competent driver?

Let me tell you what that paper means.

In the eyes of the law you are a competent driver - in reality it aint all that otherwise we'd never have any "accidents".

I firmly believe that someone who doesnt have that piece of paper has not proven that they are competent, and in terms of being allowed to drive on their own that is all that matters. Whether or not you feel that the test and system are adequate is an entirely different discussion, but the fact that you feel that incompetent drivers can pass the test just goes to show how easy a test it must be, and therefore there isnt a single excuse for anyone who is a decent driver not to have a full license.

creedp

djimi wrote: »

A driver is not competent because they have a full license; they have a full license because they are competent. And it is only that piece of paper that can prove that a driver is competent.

Does the test make them competent to drive on a Motorway? Or do they become competent to drive on a motorway after they pass their competency test? Another one that always confuses me is that you aren't competent to accompany a learner driver until you hold a 'full licence' for a defined period (is it 12 months?). What does that say about your level of competency upon passing the test?

djimi

creedp wrote: »

Does the test make them competent to drive on a Motorway? Or do they become competent to drive on a motorway after they pass their competency test?

The test/license doesnt make anyone competent; how many times do I have to keep saying that?

The license proves that you meed the minimum standard of competency to drive unaccompanied on Irish roads. At present, that means that you are deemed capable of driving on motorways. Whether you think that is right or not (I dont personally) is not exactly relevant to this discussion.

creedp wrote: »

Another one that always confuses me is that you aren't competent to accompany a learner driver until you hold a 'full licence' for a defined period (is it 12 months?). What does that say about your level of competency upon passing the test?

I would have thought that its fairly obvious that this is due to experience and not competency?

creedp

djimi wrote: »

I would have thought that its fairly obvious that this is due to experience and not competency?

I would agree ..

However, I think the whole driving licence process in Ireland is deeply flawed as you can't drive on a motorway until you pass you test and then you can sail onto the motorway without having any experience or proven competency to do so. As I said while I agree the law requires you to have a full licence before driving unaccompanied so you can demonstrate you have a certain level of competency to drive a vehicle - I still don't get the immediate reaction to anyone mentioning driving on a provisional unaccompanied as that's what everyone does on a motorway once they pass their test.

Zubeneschamali

creedp wrote: »

However, I think the whole driving licence process in Ireland is deeply flawed as you can't drive on a motorway until you pass you test and then you can sail onto the motorway without having any experience or proven competency to do so.

What exactly is different about motorway driving? Motorway driving is simpler than driving on any other road. The only extra rules I see being broken are no stopping for a picnic/slash in the hard margin/emergency lane.

Of course, all the usual rules about lane discipline, speed, yielding to others, leaving safe space for others, merging at a safe speed and so on are routinely broken on our motorways, but those all apply on every road and can be tested.

creedp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What exactly is different about motorway driving? Motorway driving is simpler than driving on any other road. The only extra rules I see being broken are no stopping for a picnic/slash in the hard margin/emergency lane.

Of course, all the usual rules about lane discipline, speed, yielding to others, leaving safe space for others, merging at a safe speed and so on are routinely broken on our motorways, but those all apply on every road and can be tested.

Oh I don't know but some people think there is a difference as L drivers are not allowed on a motorway even when accompanied and yet can drive straight onto one once they receive a piece of paper/plastic. What is the justification for not allowing accompanied L drivers onto motorways? A similar incoherent rule is that trucks are not allowed to overtake on a 2 lane motorway but are free to do so on a dual carriageway. To abide by this rule a truck could be forced to follow a vehicle legally doing 50kmh on a motorway with no way of legally overtaking it. Justification?

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What exactly is different about motorway driving? Motorway driving is simpler than driving on any other road. The only extra rules I see being broken are no stopping for a picnic/slash in the hard margin/emergency lane.

It's very dangerous but stopping on the hard shoulder of a motorway isn't an offence in Ireland. Driving on the hard shoulder is but not stopping. In the UK it is an offence alright unless you are broken down.