Heads up Learner Drivers!

Henry Ford III

ATTENTION ALL LEARNER DRIVERS:

Operation Learner Driver will take place on 14th November 2013.
This Garda Operation means that there will be checkpoints performed at a number of random locations on this date (which is tomorrow!)

Learner Drivers should
1. Be accompanied by qualified driver.
2. Display L-plates.
3. Be in possession of learner permit/driving licence.

Spread the word around!

Dravokivich

So... do what you should be doing?

Observer556

Most people are genuine and don't want the stress of not being within the law. The problem here is the grossly unfair law. Plenty of OAP's have been driving 'legally' for years unaccompanied on a third provisional license. Now they are being branded criminals and are afraid to leave their homes. They only drive in their own local areas and are no harm to anyone, they don't need to pass a test to drive on motorways or big towns. It is also unfair in this country that people who can afford to go out and buy a brand new car are only charged a pittance in road tax yet people driving older cars are being ripped off with road tax and struggle and often can't afford it. The facts are that most people are decent and hardworking and are struggling to make ends meet. We are living in a democratic country yet who are making these laws that favour the haves and penalise the have nots.

downonthefarm

Ahh ffs have they nothing better to be doing like sorting out the corruption that's rife in their force, or the peados that seem to be joining in their droves

Faith+1

downonthefarm wrote: »

Ahh ffs have they nothing better to be doing like sorting out the corruption that's rife in their force, or the peados that seem to be joining in their droves

That's why the Guards have the traffic corps to deal with this sh*t. There's too many chancers on the road who pass a theory test and think it's adequate to drive by themselves.

Fair play to the Guards.

miss no stars

Observer556 wrote: »

Plenty of OAP's have been driving 'legally' for years unaccompanied on a third provisional license. Now they are being branded criminals and are afraid to leave their homes. They only drive in their own local areas and are no harm to anyone,

Sorry, wrong. We had a few of those (seem to have died out or something) a couple of years back in my area, drove a mile down the road to the shops and a mile back. No problem, right? Well, the number of times I've seen them crashed or nearly causing crashes but not even aware of it would contradict that. I think retesting drivers every ten years is excessive, but I do believe that from 65 onwards people should be evaluated every 5 years. Leave out the reverse around the corner and turn in the road, just check they are safe to continue driving because so many I've seen ARE NOT SAFE.

whatlliwear

I think everyone should be re-evaluated avery 5 years.. The amount of terrible drivers out there is shocking!

Observer556

miss no stars wrote: »

Sorry, wrong. We had a few of those (seem to have died out or something) a couple of years back in my area, drove a mile down the road to the shops and a mile back. No problem, right? Well, the number of times I've seen them crashed or nearly causing crashes but not even aware of it would contradict that. I think retesting drivers every ten years is excessive, but I do believe that from 65 onwards people should be evaluated every 5 years. Leave out the reverse around the corner and turn in the road, just check they are safe to continue driving because so many I've seen ARE NOT SAFE.

Your views are very patronising and it's not as black and white as this. you shouldnt talk about over 65's like they are stupid, it says more about you, and Im sure you're not perfect, like none of us are. Some people are agressive drivers, speed merchants with no consideration for other road users. However, if you have this opinion then you will support adequate public transport and public services in rural areas. As this is not going to happen, support older drivers and show them courtesy and good manners, and remember you'll be one yourself someday, you mightn't like being tested every 5 years then (except for reversing and turning!!!).

greyc

Observer556 wrote: »

Most people are genuine and don't want the stress of not being within the law. The problem here is the grossly unfair law. Plenty of OAP's have been driving 'legally' for years unaccompanied on a third provisional license. Now they are being branded criminals and are afraid to leave their homes.

No one was ever allowed drive legally on a 3rd provisional. Up to 2008 you could drive legally on a 2nd provisional, but you needed to be accompanied on a 1st, 3rd or subsequent licence. I assume the reasoning here was that you would've failed a test if you were on your 3rd licence.

I don't agree that there should be any special privileges for over 65s or people living in rural areas. If you're going to drive a lethal piece of machinery on the road you should be qualified to do so, end of story.

I'm also not so sure that testing people every 5/10 years would work, but certainly everyone should have to take maybe 2/3 hours of tuition with an ADI before they can renew their licence

It's crazy that you can do a test at 17 which lasts about 30 mins, and that's it for the next 50/60 years.

Sheldons Brain

Observer556 wrote: »

Most people are genuine and don't want the stress of not being within the law. The problem here is the grossly unfair law. Plenty of OAP's have been driving 'legally' for years unaccompanied on a third provisional license..

They are being branded criminals because they are.
If you are an OAP then you'll have had plenty of time to get a full licence.

Observer wrote:

As this is not going to happen, support older drivers and show them courtesy and good manners, and remember you'll be one yourself someday, you mightn't like being tested every 5 years then (except for reversing and turning!!!).

People might not like it, but that doesn't mean that it is not the right thing to do.

Days 298

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

They are being branded criminals because they are.
If you are an OAP then you'll have had plenty of time to get a full licence.

All they had to do was go into the post office and buy a licence. They have no excuse to think they are test exempt. Although I cant see the gards doing much tbh.

Fighting Irish

It's about time, cars are like weapons

miss no stars

Observer556 wrote: »

Your views are very patronising and it's not as black and white as this. you shouldnt talk about over 65's like they are stupid, it says more about you, and Im sure you're not perfect, like none of us are. Some people are agressive drivers, speed merchants with no consideration for other road users. However, if you have this opinion then you will support adequate public transport and public services in rural areas. As this is not going to happen, support older drivers and show them courtesy and good manners, and remember you'll be one yourself someday, you mightn't like being tested every 5 years then (except for reversing and turning!!!).

Thing is, my views aren't patronizing. After about 65, the speed at which people can process and react to new information starts going down. Ailments that can affect driving can appear. Old people get nervous. My views are based on the reality of aging. Asking a 70 year old to be evaluated is not unreasonable. Asking a 40 year old would be, though.

I'm not saying over 65s are stupid, just that driving a fuel laden hulk of metal requires mental agility and physical quickness of reaction. Both of those tend to diminish with age. The public transport argument is superfluous anyway. Would you like to have every epileptic on the road as well? Just because sure they need to get around too.

Also, can you please explain to me why I should show respect for the actions of people who are on the road illegally, having never demonstrated competency and are thereby gambling with MY life? As people, I don't know them so have no cause to respect them or not respect them, but this is not about them as people, it's simply about them as a group of drivers. I have no sympathy for someone being put off the road if they've been so reckless with the lives of other road users.

Oh and if you don't believe me about faculties fading with age, commercial pilots don't retain command (their captaincy) past 60 and must retire at 65. Doesnt mean people should have to give up their license at 65, but it does indicate that there should be some oversight of elderly drivers; be it a test every 5 years after their first post-65 renewal, or a day course with an adi with assessment at the end.

DriversEd

I only heard today about random, and profiled check points in the UK for eye sight testing!!
they do random ones, and when they feel the need, they profile an area for older residents, and do roadside checks for eyesight.
if you fail on the road, they take the car there and then. then its up to you to prove fitness to drive!
proper order.
imagine if done here??
there be a joe duffy hulabaloo, followed by political intervention, even though its road safety!!

Observer556

The facts are young male drivers do the least amount of mileage on our roads and cause the most amount of accidents, not the over 65's. These are the statistics. So I think as a society we need to stop picking on this group of people. Most people on a full license would fail a re-test if they were re-evaluated, you'll find many over 65's are more alert and more experienced at reacting and anticipating the unexpected, while driving, than their younger counterparts. I appreciate you weren't being patronising, it's just how it read at the time.

Observer556

miss no stars wrote: »

Thing is, my views aren't patronizing. After about 65, the speed at which people can process and react to new information starts going down. Ailments that can affect driving can appear. Old people get nervous. My views are based on the reality of aging. Asking a 70 year old to be evaluated is not unreasonable. Asking a 40 year old would be, though.

I'm not saying over 65s are stupid, just that driving a fuel laden hulk of metal requires mental agility and physical quickness of reaction. Both of those tend to diminish with age. The public transport argument is superfluous anyway. Would you like to have every epileptic on the road as well? Just because sure they need to get around too.

Also, can you please explain to me why I should show respect for the actions of people who are on the road illegally, having never demonstrated competency and are thereby gambling with MY life? As people, I don't know them so have no cause to respect them or not respect them, but this is not about them as people, it's simply about them as a group of drivers. I have no sympathy for someone being put off the road if they've been so reckless with the lives of other road users.

Oh and if you don't believe me about faculties fading with age, commercial pilots don't retain command (their captaincy) past 60 and must retire at 65. Doesnt mean people should have to give up their license at 65, but it does indicate that there should be some oversight of elderly drivers; be it a test every 5 years after their first post-65 renewal, or a day course with an adi with assessment at the end.

The facts are young male drivers do the least amount of mileage on our roads and cause the most amount of accidents, not the over 65's. These are the statistics. So I think as a society we need to stop picking on this group of people. Most people on a full license would fail a re-test if they were re-evaluated, you'll find many over 65's are more alert and more experienced at reacting and anticipating the unexpected, while driving, than their younger counterparts. I appreciate you weren't being patronising, it's just how it read at the time.

Observer556

miss no stars wrote: »

Thing is, my views aren't patronizing. After about 65, the speed at which people can process and react to new information starts going down. Ailments that can affect driving can appear. Old people get nervous. My views are based on the reality of aging. Asking a 70 year old to be evaluated is not unreasonable. Asking a 40 year old would be, though.

I'm not saying over 65s are stupid, just that driving a fuel laden hulk of metal requires mental agility and physical quickness of reaction. Both of those tend to diminish with age. The public transport argument is superfluous anyway. Would you like to have every epileptic on the road as well? Just because sure they need to get around too.

Also, can you please explain to me why I should show respect for the actions of people who are on the road illegally, having never demonstrated competency and are thereby gambling with MY life? As people, I don't know them so have no cause to respect them or not respect them, but this is not about them as people, it's simply about them as a group of drivers. I have no sympathy for someone being put off the road if they've been so reckless with the lives of other road users.

Oh and if you don't believe me about faculties fading with age, commercial pilots don't retain command (their captaincy) past 60 and must retire at 65. Doesnt mean people should have to give up their license at 65, but it does indicate that there should be some oversight of elderly drivers; be it a test every 5 years after their first post-65 renewal, or a day course with an adi with assessment at the end.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

They are being branded criminals because they are.
If you are an OAP then you'll have had plenty of time to get a full licence.




People might not like it, but that doesn't mean that it is not the right thing to do.

I passed my driving test in my early twenties and I'm not over 65 or anywhere near it, I have lots of older neighbours who rely on their cars, they only drive on our local roads (rural area) and they are very safe, capable drivers on these roads. Just because I speak out in favour of another group of people doesn't mean I'm part of that group, not everyone is self-serving.

Observer556

greyc wrote: »

No one was ever allowed drive legally on a 3rd provisional. Up to 2008 you could drive legally on a 2nd provisional, but you needed to be accompanied on a 1st, 3rd or subsequent licence. I assume the reasoning here was that you would've failed a test if you were on your 3rd licence.

I don't agree that there should be any special privileges for over 65s or people living in rural areas. If you're going to drive a lethal piece of machinery on the road you should be qualified to do so, end of story.

I'm also not so sure that testing people every 5/10 years would work, but certainly everyone should have to take maybe 2/3 hours of tuition with an ADI before they can renew their licence

It's crazy that you can do a test at 17 which lasts about 30 mins, and that's it for the next 50/60 years.

You're missing the point, people are well able to mechanically drive a car but they don't need to pass a test to drive on motor ways or cities, as they will never want to do this, a local license would solve the problem. What you're saying is you don't care about other people. I don't know why I'm arguing with idiots, people might not know the difference.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0630/105133-licence/

End of the road for unaccompanied drivers

Tuesday, 01 July 2008

The law requiring learner drivers on a second provisional licence to be accompanied by a fully qualified driver comes into effect from midnight tonight.
The change in the driving licence system, announced by Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey last year, affects up to 92,000 people.

Observer556

DriversEd wrote: »

I only heard today about random, and profiled check points in the UK for eye sight testing!!
they do random ones, and when they feel the need, they profile an area for older residents, and do roadside checks for eyesight.
if you fail on the road, they take the car there and then. then its up to you to prove fitness to drive!
proper order.
imagine if done here??
there be a joe duffy hulabaloo, followed by political intervention, even though its road safety!!

Better order to test all people for driving while under the influence of weed and other drugs, this is a much bigger risk. You shouldn't be ageist you forget you'll be old yourself someday, if youre lucky.

Observer556

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

They are being branded criminals because they are.
If you are an OAP then you'll have had plenty of time to get a full licence.




People might not like it, but that doesn't mean that it is not the right thing to do.

Nonsense and waffle, say something definite don't write poetry.

Observer556

The Government changed the law without due consideration, I'm not over 65, I have passed my test. It's not about me or you.

jimgoose

Observer556 wrote: »

Nonsense and waffle, say something definite don't write poetry.

Why is it nonsense and waffle, or "poetry" for that matter? It's perfectly simple - if you are to drive a car on your own in this jurisdiction, you must be properly trained and tested. That's it. No ifs, buts, maybes or d'you-mind-if-I-don'ts. Same for everybody, regardless of age.

greyc

Observer556 wrote: »

You're missing the point, people are well able to mechanically drive a car but they don't need to pass a test to drive on motor ways or cities, as they will never want to do this, a local license would solve the problem. What you're saying is you don't care about other people. I don't know why I'm arguing with idiots, people might not know the difference.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0630/105133-licence/

End of the road for unaccompanied drivers

Tuesday, 01 July 2008

The law requiring learner drivers on a second provisional licence to be accompanied by a fully qualified driver comes into effect from midnight tonight.
The change in the driving licence system, announced by Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey last year, affects up to 92,000 people.

Exactly what point am I missing? The quote from RTE News is exactly as I said. Anyone on a 2nd provisional licence had to be accompanied from July 2008 onwards, however I think you may be under the mistaken impression that anyone on a 3rd or subsequent licence could also drive unaccompanied. This was never the case, it was only on a 2nd provisional, 1st, 3rd and subsequent licence holders had to be accompanied.

While I don't appreciate being called an idiot, I stand by my original point that all drivers should be licenced and it's totally impractical to suggest that you should have special licences for people who don't want to drive in a town or on a motorway. Many accidents occur within a mile of the victims home, and to even suggest that they should be allowed operate a lethal piece of machinery, without the most basic of tests, and yes the Irish driving test is very basic compared with many other European countries, would indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about.

An elderly neighbour of ours who would fall nicely into the category that you propose should drive test free, recently had to drive to the local town on business. Despite having driven for at least 15 years without ever doing a test, and only ever sticking to local roads in the past, she managed to drive the wrong way around a roundabout, fortunately without killing anyone.

Btw, my mother only took up driving when she was 72, and past her test 2 years later.

Faith+1

greyc wrote: »

Btw, my mother only took up driving when she was 72, and past her test 2 years later.

Fair play!:cool: