Legal taxi drivers who have never sat a driving test

n97 mini

I got a taxi a while back and during the course of the conversation the driver said he'd never done a driving test or taken a driving lesson (my parents didn't either). It explained a few things about his driving, which was generally terrible.

It was only later that I thought how daft it is that we have public service vehicle drivers who are responsible for others, but in an Irish way we've chosen to license them and turn a blind eye to the fact that they may not be able to pass a driving test.

Bit about it here.
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/many-licensed-drivers-never-sat-a-test-1.909159

coylemj

He could have obtained a full licence after 1964 without doing a test because there was massive backlog of applications for the driving test at some point in the late 1970s and some idiot of a minister came up the brilliant solution to clear the backlog which was that anyone who had applied for the test and was on their second or subsequent provisional licence was given a full licence without a test.

Someone who worked in the DoE at the time told me that it solved nothing because writing to the people on the waiting list and giving them a free pass to apply to their county council for a full driving licence caused as much of a backlog in the system as giving the same people appointments for the driving test. But it means that there is a large number of people out there now, most of them in their late 50s who never passed the test.

ongarboy

Yep, it was around 1980. My aunt has one but has never been behind a wheel! Crazy when road fatalities were so high back then that such a waiver was allowed.

Regardless of above, I can't understand how taxi drivers would be allowed to drive without one considering their occupation. Surely it would have been the minimum criteria to obtain a taxi licence.

cnoc

coylemj wrote: »

He could have obtained a full licence after 1964 without doing a test because there was massive backlog of applications for the driving test at some point in the late 1970s and some idiot of a minister came up the brilliant solution to clear the backlog which was that anyone who had applied for the test and was on their second or subsequent provisional licence was given a full licence without a test.

Someone who worked in the DoE at the time told me that it solved nothing because writing to the people on the waiting list and giving them a free pass to apply to their county council for a full driving licence caused as much of a backlog in the system as giving the same people appointments for the driving test. But it means that there is a large number of people out there now, most of them in their late 50s who never passed the test.

I'm beyond the 50 mark and did my driving test and passed (2nd time), and that was a number of decades ago.

jimmycrackcorm

n97 mini wrote: »

I got a taxi a while back and during the course of the conversation the driver said he'd never done a driving test or taken a driving lesson (my parents didn't either). It explained a few things about his driving, which was generally terrible.

And yet his insurance will be cheaper because statistically he is safer than a young lad who did a driving test...

GerardKeating

ongarboy wrote: »

Yep, it was around 1980. My aunt has one but has never been behind a wheel! Crazy when road fatalities were so high back then that such a waiver was allowed.

Regardless of above, I can't understand how taxi drivers would be allowed to drive without one considering their occupation. Surely it would have been the minimum criteria to obtain a taxi licence.

Many many drivers whom did the test in the 80's and 90's would never had done the Driver Theory test.

They should make it a requirement for any person whom has a licence suspended or any form of Driving ban to have to resit the test to get it back

coylemj

cnoc wrote: »

I'm beyond the 50 mark and did my driving test and passed (2nd time), and that was a number of decades ago.

Either you were too young at the time or you were on your first provisional or you had not applied for the driving test, there's all sorts of reasons why someone your age missed out on the exemption when it was granted.

magicbastarder

ongarboy wrote: »

Regardless of above, I can't understand how taxi drivers would be allowed to drive without one considering their occupation. Surely it would have been the minimum criteria to obtain a taxi licence.

obviously (IANAL) it's legally equivalent to a 'proper' licence, and there's no legal mechanism to take it off someone without them proving they're incompetent.

it'd be gas if the insurance companies started asking for details of how you got your licence.

cython

magicbastarder wrote: »

obviously (IANAL) it's legally equivalent to a 'proper' licence, and there's no legal mechanism to take it off someone without them proving they're incompetent.

it'd be gas if the insurance companies started asking for details of how you got your licence.

To be fair, they could quite simply add a question for full licence holders "In what year did you pass your driving test?", in place of the current usual one of "How many years have you held your full licence?". However there are probably too many people who availed of the amnesty that would raise hell over it, and are actually in positions to do so too. Or some smart ass would deem it discriminatory as these people can't actually answer it or some such garbage.

magicbastarder

my mother has one of those licences. IIRC, the porter where my dad worked picked up a bundle of forms, dropped them round to all staff, and picked them all back up a few days later when people filled them out, and dropped them off for processing.

did you have to already hold a provisional to avail of the amnesty? if not, it's probable that there are people out there who own a full licence and have never even sat behind the wheel of a car.

cython

magicbastarder wrote: »

my mother has one of those licences. IIRC, the porter where my dad worked picked up a bundle of forms, dropped them round to all staff, and picked them all back up a few days later when people filled them out, and dropped them off for processing.

did you have to already hold a provisional to avail of the amnesty? if not, it's probable that there are people out there who own a full licence and have never even sat behind the wheel of a car.

You mean like this?

ongarboy wrote: »

Yep, it was around 1980. My aunt has one but has never been behind a wheel! Crazy when road fatalities were so high back then that such a waiver was allowed.

Regardless of above, I can't understand how taxi drivers would be allowed to drive without one considering their occupation. Surely it would have been the minimum criteria to obtain a taxi licence.

Rubberchikken

i don't see how people who never had to sit the test in the 70's(?) due to backlog and the people who passed the test in the past couple of decades are any different. drivers today are appalling on the whole. passing a driving test in this country is like passing your leaving cert. learn off everything by heart. turn up on the day and churn out learned stuff. get a pass. then drive whatever way you want and in the way you think you're entitled to and pay no attention to anyone else out there.

jca

I think people are confusing two "amnesties" as such. There was a national panic prior to the driving test being introduced in the early 60s, people got licences for the sake of it, many never getting behind the wheel and the licence eventually expiring 10 years later. The second 2nd provisional amnesty that C.J. did in the 70s was shocking. I was too young to avail of it but I know a few who did and they are terrible drivers. I'm glad I had to sit the test I think it's a great stepping stone to becoming a decent driver. It's still a tough test.

Sam Kade

cython wrote: »

To be fair, they could quite simply add a question for full licence holders "In what year did you pass your driving test?", in place of the current usual one of "How many years have you held your full licence?". However there are probably too many people who availed of the amnesty that would raise hell over it, and are actually in positions to do so too. Or some smart ass would deem it discriminatory as these people can't actually answer it or some such garbage.

The amnesty lasted 1 month to clear a backlog around 40k people availed of it. They had trouble getting insurance after as they hadn't passed the test. Many of the drivers are off the road at this stage only few remain. Yet in threads like this and posts like yours people falsely believe that half the people in the country never passed a driving test. I did the driving test just in case you think I got the lottery licence.

Sam Russell

Much more important is the requirement for an eyesight test.

If you get your licence, you are asked if your eyesight is OK. There should be an eyesight test at every renewal.

Bray Head

Given that the records are nearly 40 years old and probably dispersed or missing I suspect it would be very difficult to prove or disprove whether people of that age took an actual test.

loyatemu

I suspect the license is the key document here - if you have it, and haven't committed an offence, they can't take it off you. The early test was very basic, and I doubt they have proper records of who passed which test and when because at the time the license was the record.

Maybe taxi drivers should have to resit the test as part of their PSV license renewal? What's the requirement for bus drivers?

n97 mini

It could (should) be a condition of every PSV licence renewal that the applicant has sat a driving test, preferably within a time frame like say the last 10 years.

Not only were people given licences without sitting a test, they were also asked what categories they wanted. My mother took them all! Only licence I've seen covering everything from motorbike to articulated lorry.

jca

loyatemu wrote: »

I suspect the license is the key document here - if you have it, and haven't committed an offence, they can't take it off you. The early test was very basic, and I doubt they have proper records of who passed which test and when because at the time the license was the record.

Maybe taxi drivers should have to resit the test as part of their PSV license renewal? What's the requirement for bus drivers?

A driving test every 5 years? Seriously? 250 plus the cost of the test plus yearly Nct plus suitability. Wouldn't like to be a taxi driver in your little world...

cython

Sam Kade wrote: »

The amnesty lasted 1 month to clear a backlog around 40k people availed of it. They had trouble getting insurance after as they hadn't passed the test. Many of the drivers are off the road at this stage only few remain. Yet in threads like this and posts like yours people falsely believe that half the people in the country never passed a driving test. I did the driving test just in case you think I got the lottery licence.

Please do not put words in my mouth, I never attempted to put a quantity on it, and I don't appreciate you trying to trying to project fallacious beliefs of others onto me. The simple facts associated with population alone mean that the numbers of untested drivers are always going to be a relatively small minority, but at the same time anyone I know who got a licence through the amnesty (and I do know a few of them), is a worse driver than those who sat tests of the same vintage.

coylemj

magicbastarder wrote: »

my mother has one of those licences. IIRC, the porter where my dad worked picked up a bundle of forms, dropped them round to all staff, and picked them all back up a few days later when people filled them out, and dropped them off for processing.

And they all got full driving licences - for simply filling out that form? That's just not true.

jca wrote: »

People did get full licences by just filling in a form. This happened in the 60s prior to the driving test being introduced.

I was responding to the poster (quoted above) who claimed that you could avail of the 1970s amnesty by simply filling out a form that a porter in his dad's office was handing out.

GM228

IIRC the amnesty (which was in 1979 by the way) was because of a lenghty postal strike and lack of telephones which created a huge backlog in test applications as you could only get an appointment via post or phone and as correctly stated by cojlemj it only applied to someone on a second or subsequent provisional.

Apparently there was a 2 year wait for a telephone to be installed in your home back then.

I wonder how many pre March 1964 licence holders are still driving around because before then there was no such thing as a driving test to get a licence.

jca

coylemj wrote: »

And they all got full driving licences - for simply filling out that form? That's just not true.



You had to be on your second or subsequent provisional licence and you had to be waiting for a date to do your driving test. The suggestion that a lot of people who got licences under that 1970s amnesty never sat behind the wheel of a car is rubbish.



A lot of them are still in their 50s, what basis have you for saying that most of them are now off the road? The majority of them were young drivers in the process of getting a full licence.

People did get full licences by just filling in a form. This happened in the 60s prior to the driving test being introduced. My father never sat a test, sitting in the car with him you'd know it too, a scary experience... He's pushing 80 now so I'd reckon he's the last of the 1960s non tested drivers, not driving anymore I hasten to add...

Sam Kade

coylemj wrote: »

And they all got full driving licences - for simply filling out that form? That's just not true.



You had to be on your second or subsequent provisional licence and you had to be waiting for a date to do your driving test. The suggestion that a lot of people who got licences under that 1970s amnesty never sat behind the wheel of a car is rubbish.



A lot of them are still in their 50s, what basis have you for saying that most of them are now off the road? The majority of them were young drivers in the process of getting a full licence.

40k back then many older people also applied, ok the youngest that applied would be around 55 now. People die give up driving either way 40k is the minority which is the point I was making. But every time this subject comes up here half the drivers in the country are presumed to be driving without doing the test.

plodder

GM228 wrote: »

IIRC the amnesty (which was in 1979 by the way) was because of a lenghty postal strike and lack of telephones which created a huge backlog in test applications as you could only get an appointment via post or phone and as correctly stated by cojlemj it only applied to someone on a second or subsequent provisional.

Apparently there was a 2 year wait for a telephone to be installed in your home back then.

I wonder how many pre March 1964 licence holders are still driving around because before then there was no such thing as a driving test to get a licence.

That "amnesty" caused quite a fuss internationally at the time, as some countries, eg Australia refused to recognise them.

My parents still drive on the pre 1964 licences and I'm sure there are many others still around. The problem these people are facing is more to do with old age, than a lack of competence from not having done the test, I would think.

Sam Russell

plodder wrote: »

That "amnesty" caused quite a fuss internationally at the time, as some countries, eg Australia refused to recognise them.

My parents still drive on the pre 1964 licences and I'm sure there are many others still around. The problem these people are facing is more to do with old age, than a lack of competence from not having done the test, I would think.

I think that many drivers of that vintage, whether they passed a test or not, would have a problem with the rules of the road (theory test), driving on motorways, roundabouts, and eyesight. There were no yellow boxes, no roundabouts or any motorways back then, and few traffic lights in most of the country.

Drivers at (and over) 70 must have a medical check by a doctor, and that includes eyesight. Over 70 licences only last 3 years, and over 80 only are for one year. It would be a good idea to include a simple theory test.

magicbastarder

Sam Russell wrote: »

Drivers at (and over) 70 must have a medical check by a doctor, and that includes eyesight.

do the doctors sign off on the eyesight, or is that done by an optician?

L1011

magicbastarder wrote: »

do the doctors sign off on the eyesight, or is that done by an optician?

Doctors are entitled to fill in the form. People usually go to an optician for the form on its own as they're cheaper. With a medical needed anyway there's no point not getting the doctor to do it.

vicwatson

No motorways, very little roundabouts, very little traffic light, very little traffic - these dudes that availed of this CJ amnesty need to be sent on educational driving courses that they should pay for.

coylemj

magicbastarder wrote: »

do the doctors sign off on the eyesight, or is that done by an optician?

Eyesight alone is covered by a form that's required when applying for a first learner permit, you get that filled in and signed by an optician.

For a renewal when >70, the doctor alone can certify you (form D501) but has the option to send you to an optician for assessment if necessary ....

Where appropriate the doctor may engage the services of other medical and driving professionals (e.g. consultant, occupational therapist, optometrist,
on-road driving assessor) to inform their completion of this form.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Licensed-Drivers/Safe-driving/Medical-Issues/

Sam Russell

coylemj wrote: »

Eyesight alone is covered by a form that's required when applying for a first learner permit, you get that filled in and signed by an optician.

For a renewal when >70, the doctor alone can certify you (form D501) but has the option to send you to an optician for assessment if necessary ....

Where appropriate the doctor may engage the services of other medical and driving professionals (e.g. consultant, occupational therapist, optometrist,
on-road driving assessor) to inform their completion of this form.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Licensed-Drivers/Safe-driving/Medical-Issues/

So a person of 17 gets their eyesight tested and they do not need another test until they are 70 years old. Now that is - well - a bit fantastic. Now it is well known (to me at least) that at 40 years, most people need glasses to read a telephone book.

So why not have an eyesight test when your ten year licence needs renewing?

That would be a test at 27, 37, 47, 57, and 67 for our youngster getting their first permit at 17. That is 5 extra tests in a lifetime - surely not much of an imposition. Of course, if the first application is after 20, then it is only 4 extra tests.

I have heard of 'car park' voluntary eyesight tests by, I think, the AA had a failure rate of about 45%. [Now that is from memory, must try and find a link]

How many times have you heard 'He came out of nowhere!' as the explanation for an accident - or 'I didn't see him' more likely.

plodder

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think that many drivers of that vintage, whether they passed a test or not, would have a problem with the rules of the road (theory test), driving on motorways, roundabouts, and eyesight. There were no yellow boxes, no roundabouts or any motorways back then, and few traffic lights in most of the country.

Drivers at (and over) 70 must have a medical check by a doctor, and that includes eyesight. Over 70 licences only last 3 years, and over 80 only are for one year. It would be a good idea to include a simple theory test.

Again, I think the medical issue (eg deteriorating eye-sight) is one thing and that's covered pretty well by the testing requirement, but I think it's a stretch to say that such people might not be familiar with motorways or roundabouts etc. It's not like they suddenly appeared one day. They have been driving on them at least as long as the rest of us.

Have to say also, I'm not overly impressed with the theory test. Considering my daughter (as mentioned on another thread) passed it some time before she started driving and had to learn everything from scratch when she started driving.

As regards, middle aged people needing eye-tests, the typical situation there is that most people become presbyopic in middle age, which shouldn't affect driving.

Sam Russell

plodder wrote: »

Again, I think the medical issue (eg deteriorating eye-sight) is one thing and that's covered pretty well by the testing requirement, but I think it's a stretch to say that such people might not be familiar with motorways or roundabouts etc. It's not like they suddenly appeared one day. They have been driving on them at least as long as the rest of us.

Have to say also, I'm not overly impressed with the theory test. Considering my daughter (as mentioned on another thread) passed it some time before she started driving and had to learn everything from scratch when she started driving.

As regards, middle aged people needing eye-tests, the typical situation there is that most people become presbyopic in middle age, which shouldn't affect driving.

I live near St Vincent's Hospital and the number of people at the front of the queue turning right up Nutley Lane from the Merrion Road who do not move into the yellow box on a green light to trip the detector under the 'Wait Here' arrow and so cause the right turn sequence to miss. That is plain ignorant (in a nice way) driving. A decent driving course would eliminate this type of driving fault.

I am sure there are lots of similar situation where knowledge of the rules of the road and good practice would improve driving standards.

To a certain extent someone who passed their driving test 50 years ago may need retraining but would never admit it.

loyatemu

jca wrote: »

A driving test every 5 years? Seriously? 250 plus the cost of the test plus yearly Nct plus suitability. Wouldn't like to be a taxi driver in your little world...

maybe not at every renewal then - you don't think taxi drivers driving standards should be assessed?

plodder

Sam Russell wrote: »

I live near St Vincent's Hospital and the number of people at the front of the queue turning right up Nutley Lane from the Merrion Road who do not move into the yellow box on a green light to trip the detector under the 'Wait Here' arrow and so cause the right turn sequence to miss. That is plain ignorant (in a nice way) driving. A decent driving course would eliminate this type of driving fault.

That's a bug bear of mine too. I really don't think elderly people are any worse though. Could be more a demographic thing around Nutley Lane/St Vincents.

coylemj

Sam Russell wrote: »

I live near St Vincent's Hospital and the number of people at the front of the queue turning right up Nutley Lane from the Merrion Road who do not move into the yellow box on a green light to trip the detector under the 'Wait Here' arrow and so cause the right turn sequence to miss. That is plain ignorant (in a nice way) driving. A decent driving course would eliminate this type of driving fault.

It's principally caused by ignorance of the difference between a solid green and a green 'up' (straight ahead) arrow. When people at that and lots of similar junctions (e.g. Donnybrook Church inbound) see a filter lamp to the right of the main green lamp, they automatically assume they have to wait at the stop line for the filter, even though they have a solid green lamp. In many cases they won't even budge off the stop line (let alone turn right) when the way is clear.

Varta

"No motorways, very little roundabouts, very little traffic light, very little traffic - these dudes that availed of this CJ amnesty need to be sent on educational driving courses that they should pay for."

How about that fact that they were there for the gradual introduction of motorways, the gradual introduction of roundabouts, traffic lights, traffic, etc. I'd say that gradual introduction actually made them better able to handle these road features.

coylemj

Sam Russell wrote: »

So a person of 17 gets their eyesight tested and they do not need another test until they are 70 years old. Now that is - well - a bit fantastic. Now it is well known (to me at least) that at 40 years, most people need glasses to read a telephone book.

What has that got to do with driving? I can barely read anything on my mobile without reading glasses but when behind the wheel I can see every detail on the dashboard and beyond without glasses.

Hotblack Desiato

Sam Russell wrote: »

Drivers at (and over) 70 must have a medical check by a doctor, and that includes eyesight. Over 70 licences only last 3 years, and over 80 only are for one year. It would be a good idea to include a simple theory test.

Problem is that family doctors seem very reluctant to take an OAP's mobility away especially in rural areas, regardless of the potential danger to the public. It should be an independent medical assessor.

Judging by the driving of many vehicles displaying N-plates it's not easy to get enthusiastic about the behaviours of recent test passers, either...

magicbastarder

i mentioned here before a friend of my mother in law, who is unable to drive at night without using full beams. doesn't stop her from driving, seemingly.
and another friend who cannot turn right in the car - i don't know whether it's a confidence/muscular/eyesight issue, but her usual drive she does using only left turns. and obviously drives a different route home, using only left turns.

Sam Russell

coylemj wrote: »

What has that got to do with driving? I can barely read anything on my mobile without reading glasses but when behind the wheel I can see every detail on the dashboard and beyond without glasses.

That maybe true for you but eyesight fails with age. There should be safety checks on people eyesight as they age to assess their ability to drive safely.

Periodic testing is done for cars - some age less well than others, same should apply to eyesight.

murphaph

magicbastarder wrote: »

did you have to already hold a provisional to avail of the amnesty? if not, it's probable that there are people out there who own a full licence and have never even sat behind the wheel of a car.

My late father "bought" all the categories when that amnesty came around. His driving licence had every single one but the only thing he ever actually drove was a car, having never sat a driving test for any vehicle ever.

NiallBoo

loyatemu wrote: »

I suspect the license is the key document here - if you have it, and haven't committed an offence, they can't take it off you. The early test was very basic, and I doubt they have proper records of who passed which test and when because at the time the license was the record.

Maybe taxi drivers should have to resit the test as part of their PSV license renewal? What's the requirement for bus drivers?

Driving isn't a legal right. There's no article about "the inviolability of the motor-carriage" in the constitution.

All it would take to change the rules is the government passing legislation.

Personally I think taxis (or anyone that drives for a living) should be held to a higher standard.
I would have an advanced test required, regular retesting* and CPDs** in things like customer care and first-aid.

*of course, I think everyone should do regular retesting. I'd have it every 2 years. It's only an hour if your time to ensure that you and those around you aren't completely incompetent. Sounds extreme but isn't it crazy that the car needs regular checks but by far the most dangerous element doesn't?

**really taxi drivers should be in favour of higher standards. It's a barrier to entering the job, so it means there'll be less competition for work.

coylemj

NiallBoo wrote: »

Driving isn't a legal right. There's no article about "the inviolability of the motor-carriage" in the constitution.

All it would take to change the rules is the government passing legislation.

+1 People have gone all the way to the Supreme Court in a desperate attempt to overturn a conviction for drink driving and get their licence back so this topic has been trashed out on several occasions at the highest levels. The higher courts have ruled that a driving licence is a privilege, not a right and it can be taken from you by order of the courts i.e. disqualifying someone from holding a driving licence is not in breach of any imaginary right under the constitution.

Note that when you are disqualified, it's not that you are disqualified from driving, you are disqualified from holding a driving licence. If you were in the Gardai or the Army, legally you could continue to drive official vehicles on public roads if you lost your (civilian) driving licence though in practice your superiors will ground you, same as applies in civvvie street.

NiallBoo wrote: »

*of course, I think everyone should do regular retesting. I'd have it every 2 years. It's only an hour if your time to ensure that you and those around you aren't completely incompetent. Sounds extreme but isn't it crazy that the car needs regular checks but by far the most dangerous element doesn't?

Such a rule would immediately put thousands of old biddies in rural communities off the road, it would be fought tooth and nail by rural TDs from every political party so it would not have a hope of getting onto the statute books.

I know of a woman in her 90s who's doctor refused to sign her off on her driving licence renewal. This doctor would have known the woman for over 40 years as a patient and he knew that she had literally reached the end of the road in terms of the ability to safely drive a car. Solution? She went to a new doctor who obliged and she continued driving.

Mr.Frame

NiallBoo wrote: »

Personally I think taxis (or anyone that drives for a living) should be held to a higher standard.
I would have an advanced test required, regular retesting* and CPDs** in things like customer care and first-aid.

*of course, I think everyone should do regular retesting. I'd have it every 2 years. It's only an hour if your time to ensure that you and those around you aren't completely incompetent. Sounds extreme but isn't it crazy that the car needs regular checks but by far the most dangerous element doesn't?

**really taxi drivers should be in favour of higher standards. It's a barrier to entering the job, so it means there'll be less competition for work.

Taxi drivers HAVE been calling for higher standards. For example a driver from outside of the EU can drive a taxi here but is not and cannot be Garda vetted.
Drivers who come from countries where they drive on the opposite side of the road should in my opinion do a test before being granted a taxi licence. I also think this should apply to any EU national who wishes to drive in Ireland.

As for the "customer care and first aid". They are taxi drivers NOT medics,leave the medical stuff to the medics

n97 mini

Mr.Frame wrote: »

Taxi drivers HAVE been calling for higher standards. For example a driver from outside of the EU can drive a taxi here but is not and cannot be Garda vetted.
Drivers who come from countries where they drive on the opposite side of the road should in my opinion do a test before being granted a taxi licence. I also think this should apply to any EU national who wishes to drive in Ireland.

I think the post meant higher driving standards.

While I agree that all drivers should have the same standards applied to them, I think the taxi lobby are quicker to walk the fine line to xenphobia than they are to insist all drivers have passed a driving test.

Sleeper12

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

And yet his insurance will be cheaper because statistically he is safer than a young lad who did a driving test...

Yes he has 50 years driving experience and doesn't speed.

Mr.Frame

n97 mini wrote: »

I think the post meant higher driving standards.

While I agree that all drivers should have the same standards applied to them, I think the taxi lobby are quicker to walk the fine line to xenphobia than they are to insist all drivers have passed a driving test.

Whats this "taxi lobby" you are talking about ?
Also please do explain your "xenophobia" comment.

Hotblack Desiato

Mr.Frame wrote: »

Drivers who come from countries where they drive on the opposite side of the road should in my opinion do a test before being granted a taxi licence. I also think this should apply to any EU national who wishes to drive in Ireland.

That's quite simply ridiculous.
Driving on the other side of the road is a trivial task for any competent driver.

NiallBoo

Mr.Frame wrote: »

Taxi drivers HAVE been calling for higher standards. For example a driver from outside of the EU can drive a taxi here but is not and cannot be Garda vetted.

i agree with you in principle, I just can't see how it would actually be doable.
- as another poster pointed out, that's just one aspect amongst very many where improvement is due.

Mr.Frame wrote: »

Drivers who come from countries where they drive on the opposite side of the road should in my opinion do a test before being granted a taxi licence. I also think this should apply to any EU national who wishes to drive in Ireland.

My suggestion for an advanced test for all taxi drivers would cover this.

Mr.Frame wrote: »

As for the "customer care and first aid". They are taxi drivers NOT medics,leave the medical stuff to the medics

First-aid isn't anything like being a medic. It's not about curing anybody, just knowing what to do until an ambulance arrives.

You've ignored customer care...which in my experience has been a complete lottery.

Mr.Frame wrote: »

Whats this "taxi lobby" you are talking about ?

It's this nice place with couches and stuff where you wait for your taxi.

NiallBoo

coylemj wrote: »

Such a rule would immediately put thousands of old biddies in rural communities off the road, it would be fought tooth and nail by rural TDs from every political party so it would not have a hope of getting onto the statute books.

oh I don't think it's at all likely, just my opinion on how it should be.
If higher standards were brought in, you'd expect them to be slowly phased in.

Elderly people becoming trapped and isolated sure is a problem. I think ultimately it's a problem of planning. We build houses in the middle of nowhere and become completely car dependant.

This problem is going to get much, much worse as all of the people who've built houses in the last 15 years grow old and can't drive. Add to that they'll have smaller families with fewer (if any) relatives nearby to drive them around.