Seizing vehicles driven by unaccompanied drivers

pudzey101

seen a yoke on bookface there awhile ago about the transport minister looking to bring in a law for garda to seize any vehicles driven unaccompanied by a learner
whats yer take on this good or bad ? im 50-50 on it anyway as alot of young people need to get to college, work etc , while you have the other half causing the majority of the trouble ??

amcalester

A law without enforcement is useless and a waste of time so I've no doubt this will be passed.

Wouldn't have much sympathy though if it was brought in and enforced, if you don't have a licence you shouldn't be driving.

Sue Pa Key Pa

amcalester wrote: »

A law without enforcement is useless and a waste of time so I've no doubt this will be passed.

Wouldn't have much sympathy though if it was brought in and enforced, if you don't have a licence you shouldn't be driving.

Exactly, we have loads of good laws relating to motoring, but detection and enforcement are badly lacking.

honda boi

Even if its brought in, the laws we have at the minute aren't even enforced so no chance of a new one being.

Bazzy

I think society in a whole has had a big change on this

I found an old cheque book the other day and one of the stubs was £2500punts to quinn direct for a 98 micra

When I passed my test the renewal was £795 so in them days it was worth it insurance wise but everyone was at it

I dont think as many people do it now at all, I know theres plenty on the garda twitter account says different but in general I think it has

fullstop

About time. The amount of people I know driving around on a provisional for years unaccompanied to and from work etc is unreal.

Del2005

In the UK, Oz and NZ driving without an accompanying full licence holder is a car confiscated offence. The reason being that your learners permit isn't valid therefore you have no insurance, in Oz/NZ, the insurance is on the car not the person. Yet in Ireland driving without a valid permit is considered OK even though they have no insurance, even if the third party is covered the insurance still isn't valid.

CiniO

Learner permit should be only used to learn to drive with instructor (in dual control car), and only upon finishing the training person should be allowed to drive own/family car with accompanying person.
Driving on their own, should result in car being seized, high fine, and possibly delay in possibility to apply for a test.

Isambard

if you need the car to get to work college or whatever else, do the test first.

DaveyDave

I hope this is enforced with an iron fist. Sick of seeing people unaccompanied while the rest of us stick to the law and pass our test properly. Some of those have babies/children in the car or do be driving down motorways.

Tired of hearing people say "Oh I need a car for work". No, you picked a job you couldn't get to by walking or public transport.

I cycled for 6 years before getting my licence. The 3 locations I've worked in all required getting 2 buses and 2 of the locations were 20km away. I've never gone for a job I couldn't get to on my bike. People are just taking the easy route and getting a car instead of having to get multiple buses or walk long distances.

People just feel entitled to drive but it's a privilege not a right.

Ubbquittious

DaveyDave wrote: »

I hope this is enforced with an iron fist. Sick of seeing people unaccompanied while the rest of us stick to the law and pass our test properly. Some of those have babies/children in the car or do be driving down motorways.

Tired of hearing people say "Oh I need a car for work". No, you picked a job you couldn't get to by walking or public transport.

I cycled for 6 years before getting my licence. The 3 locations I've worked in all required getting 2 buses and 2 of the locations were 20km away. I've never gone for a job I couldn't get to on my bike. People are just taking the easy route and getting a car instead of having to get multiple buses or walk long distances.

People just feel entitled to drive but it's a privilege not a right.

I really dont get this clamour for a more restrictive life. Its not like we were living in an anarchist hell hole even in the days when licenses were handed out without having to do the test

CiniO

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I really dont get this clamour for a more restrictive life. Its not like we were living in an anarchist hell hole even in the days when licenses were handed out without having to do the test

Driving test is needed and people who didn't pass it, shouldn't be allowed on the road without right supervision.

TheChizler

Are there any stats on accidents involving unaccompanied drivers versus unaccompanied? And the proportion of each on the road?

Ubbquittious

CiniO wrote: »

Driving test is needed and people who didn't pass it, shouldn't be allowed on the road without right supervision.

Why do you give a damn? Do you spend the whole day dodging wayward n00bs on the road?

People who have had their license a while are quick to hop onto the podium and draw the sword to try and prevent newbs from entering but I dont envy anyone starting off from 0 these days with mandatory lessons and all that craic. Its become way more of a money racket in the past 10 years and more recently you have the insurance companies making it worse by not wanting to insure anyone who isnt a 40 year old nurse living a calm lush upmarket housing estate

CiniO

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Why do you give a damn? Do you spend the whole day dodging wayward n00bs on the road?

People who have had their license a while are quick to hop onto the podium and draw the sword to try and prevent newbs from entering but I dont envy anyone starting off from 0 these days with mandatory lessons and all that craic. Its become way more of a money racket in the past 10 years and more recently you have the insurance companies making it worse by not wanting to insure anyone who isnt a 40 year old nurse living a calm lush upmarket housing estate

I'll leave insurance companies aside, as my opinion about that is very bad, and generally I consider whole car insurance system in Ireland needs urgent change and insurance companies are pure thieves.

But in relation to mandatory lessons, it's absolutely crucial.
We had enough of people having their own idea what is the correct way to drive. You can still see all those people having absolutely no clue about right of way, correct lane discipline, behaviour on roundabouts, junctions, etc...
Even no will to bother with indicating or using lights....

There is extreme amount of ignorance among many drivers, who never got a single driving lesson.


It's time to finish that and force every new driver to learn to drive properly before they are allowed on the road on their own.
12 hours lessons is ridiculously low comparing with other countries where 30 or 40 is about average.

I did my lessons (20 hours). It was 20 years ago, and no one would allow me to drive on the road on my own before I passed my test. And I'm very glad that it was required of me.

grogi

CiniO wrote: »

I did my lessons (20 hours). It was 20 years ago, and no one would allow me to drive on the road on my own before I passed my test. And I'm very glad that it was required of me.

What's more, it wouldn't even cross your mind to drive before passing the test.

We need to learn to respect the law.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I really dont get this clamour for a more restrictive life. Its not like we were living in an anarchist hell hole even in the days when licenses were handed out without having to do the test

Because people don't take personal responsibility anymore for adhering to the laws that society has decided benefit us all. It leads to stricter and more punitive actions

The J Stands for Jay

pudzey101 wrote: »

im 50-50 on it anyway as alot of young people need to get to college, work etc , while you have the other half causing the majority of the trouble ??

No-one needs a car for college.

SteM

DaveyDave wrote: »

I hope this is enforced with an iron fist. Sick of seeing people unaccompanied while the rest of us stick to the law and pass our test properly. Some of those have babies/children in the car or do be driving down motorways.

Tired of hearing people say "Oh I need a car for work". No, you picked a job you couldn't get to by walking or public transport.

I cycled for 6 years before getting my licence. The 3 locations I've worked in all required getting 2 buses and 2 of the locations were 20km away. I've never gone for a job I couldn't get to on my bike. People are just taking the easy route and getting a car instead of having to get multiple buses or walk long distances.

People just feel entitled to drive but it's a privilege not a right.

Our young lad started in junior infants last year. Was shock at the amount of parents that let slip as the year went on that they were on old provisionals and worse the amount that weren't insured. 6 mothers in my son's year have mentioned to my wife that they're not insured. Some justify it by saying they just drive from house to school and back (but we see them out and about in other places in the car, bringing their kids to birthday parties etc) and some because they say it's too expensive and they can't afford it.

Doesn’t matter what laws are brought in imo, there are not enough Gardai to enforce them and do the checks.

Davidth88

I remember when I first started coming to Ireland in the early 1990s this was accepted totally as the norm.

I was shocked because in the UK even then your insurance would be invalid and it would be taken very seriously.

I think the situation occurred as an ' irish solution to an irish problem ' where waiting lists for tests for years long so in effect people just didn't take them , there was an earlier thing where people were just given licences I believe.

I would support clamping down on unaccompanied drivers, if you don't have a licence you should not be driving alone.

I don't understand why insurance is valid , could someone enlighten me ?

Sam Kade

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I really dont get this clamour for a more restrictive life. Its not like we were living in an anarchist hell hole even in the days when licenses were handed out without having to do the test

I was wondering how far into the thread the lottery licences would be mentioned :rolleyes:

grogi

Davidth88 wrote: »

I don't understand why insurance is valid , could someone enlighten me ?

You are not covered in such case. But the insurer will be forced by MIBI to pay the 3rd party loses anyway. Similar story is when you are insured on a policy that does not cover driving another car.

If you drive uninsured, but have any motor insurance, that insurer will be pushed to pay for the loses.

rya_bren

For some people it's not as easy as hopping on a bus and heading to where you need to go. I live in the countryside and have a 35 mile trip in each direction to college without a car I wouldn't have been able to go to college as there is no bus route near us. I drove on my provisional by myself for 6 months and every time I was stopped I told the guards exactly why I was doing it and they couldn't bring themselves to fining me for it. I was working 25 hours a week and in college 32 hours a week. I busted my a** off just to pay my way through college and without having a decent guard who had common sense I wouldn't be in the position I am in now with a degree. It's all good when you are in a city or on a public transport corridor but when you live in the countryside you are stranded and have little choice.

grogi

rya_bren wrote: »

For some people it's not as easy as hopping on a bus and heading to where you need to go. I live in the countryside and have a 35 mile trip in each direction to college without a car I wouldn't have been able to go to college as there is no bus route near us. I drove on my provisional by myself for 6 months and every time I was stopped I told the guards exactly why I was doing it and they couldn't bring themselves to fining me for it. I was working 25 hours a week and in college 32 hours a week. I busted my a** off just to pay my way through college and without having a decent guard who had common sense I wouldn't be in the position I am in now with a degree. It's all good when you are in a city or on a public transport corridor but when you live in the countryside you are stranded and have little choice.

Of course it is not easy and I wholeheartedly sympathize with you. But it does not make it right unfortunately.

Henry Ford III

rya_bren wrote:

For some people it's not as easy as hopping on a bus and heading to where you need to go. I live in the countryside and have a 35 mile trip in each direction to college without a car I wouldn't have been able to go to college as there is no bus route near us. I drove on my provisional by myself for 6 months and every time I was stopped I told the guards exactly why I was doing it and they couldn't bring themselves to fining me for it. I was working 25 hours a week and in college 32 hours a week. I busted my a** off just to pay my way through college and without having a decent guard who had common sense I wouldn't be in the position I am in now with a degree. It's all good when you are in a city or on a public transport corridor but when you live in the countryside you are stranded and have little choice.

Being busy doesn't give you any additional rights. Imagine if they'd prosecuted you - you'd be in right trouble.

SteM

rya_bren wrote: »

For some people it's not as easy as hopping on a bus and heading to where you need to go. I live in the countryside and have a 35 mile trip in each direction to college without a car I wouldn't have been able to go to college as there is no bus route near us. I drove on my provisional by myself for 6 months and every time I was stopped I told the guards exactly why I was doing it and they couldn't bring themselves to fining me for it. I was working 25 hours a week and in college 32 hours a week. I busted my a** off just to pay my way through college and without having a decent guard who had common sense I wouldn't be in the position I am in now with a degree. It's all good when you are in a city or on a public transport corridor but when you live in the countryside you are stranded and have little choice.

How often were you stopped over 6 months driving on your learners permit? You make it sound like it happened a lot, I wonder why? In 5ish years of driving in Dublin I've only been stopped at a checkpoint once iirc.

TBH, your reasoning is only a step away from the Healy-Rae comments of letting people drive with a few pints on them if they live down the country. Being in an isolated area isn't an reason to live by a different law to the rest of the country imo.

brightspark

What doesn't make sense is that when a Garda identifies a learner permit holder driving unaccompanied, he does the paperwork etc and then lets the person continue driving?

It's similar to a Garda catching someone breaking into your house, taking their details and then leaving the burglar to continue?

At the very least the car should parked up, keys left with the Gardai until someone with full license and insurance can collect it. A repeat offence would naturally need more severe action such as impounding etc.

rya_bren

SteM wrote:

How often were you stopped over 6 months driving on your learners permit? You make it sound like it happened a lot, I wonder why? In 5ish years of driving in Dublin I've only been stopped at a checkpoint once iirc.

In the space of those 6 months I probably got stopped 4 or 5 times at checkpoints. Each time I was asked what the story was and told them straight my case.

OSI wrote:

It's not like going to college came out of nowhere, it's something you planned for and you would have had more than 6 months notice that you were going to college and would need a car so would have had plenty of time to have done the required to get your full license.

Some of us don't have parents who can fund us getting a car on the road while we are in school. I wasn't working for the year of my leaving cert meaning I didn't have money to get a car or insurance or pay for lessons. In my opinion I think that it should be changed to have a system where you must complete a certain amount of lessons before you can be insured almost like the IBT training for a motorbike. This would help things a lot. Motorcyclists can drive by themselves once they pass that so why should it be different in a car? Limit the engine size you are allowed to have and it would make a huge difference to young people getting on the road.

optogirl

I would love if they brought in some kind of amnesty whereby people who have failed a couple of times but just marginally are given the option to attend a daycourse whereby they get some intensive instruction & complete their test at the end of this course. I am just so sick of waiting months in between tests & then failing on a couple of marks. I accept there has to be a cut off point but my last 2 tests the examiner said I could drive perfectly well & it was unfortunate that they had to fail me. It just seems to take so long to get there.

brightspark

rya_bren wrote: »

In my opinion I think that it should be changed to have a system where you must complete a certain amount of lessons before you can be insured almost like the IBT training for a motorbike.

There is a system..you have to complete a certain amount of lessons before you can do the test now?
If you pass you get the license, if you fail that means you aren't considered good enough to drive on your own.

frozenfrozen

optogirl wrote: »

I would love if they brought in some kind of amnesty whereby people who have failed a couple of times but just marginally are given the option to attend a daycourse whereby they get some intensive instruction & complete their test at the end of this course. I am just so sick of waiting months in between tests & then failing on a couple of marks. I accept there has to be a cut off point but my last 2 tests the examiner said I could drive perfectly well & it was unfortunate that they had to fail me. It just seems to take so long to get there.

That would be convenient for someone like you alright but it wouldn't exactly do wonders in improving the standard of driving on the roads.

If you can't make less than 6 mistakes in the test period then you must be pretty ropey at driving

rya_bren

brightspark wrote:

There is a system..you have to complete a certain amount of lessons before you can do the test now? If you pass you get the license, if you fail that means you aren't considered good enough to drive on your own.

Yes that exists as in the 12 lessons but you can drive all you want over the time you take to complete them what I am saying is that you do a course like IBT over a few days to get you to a minimum standard before you can drive on the roads.

brightspark

rya_bren wrote: »

Yes that exists as in the 12 lessons but you can drive all you want over the time you take to complete them what I am saying is that you do a course like IBT over a few days to get you to a minimum standard before you can drive on the roads.

You can only drive when accompanied, ideally for the purposes of practicing what you learnt!

rya_bren

brightspark wrote:

You can only drive when accompanied, ideally for the purposes of practicing what you learnt!

You completely missed the point in what I was saying. A motorcyclist does not require somebody with them once they pass IBT these bikes can be much more powerful than a car and the motorcyclist is at much more risk. If you can drive a motorbike after IBT which is completed over a short period of time why can't a system like this be developed for cars where you restrict engine size like with a bike and the driver can drive unaccompanied.

Fukuyama

I have a changed perspective on this issue. 25, male and this year I basically decided it was time to pass my test. I went from never sitting behind the wheel of a car in Jan to passing in May. The only other thing I'd done before that was get the learner permit last year.

Anyways - I was initially very angry with the rigamarole of the EDT and the fact that the test is much much harder than what it was 15-20 years ago. On top of that the stricter laws applying to me as L driver whereas many of my peers who did it at 17/18 (usually on their parents dime) had their own cars, nice cheap Quinn insurance of the day, no hassle from the guards etc... I wound up managing to get on my brother's insurance and use his car. It was a huge favour and even a slight strain. The stereotypical happy family where daddy teaches son how to drive for free isn't always an option and can be a hidden element of stress for many.

I did 12 EDT, 10 extra lessons, paid the extra insurance on my brother's premium while also promising that if anything went wrong I'd pony up (he has no claims) along with test itself. All in I paid around €1600. Would have been closer to five grand if I needed to buy and insure some banger myself. And without a sponsor I'd have been shelling out more to an instructor.

I was quickly humbled when I actually got out on the road. Totally different to being a passenger in a car with an experienced driver at the helm. I had also cycled everywhere for years (not a light breaking lycra one either) so I knew the rules of the road. But Jesus some people can't drive.

Just often on our lessons or out with the brother people would do mad stuff like break red lights, fly up a chevron to nip in front of the L driver (me) clearly indicating right and about to turn into the filter lane when the chevron ends. I wasn't a 'slow and steady' L driver either. Other things like impatience leading to people just driving out onto roundabouts, often on the wrong bloody lane (Walkinstown roundabout) without giving way.

And the kicker: on my test I actually 'caught up' with another guy doing his test (Tallaght). He did all sorts including stopping on LUAS tracks on the belgard road and then reversing back off them towards me before going back over them and on his way. My tester even mentioned it to me back at the test center as a WTF moment. He also didn't yield to an ambulance with flashing blues and siren at the roundabout at Tallaght hospital. This guy actually booked and sat his test. So that goes to show the standard of L driver which could very well still be out there driving around by himself.

I've realised that all the moving off and cornering manoeuvres, the observation/mirrors checks that are now muscle memory are vitally important to even popping round the shops. Yet every day you'll see idiots (L, N and full licence) who can't do it. And I actually believe that the CANT, not that the simply WONT. Because driving a car is so much more pleasurable when you know what's going on around you 360.

As a cyclist I've had people zoom past me (a high visibility wearing, red light on rear, white on front unmissable Christmas tree) then suddenly turn left with no indication and a harsh slow down only to jam on once they see me at the last second. I've usually had to come to a stop as well to avoid death. And then they give me the usual guffawed, angry look with a temperament of someone who has failed in life and gets angry at his kids easily. These retards need to be retested in my opinion.

And I know for a fact that motorcyclists encounter the same kind of behaviour. People simply have no idea how to drive when in the presence of a motorcycle.

If I had my way all licenced drivers would be under at least some level of scrutiny. 6 points should mean a re-test. And road rage (laying on the horn causing a distraction, aggressive acceleration/overtaking etc...) punished more severely. It perpetuates a horrible driving culture.

So anyways. I agree with EDT and a stricter approach to unaccompanied drivers. I went through the tedious days of having to ask my brother to give up yet another one of his evenings after work etc to watch me drive around some industrial estate or another.

However. I honestly think it should be opened up slightly. For example. If you pass your EDT I think you should be allowed to drive unaccompanied during daylight for the purposes of practicing. Not commuting. And only within X km of the address on your licence. And nobody else in your car who isn't a fully licenced driver. Something like that so young people (and old) can still practice once somewhat 'qualified'. I think many people don't realise that the biggest barrier to L drivers can be having less than ideal support. Not every L driver is a 17 year old with mammy, daddy and the whole extended family willing to take turns riding shotgun for their evening.

That said I abhor the casual attitude described by others here. Such as the mothers who insist they're only dropping the kids to school etc... Plenty of my friends are life long provisional drivers. And even now if they go for the full test they won't have to do EDT.

brightspark

rya_bren wrote: »

You completely missed the point in what I was saying. A motorcyclist does not require somebody with them once they pass IBT these bikes can be much more powerful than a car and the motorcyclist is at much more risk. If you can drive a motorbike after IBT which is completed over a short period of time why can't a system like this be developed for cars where you restrict engine size like with a bike and the driver can drive unaccompanied.

I would think that bikes are treated differently because it is impractical to have an experienced rider, and if on the pillion would not have a clear view of the hazards ahead!

No excuse for a car.

optogirl

frozenfrozen wrote: »

That would be convenient for someone like you alright but it wouldn't exactly do wonders in improving the standard of driving on the roads.

If you can't make less than 6 mistakes in the test period then you must be pretty ropey at driving

Not quite true - nerves are a major factor in the test period.

I think it would have no impact on the standard of driving on the roads - we are all driving on licences that depended on one hour on one day of our lives. Plenty of fully licenced drivers out there unable to use indicators, driving up the arse of learner drivers, beeping horns, skidding in and out of lanes, speeding, using their phones while driving etc.

my3cents

optogirl wrote: »

Not quite true - nerves are a major factor in the test period.

I think it would have no impact on the standard of driving on the roads - we are all driving on licences that depended on one hour on one day of our lives. Plenty of fully licenced drivers out there unable to use indicators, driving up the arse of learner drivers, beeping horns, skidding in and out of lanes, speeding, using their phones while driving etc.

Nerves can be a major factor for other reasons so its good that they feature in the test.

Fukuyama

optogirl wrote: »

I would love if they brought in some kind of amnesty whereby people who have failed a couple of times but just marginally are given the option to attend a daycourse whereby they get some intensive instruction & complete their test at the end of this course. I am just so sick of waiting months in between tests & then failing on a couple of marks. I accept there has to be a cut off point but my last 2 tests the examiner said I could drive perfectly well & it was unfortunate that they had to fail me. It just seems to take so long to get there.

Just FYI you can book a test and opt to be put on a 10 day waiting list. You'll get a call at short notice with a test the next day.

frozenfrozen

optogirl wrote: »

Not quite true - nerves are a major factor in the test period.

I think it would have no impact on the standard of driving on the roads - we are all driving on licences that depended on one hour on one day of our lives. Plenty of fully licenced drivers out there unable to use indicators, driving up the arse of learner drivers, beeping horns, skidding in and out of lanes, speeding, using their phones while driving etc.

there are bad drivers out there so we should lower the bar to become a licensed driver? :P

optogirl

frozenfrozen wrote: »

there are bad drivers out there so we should lower the bar to become a licensed driver? :P

Not at all what I said. My point is you can either pass a test or you can't on a give hour on a given day. A day course with test at the end is no better or worse than the current system.

frozenfrozen

optogirl wrote: »

Not at all what I said. My point is you can either pass a test or you can't on a give hour on a given day. A day course with test at the end is no better or worse than the current system.

Except someone totally incompetent could go into a day course and come out with a license whereas in the test scenario they would not pass...

Alun

optogirl wrote: »

Plenty of fully licenced drivers out there unable to use indicators, driving up the arse of learner drivers, beeping horns, skidding in and out of lanes, speeding, using their phones while driving etc.

Given the numbers of drivers out there who apparently haven't passed a test and also don't bother with L plates, how do you know they're fully licenced drivers?

optogirl

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Except someone totally incompetent could go into a day course and come out with a license whereas in the test scenario they would not pass...

there is a test at the end of the (fictional) day course. A full driving test.

optogirl

Alun wrote: »

Given the numbers of drivers out there who apparently haven't passed a test and also don't bother with L plates, how do you know they're fully licenced drivers?

same can be said for people seeing Learner drivers on the road - just cos a car is has L plates, doesn't meant the person driving is a learner....we don't put up & take down the L plates, we leave them on even when fully licensed person is driving.

Isambard

and if one were to fail that test?

Driving isn't part time, you need to be able to drive to a standard at all times.

Isambard

optogirl wrote: »

same can be said for people seeing Learner drivers on the road - just cos a car is has L plates, doesn't meant the person driving is a learner....we don't put up & take down the L plates, we leave them on even when fully licensed person is driving.

which is wrong. It only makes sense for them to be displayed when the L driver is driving. The number of cars you see with N and L plates is unreal, totally pointless.

brightspark

optogirl wrote: »

there is a test at the end of the (fictional) day course. A full driving test.

Given that it is currently established that 12 lessons are the minimum required I doubt the course should only take a day.

Courses for construction site vehicles are typically about a week long (unless previously experienced)

But even a week probably wouldn't be sufficient. A lot of driving is about muscle memory, clutch control, selecting gears, operating indicators etc., should all happen almost subconsciously, making the movements required without looking to see the controls.

I would expect it is impossible to acquire that muscle memory in a short period of time.

ginger_hammer

It grinds my gears seeing a solo driver with L plates. To me this person is risking everyone else on the road as they haven't been tested at all. You could have had zero experience and hop on the roads - should definitely be clamped down on. Everyone else has had to go through the training and tests and so should you.

optogirl

brightspark wrote: »

Given that it is currently established that 12 lessons are the minimum required I doubt the course should only take a day.

Courses for construction site vehicles are typically about a week long (unless previously experienced)

But even a week probably wouldn't be sufficient. A lot of driving is about muscle memory, clutch control, selecting gears, operating indicators etc., should all happen almost subconsciously, making the movements required without looking to see the controls.

I would expect it is impossible to acquire that muscle memory in a short period of time.

ah lads, my original post was that this course would be offered to people who have sat a couple of tests and marginally failed. This means they would have already done their mandatory lessons. Never mind, it was a fantasy that I am now defending :P

Henry Ford III

I did an 8 mile motorway journey this morning. Passed 5 cars displaying L plates. Drivers were all solo too.