Car owners & learner drivers

Liam McPoyle

Proposal being brought to cabinet today where car owners that permit learner drivers to use their vehicles unaccompanied can face sanctions including the vehicle being seized, fines of up to €2000 or a 6 month custodial sentence.

Super idea and not before time.

The amount of mammys and daddy's that are happy to take out a policy to allow Billy or Janey to get cheaper insurance is mental.

Hopefully it's not just another pie in the sky idea that ends before it begins.

Are Am Eye

Lock them up I say. For calling their daughter Janey.

JMNolan

How many people do unaccompanied learner drivers kill? Is this a really productive piece of legislation or is it something to make Shane Ross look productive?

Burial.

Fine move. Hopefully the next thing they bring in is full license renewal tests. Do a refresher test every ten years when your current one expires. The state of the driving by so many middle aged people is ridiculous.

RiderOnTheStorm

Weren't unaccompanied learner drivers always illegal regardless of whose car they are in? Why bring in a law to make something illegal when there is already a law there to prevent it... Not first time this has happened tbf.

JMNolan

Wish they'd do it for speeding - "vehicle being seized, fines of up to €2000 or a 6 month custodial sentence" for any amount of speeding (penalty gets higher for faster sped). How many lives would that save?

c_man

So why's the current law not good enough? There are severe penalties for being caught unaccompanied, maybe try and enforce that one first before adding feel-good laws?

daheff

its going to be another pointless and unenforced law. Will only see it where unaccompanied drivers cause an accident i reckon.


really cant see how it helps the situation. Unaccompanied drivers are already breaking the law (no insurance if not accompanied, unaccompanied..etc). Effectively what this is now trying to push in is that the driver is now also stealing the vehicle (driving somebodys car without permission).

dudara

I have to agree with others here. We already have laws to cover unaccompanied driving. They need to be enforced first and taken seriously

Mitch Connor

RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »

Weren't unaccompanied learner drivers always illegal regardless of whose car they are in? Why bring in a law to make something illegal when there is already a law there to prevent it... Not first time this has happened tbf.

Indeed - I'm not sure why the owner of the car should be punished for the transgressions of a third party.

How does it work with Tax? I know if I am driving another persons car and it is not taxed, I am liable for any penalty - in those situations is the person who owns the car also punished for the car not being taxed (or is it just the driver).

IMO, if they don't want leaners driving unaccompanied they need to enforce the current law better themselves, not put the onus on the car owner to police it for them. It creates an unfair burden on some - as not all learners will be driving a car owned by someone else (I owned the first car I drove, as did my brother when he was learning).

Are Am Eye

c_man wrote: »

So why's the current law not good enough? There are severe penalties for being caught unaccompanied, maybe try and enforce that one first before adding feel-good laws?

I think the idea is to threaten Mammy and Daddy with jail so they won't let janey next or near the car or insurance policy in the first place. Thats whats new.

kylith

I only learned to drive in the last couple of years, I'm in my 30s. I don't live with my parents. None of my friends can drive (living in Dublin, close to city centre). If I hadn't driven unaccompanied I couldn't have gotten any practise at all in without it costing me a fortune in lesson fees, especially because of this nonsense that you can't do your test until 6 months after completing your mandatory lessons. Now, I only ever drove to the park or the local shop, but there are genuine reasons why someone, especially an adult living away from home, would drive unaccompanied.

Savman

Gannon's are the only real beneficiary here.

omb0wyn5ehpij9

daheff wrote: »

its going to be another pointless and unenforced law. Will only see it where unaccompanied drivers cause an accident i reckon.


really cant see how it helps the situation. Unaccompanied drivers are already breaking the law (no insurance if not accompanied, unaccompanied..etc). Effectively what this is now trying to push in is that the driver is now also stealing the vehicle (driving somebodys car without permission).

I can see exactly where it will help the situation! At the moment, an unaccompanied learner driver shouldn't be driving. However, they are the only person who will get fined over it. It never comes back on the owner of the car.
If this proposal goes through and the owner of the car can also have the car seized, be fined or jailed, there is a very big incentive to not let the unaccompanied driver have your car now that both of you will get fined!

Del2005

RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »

Weren't unaccompanied learner drivers always illegal regardless of whose car they are in? Why bring in a law to make something illegal when there is already a law there to prevent it... Not first time this has happened tbf.

Yes they are driving without insurance so the car can already be lifted. Their permit requires a fully licenced driver to accompany them for it to be valid, without the accompanying driver they are outside the terms of the permit so not valid and therefore not insured. The innocent 3rd party will still be covered but they are covered by the MIBI if the person has no licence/permit/insurance and do people object to these people having their car lifted?

So this is just another law that will be ignored.

Graham

JMNolan wrote: »

How many people do unaccompanied learner drivers kill? Is this a really productive piece of legislation or is it something to make Shane Ross look productive?

What do you consider to be an acceptable number of deaths to allow unqualified drivers out on their own?

JMNolan

Graham wrote: »

What do you consider to be an acceptable number of deaths to allow unqualified drivers out on their own?

I've a very simple answer to this. If speeding kills more than unqualified drivers then we should address speeding first.

Wibbs

Far better for them to make enquiries into why insurance costs are crazy high in this country(though we know already) and proposals to lower them. Unlikely to happen though as too many snouts in the trough and with a lot of influence on government, chief among them the legal fraternity.

This is just another and all too usual politician "let's be seen to be doing something" nonsense where legislation already exists.

lawred2

BDJW wrote: »

I can see exactly where it will help the situation! At the moment, an unaccompanied learner driver shouldn't be driving. However, they are the only person who will get fined over it. It never comes back on the owner of the car.
If this proposal goes through and the owner of the car can also have the car seized, be fined or jailed, there is a very big incentive to not let the unaccompanied driver have your car now that both of you will get fined!

In most cases that's exactly what would happen... most learner drivers are young drivers driving their parent's car. It is in many cases the parents who will end up paying the fine anyway.

CeilingFly

JMNolan wrote: »

How many people do unaccompanied learner drivers kill? Is this a really productive piece of legislation or is it something to make Shane Ross look productive?

They don't "kill" many but they have an awful lot of accidents relative to their numbers that injure people.

In many cases those people require hospitalisation, need time off work and can have long term issues.

Even with minor accidents by learners, those accidents can cause massive traffic delays and take substantial amount of time of emergency services.

There is simply no excuse whatsoever these days for unaccompnaied L drivers.

Plenty of intructors, plenty of easily followed rules and regulations and no long delays in obtaining a driving test. (average is 13 weeks)

What is disconcerting is that over 40% of tests are failed - that shows that far too many L drivers, even when they are ready for their test are poor drivers.

Burial.

kylith wrote: »

I only learned to drive in the last couple of years, I'm in my 30s. I don't live with my parents. None of my friends can drive (living in Dublin, close to city centre). If I hadn't driven unaccompanied I couldn't have gotten any practise at all in without it costing me a fortune in lesson fees, especially because of this nonsense that you can't do your test until 6 months after completing your mandatory lessons. Now, I only ever drove to the park or the local shop, but there are genuine reasons why someone, especially an adult living away from home, would drive unaccompanied.

You've to wait six months after your first learner permit is issued, not after the lessons. Once your lessons are done and signed off on and you're after the initial six months on the date of your permit you're free to do the test whenever. With cancellation lists, you could have done your 12th lesson and be getting a call for your test in the space of a few weeks.

Graham

JMNolan wrote: »

I've a very simple answer to this. If speeding kills more than unqualified drivers then we should address speeding first.

I note you avoided answering the question and deflected completely to a separate issue that I agree should also be addressed.

Probably the right thing to do to be honest.

It would be pretty difficult to justify any deaths caused by unaccompanied unqualified drivers. That's before we even look at accidents that don't kill anyone.

JMNolan

CeilingFly wrote: »

They don't "kill" many but they have an awful lot of accidents relative t their numbers that injure peopl.

In many cases those people require hospitalistion, need time off work and can have long term issues.

Even with minor accidents by learners, those accidents can cause massive traffic delays and take substantial amount of time of emergency services.

There is simply no excuse whatsoever these days for unaccompnaied L drivers.

Plenty of intructors, plenty of easily followed rules and regulations and no long delays in obtaining a driving test. (average is 13 weeks)

What is disconcerting is that over 40% of tests are failed - that shows that far too many L drivers, even when they are ready for their test are poor drivers.

But we don't allow unaccompanied drivers to begin with. This new "law" doesnt change that and I never advocated that we allow unaccompanied drivers (please show me where I have). My point is simple - does speeding have larger cost (money, lives, whatever your metric is) than unaccompanied drivers? Speeding is a fixed charge fine of €80, together with 3 penalty points by the way.

JMNolan

Graham wrote: »

I note you avoided answering the question and deflected completely to a separate issue that I agree should also be addressed.

Probably the right thing to do to be honest.

It would be pretty difficult to justify any deaths caused by unaccompanied unqualified drivers.

I believe you are confused, show me where I stated that unaccompanied drivers should be allowed.

WoollyRedHat

How about making people who have never previously had to get driving lessons now do so, or else suspend their license. Likewise for those who never took the driivng test.

And with guidance from the medical professional; ophthalmologists make it mandatory to retake the driving test every 5 years once past a certain age that points to eye sight decreasing.

SEPT 23 1989

always the easy target

Burial.

Wibbs wrote: »

Far better for them to make enquiries into why insurance costs are crazy high in this country(though we know already) and proposals to lower them. Unlikely to happen though as too many snouts in the trough and with a lot of influence on government, chief among them the legal fraternity.

This is just another and all too usual politician "let's be seen to be doing something" nonsense where legislation already exists.

Surely a renewal test would sort some of this? The more that is done that ensures current drivers are still technically sound and haven't let bad habits encroach the safer the roads will be, the less likely that accidents happen and with that a fall in premium fees. I'd happily pay the €80 driving test fee again every ten years, sod it, every five years if it meant insurance fees would drop as well as knowing the roads are safer.

Graham

JMNolan wrote: »

I believe you are confused, show me where I stated that unaccompanied drivers should be allowed.

You asked how many people are killed by unaccompanied drivers and implied the legislation is unnecessary.

So what's your number?

What's an acceptable number of deaths before you find the changes 'productive'?

It's sobering to note that these changes are being referred to as the Clancy amendment in recognition of a campaign by Cork man Noel Clancy.

His wife, Geraldine Clancy and their daughter, Louise Ann, were drowned three days before Christmas 2015 after a collision with a learner driver in Co Cork.

jonon9

Business Cat wrote: »

Proposal being brought to cabinet today where car owners that permit learner drivers to use their vehicles unaccompanied can face sanctions including the vehicle being seized, fines of up to €2000 or a 6 month custodial sentence.

Super idea and not before time.

The amount of mammys and daddy's that are happy to take out a policy to allow Billy or Janey to get cheaper insurance is mental.

Hopefully it's not just another pie in the sky idea that ends before it begins.

This part is a different matter altogether, the reason mammy and daddy do this is to help their kids to get cheaper insurance, insurance for younger drivers is daylight robbery,

Here's a novel idea any driver having a licence 10 years needs to redo their test and have it done every ten years after that p, the amount of drivers failing will be shocking.

Wibbs

JMNolan wrote: »

My point is simple - does speeding have larger cost (money, lives, whatever your metric is) than unaccompanied drivers? Speeding is a fixed charge fine of €80, together with 3 penalty points by the way.

Stop speeding can be a bit simplistic, though people do like simplistic. Does an increase in speed carry more risk? Of course, but it depends on where the speeding is occurring. It's higher on higher complexity roads. EG on motorways which are low complexity the risk is far lower than on high complexity roads like a suburban arterial road with more traffic, pedestrians etc. Generally speaking speed traps are on the lower complexity roads. Funny enough drivers going too slow have about the same risk as those going too fast.

WoollyRedHat

Burial. wrote: »

Surely a renewal test would sort some of this? The more that is done that ensures current drivers are still technically sound and haven't let bad habits encroach the safer the roads will be, the less likely that accidents happen and with that a fall in premium fees. I'd happily pay the €80 driving test fee again every ten years, sod it, every five years if it meant insurance fees would drop as well as knowing the roads are safer.

This is a good idea, a renewal test every 5 years would be welcome. Some of the money raised from this could then be reinvested in roads and infrastructure.

JMNolan

Graham wrote: »

You asked how many people are killed by unaccompanied drivers and implied the legislation is unnecessary.

So what's your number?

What's an acceptable number of deaths before you find the changes 'productive'?

It's sobering to note that these changes are being referred to as the Clancy amendment in recognition of a campaign by Cork man Noel Clancy.

His wife, Geraldine Clancy and their daughter, Louise Ann, were drowned three days before Christmas 2015 after a collision with a learner driver in Co Cork.

I do think its unnecessary. Enforce the existing law. Tackle speeding first. Will I name people killed by speeding same as you did with learner drivers to make my point?

Burial.

Burial. wrote: »

Fine move. Hopefully the next thing they bring in is full license renewal tests. Do a refresher test every ten years when your current one expires. The state of the driving by so many middle aged people is ridiculous.

I agree with this. I think every five years a short refresher course should be done.
Driving is shocking by most, myself included for picking up and keeping bad habits.

Are Am Eye

I'd like to see snipers posted along the M50 to take out drivers meandering along in the right lane and blocking cars that need to progress.

Helicopters carrying giant magnets to pick up same and relocate to Irish Sea.

Liam McPoyle

jonon9 wrote: »

This part is a different matter altogether, the reason mammy and daddy do this is to help their kids to get cheaper insurance, insurance for younger drivers is daylight robbery,

Here's a novel idea any driver having a licence 10 years needs to redo their test and have it done every ten years after that p, the amount of drivers failing will be shocking.

Insurance for young drivers is expensive and always has been expensive.

Why is that do you think?

I know alot of people that paid 3000 or 4000 punts during the 90s for first time insurance.

Why should drivers nowadays get it cheaper?

In the other thread about road safety ads it states that of the people killed on Irish roads last year a disproportionate number of them were aged between 16 and 25.

I'd love to see stats for how many of them held learner permits though I don't think that's ever been documented.

Wibbs

Burial. wrote: »

Surely a renewal test would sort some of this? The more that is done that ensures current drivers are still technically sound and haven't let bad habits encroach the safer the roads will be, the less likely that accidents happen and with that a fall in premium fees.

It might have some effect, but IMHO it would be a band aid on a bullet wound. For a start there's a reason older drivers, IE those your proposal would be aimed at, are statistically safer than younger drivers who've recently passed their test with newly minted driving licences and insurance premiums reflect this.

One of the biggest reasons for our stratospheric insurance costs is the "compo culture" and the daft payouts. A second reason is the lack of transparency with insurance companies themselves. Never mind how many insurance companies ran their businesses in stupid ways(bad investments, underselling for years, not having enough reserves etc) a couple to the point of bankruptcy.

rob316

Those pesky learner drivers are accounting to huge levels of crime, never mind the public hard drug use, drug dealing, violent assaults.

valoren

What was the whole point of the 12 lessons anyway? The driver theory test? The 12 lessons was introduced as mandatory lessons for learner drivers and is sufficient to give learners the rules of the road.

If you are an RSA approved instructor then with that should come the responsibility to sign off so to speak on your students. If you have completed 12 lessons with such an instructor then you are no longer a 'learner' driver so to speak. You should automatically become a novice.

The instructor has the ultimate authority to sign off on your capability to drive a care using the rules of the road, competently, safely and with common sense. If they don't sign you off then it's more lessons for you until you become competent.

Once you complete the 12, then the driving test ought to be a formality, but having done them (plural!), they themselves are ridiculously and unnecessarily stringent. One mistake and you're INCOMPETENT and then you have to wait another 3 or 4 months if you're lucky to go through that nonsense again.

Accidents and road deaths will continue to happen. Be they caused by learner drivers or experienced drivers.
If you are currently still in the process of doing the lessons then the new legislation makes sense. It would take 3 months to complete lessons at one per week and it makes sense to prevent learners from driving alone during that period but when you complete then you get a cert of competency from the RSA themselves that should no longer apply. It's frustrating enough to start driving here without this vilification of 'learner' drivers.

valoren

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

This is a good idea, a renewal test every 5 years would be welcome. Some of the money raised from this could then be reinvested in roads and infrastructure.

I think if you were disqualified for going over the 12 points limit then you would need to sit the test again, although you'd still get your license back once you served the 6 month ban. The test centre's are packed to capacity with learners and resits as is never mind introducing mandatory resits.

daheff

BDJW wrote: »

I can see exactly where it will help the situation! At the moment, an unaccompanied learner driver shouldn't be driving. However, they are the only person who will get fined over it. It never comes back on the owner of the car.
If this proposal goes through and the owner of the car can also have the car seized, be fined or jailed, there is a very big incentive to not let the unaccompanied driver have your car now that both of you will get fined!

If the proposal goes through, the owner of the car will only have action taken if they say they let the unaccompanied driver take the vehicle. If they say they didnt, then nothing will happen to them.....but it would be one other charge to level at the unaccompanied driver if the gardai wanted to.


So potentially not helping the situation at all. Mammy/Daddy have a deal(precondition of taking the car) with unaccompanied driver that if they take the car and are pulled its all on the driver...not the vehicle owner.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JMNolan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

According to the RSA http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/News-2016/Excessive-Speed-a-Factor-in-322-Road-Deaths-Between-2008-and-2012/

983 fatal collisions occurred on Irish roads between 2008 and 2012, claiming the lives of 1,077 people. The forensic details of 867 fatal collisions were analysed to identify the cause of the collision – of these, excessive speed for the road and conditions was a main contributory factor in 1 in 3 (274)

My point stands, tackle speeding first. Enforce already existing unaccompanied driver laws.

And I feel it's worth mentioning, from Conor Faughnan

"I would have a concern that that might be a difficult law to get through in a robust manner that was constitutional because you are punishing me for another adult's deeds and I just think it might be a tough one to defend against inevitable legal challenge," he said.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DarTipp

what about say someone who has a provisional licence for 2-3 years are they have to be accompanied by a fully licenced driver at all times

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Del2005

valoren wrote: »

What was the whole point of the 12 lessons anyway? The driver theory test? The 12 lessons was introduced as mandatory lessons for learner drivers and is sufficient to give learners the rules of the road.

If you are an RSA approved instructor then with that should come the responsibility to sign off so to speak on your students. If you have completed 12 lessons with such an instructor then you are no longer a 'learner' driver so to speak. You should automatically become a novice.

The instructor has the ultimate authority to sign off on your capability to drive a care using the rules of the road, competently, safely and with common sense. If they don't sign you off then it's more lessons for you until you become competent.

Once you complete the 12, then the driving test ought to be a formality, but having done them (plural!), they themselves are ridiculously and unnecessarily stringent. One mistake and you're INCOMPETENT and then you have to wait another 3 or 4 months if you're lucky to go through that nonsense again.

Accidents and road deaths will continue to happen. Be they caused by learner drivers or experienced drivers.
If you are currently still in the process of doing the lessons then the new legislation makes sense. It would take 3 months to complete lessons at one per week and it makes sense to prevent learners from driving alone during that period but when you complete then you get a cert of competency from the RSA themselves that should no longer apply. It's frustrating enough to start driving here without this vilification of 'learner' drivers.

Research our DOE to see how well having the same people who do the work certifying the results worked out. The MOT in the UK has similar problems and while the NCT has a few issues its the model that our Northern neighbours decided on.

The least that should be done for full licence renewal is a medical and theory test. The amount of drivers who got their eyes tested at 17 to 20 and never again and the lack of knowledge of the legislation about driving is a scandal. Then require anyone who fails the theory to resit the test and a random selection of the passes.

Dravokivich

Business Cat wrote: »

Insurance for young drivers is expensive and always has been expensive.

Why is that do you think?

I know alot of people that paid 3000 or 4000 punts during the 90s for first time insurance.

Why should drivers nowadays get it cheaper?

In the other thread about road safety ads it states that of the people killed on Irish roads last year a disproportionate number of them were aged between 16 and 25.

I'd love to see stats for how many of them held learner permits though I don't think that's ever been documented.

How many were drivers? How many were drivers at fault that led to the accident? Saying they were there tells us nothing about it at all.

monkeybutter

Business Cat wrote: »

Insurance for young drivers is expensive and always has been expensive.

Why is that do you think?

I know alot of people that paid 3000 or 4000 punts during the 90s for first time insurance.

Why should drivers nowadays get it cheaper?

In the other thread about road safety ads it states that of the people killed on Irish roads last year a disproportionate number of them were aged between 16 and 25.

I'd love to see stats for how many of them held learner permits though I don't think that's ever been documented.

No one will ever get a custodial sentence for this, car seized also unlikely seeing as they can't even be bothered doing this for motor tax, so with a fine of up to 2 grand, its still worth the risk

pointless

You must have rich friends if they were dropping roughly 6000 euros or more on Insurance (well daddy was), they were few and far between

SteM

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

How about making people who have never previously had to get driving lessons now do so, or else suspend their license. Likewise for those who never took the driivng test.

And with guidance from the medical professional; ophthalmologists make it mandatory to retake the driving test every 5 years once past a certain age that points to eye sight decreasing.

How would you suggest this would be enforced? I did my lessons a few years ago and the bloke I did them with has moved to Australia. Would I have to track him down to get reciepts. My mother's driving instructor has passed away by now. How could she prove she had lessons?

Graham

JMNolan wrote: »

I do think its unnecessary. Enforce the existing law. Tackle speeding first. Will I name people killed by speeding same as you did with learner drivers to make my point?

I just don't get your point.

Nobody is suggesting don't enforce other laws.

There are drivers on the roads that have not proved themselves safe to be there. This is an attempt to address that.

Pointing at others and saying 'what about them' isn't a remotely compelling argument against enforcement.

Captain Obvious

Del2005 wrote: »

Yes they are driving without insurance so the car can already be lifted. Their permit requires a fully licenced driver to accompany them for it to be valid, without the accompanying driver they are outside the terms of the permit so not valid and therefore not insured.

This is incorrect. Once an insurance company has agreed to cover you then you are covered for third party liability as required by law. It doesn't matter if you breach a term you are still insured and there is no grounds to seize the car.

Del2005 wrote: »

The innocent 3rd party will still be covered but they are covered by the MIBI if the person has no licence/permit/insurance and do people object to these people having their car lifted?

Claiming from an insurance company and from the MIBI are very different experiences, the latter taking much more time and being much more stressful.

Del2005 wrote: »

So this is just another law that will be ignored.

It's a law that brings unaccompanied learner drivers in line with uninsured drivers. Cars can now be seized in both cases and owners can be held responsible for allowing their car to be driven.