From today (22 Dec), unaccompanied learner drivers can have their cars taken off them

Wibbs

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

IF this statement were true, older people who are experienced drivers would all be great drivers. This isn't the case.

Whatever about "great" all things being equal older drivers with more years driving are the safest. A 25 year old driver is far more likely to be involved in an accident than a 65 year old driver. Insurance premiums and stats reflect this.

corks finest

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

martyc5674 wrote: »

And I think this behaviour is down to poor education, the roads are shared amongst users but a lot of drivers feel they have a greater right to be there than anyone else.

You're right about the self-entitled view of many motorists, but I don't think the root cause is poor education. It is down to poor or negligible enforcement.

Every driver on the road knows that you have to stop at a red light. But with no significant fear of enforcement, there are one or two or three drivers who push through on the red at every change of lights.

It's the same reason that the majority of motorists break speed limits.

Correct gardai are more interested in raising tax than enforcement

endacl

True about the ‘snapshot’.

I left an NCT centre with a clean bill of health a couple of years ago, and headed off to work. Not 10 km later, on the slip road from Palmerston to ballyfermot, the brake hose split. Down thorough the gears and handbrake brought me to a stop about 2 feet from the end of the queue of traffic at the lights. In the words of Mr. J. Clarkson of Chipping Norton, “some poo came out”.

jmreire

endacl wrote: »

True about the ‘snapshot’.

I left an NCT centre with a clean bill of health a couple of years ago, and headed off to work. Not 10 km later, on the slip road from Palmerston to ballyfermot, the brake hose split. Down thorough the gears and handbrake brought me to a stop about 2 feet from the end of the queue of traffic at the lights. In the words of Mr. J. Clarkson of Chipping Norton, “some poo came out”.

Well in this case, in the NCT flexible hoses are visually inspected, and any slght defect ( age, cracking, frayed, damp etc) will be enough to fail the NCT. Just goes to show though that there is always the one that slips trough...maybe the tester was behind in his quota, and in a hurry, and when the brake test showed OK, it was let through, or maybe it was OK on visual inspection, then you needed to brake a bit heavier than usual, and that's what caused it to split. Its a bit unusual though in modern cars ( or even not so modern ) that you completely lose all your braking capacity, because dual-line braking system's have been around at least 30 or more years. So in the worst case scenario, you should still have 50% of your braking power. But even so, I can well understand the poo generating capacity that losing 50% of your brakes can cause...:D

AndrewJRenko

corks finest wrote: »

Correct gardai are more interested in raising tax than enforcement

If they wanted to raise money, the fines would be double or treble current levels. The speed van contract costs significantly more than the income from fines.

But there is a great trick to avoid the 'tax' :

https://southendnewsnetwork.net/news/driver-reveals-one-simple-trick-to-avoid-speeding-fines-and-penalty-points/

Wibbs

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If they wanted to raise money, the fines would be double or treble current levels. The speed van contract costs significantly more than the income from fines.

But there is a great trick to avoid the 'tax' :

https://southendnewsnetwork.net/news/driver-reveals-one-simple-trick-to-avoid-speeding-fines-and-penalty-points/

Christ, you Sir come across as about the most consistently humourless, holier than thou, jobsworth, po faced busybodies on this forum. That link you posted? I read the last line ‘If more and more motorists apply this one simple trick to their driving habits, it will also remove the need for middle-aged men holding radar guns in villages under the impression that they are some kind of Speed Rambo.’ and thought of you. Speed dial any clampers today?

mikeecho

I'm sure that this well thought out piece of legislation will have a loop hole, just like the Drug testing, and the using a mobile phone (using not holding, the holding piece is fairly solid)

Tazzimus

Wibbs wrote: »

Whatever about "great" all things being equal older drivers with more years driving are the safest. A 25 year old driver is far more likely to be involved in an accident than a 65 year old driver. Insurance premiums and stats reflect this.

No, no they are not.
Older drivers can be just as bad, more years driving, picking up bad habits.
About 70% easily of ropey driving I see is older people in big German motors thinking they own roads

Charles Babbage

kerrylad1 wrote: »

What happens if a youngster grabs the keys and goes off for a spin,like I did back in the mid 80,s.My parents didn't say it was OK.What's the outcome there?

If they say you stole the car they are off the hook and you can be done for theft as well as the motoring offences.

Henry Ford III wrote:

The waiting time for the test is very evidently excessive but it is what it is. Until a learner driver has proven their ability they shouldn't drive alone. The shortcomings of other drivers aren't relevant to this in any way. Driving is a a privilege to be earned, and not a right.

Driving tests pay for themselves, so there should not be long waiting lists, although what do you expect in a country where seriously ill people are put on waiting lists?



Likewise waiting 6 months etc is no particular help. Driving tests should have a large deposit. If you pass or fail in a reasonable way your deposit should be returned. If you are unprepared then you should lose your deposit. This would allow a 6 month requirement be dispensed with without chancers putting themselves forward.

Wibbs

Tazzimus wrote: »

No, no they are not.
Older drivers can be just as bad, more years driving, picking up bad habits.
About 70% easily of ropey driving I see is older people in big German motors thinking they own roads

Sure, some are bad, just like some younger drivers are good, but overall as far as actual risk the cold hard facts of statistics gathered over decades would disagree with you.

martyc5674

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Likewise waiting 6 months etc is no particular help. Driving tests should have a large deposit. If you pass or fail in a reasonable way your deposit should be returned. If you are unprepared then you should lose your deposit. This would allow a 6 month requirement be dispensed with without chancers putting themselves forward.

It would also put the test out of reach of people who can’t get the deposit together... not exactly a fair system.

corks finest

martyc5674 wrote: »

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Likewise waiting 6 months etc is no particular help. Driving tests should have a large deposit. If you pass or fail in a reasonable way your deposit should be returned. If you are unprepared then you should lose your deposit. This would allow a 6 month requirement be dispensed with without chancers putting themselves forward.

It would also put the test out of reach of people who can’t get the deposit together... not exactly a fair system.

Not really,I had 5 kids,****e pay,managed it, didn't go out much TBH,but sacrifices have to be made

iamwhoiam

Kids in Germany start saving for their lessons and test from about 15 . The often have a " licence " account and grandparents etc pay into it for birthdays etc . They then pay for lessons until they pass the test . Its not rocket science just common sense and forethought

Charles Babbage

Charles Babbage wrote: »

If they say you stole the car they are off the hook and you can be done for theft as well as the motoring offences.

But the rule assumes like you go and ask permission every time, that’s not how it work. You say good buy see you later and go or the parents might not even be there and you take the car. It’s not stealing as they haven’t said you can’t but they haven’t given you explicit permission either.

It also glosses over the fact a lot of learners own their own car.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Kids in Germany start saving for their lessons and test from about 15 . The often have a " licence " account and grandparents etc pay into it for birthdays etc . They then pay for lessons until they pass the test . Its not rocket science just common sense and forethought

Why should such a simple and absolute necessity like getting your license require such financial hard ship that requires saving. It’s should be as quick and cheap as possible.

Driving is an absolute necessity for many people not this “previlage” nonsense you see people going on about.

corks finest

Jackson Young Sandpaper wrote: »

Charles Babbage wrote: »

If they say you stole the car they are off the hook and you can be done for theft as well as the motoring offences.

But the rule assumes like you go and ask permission every time, that’s not how it work. You say good buy see you later and go or the parents might not even be there and you take the car. It’s not stealing as they haven’t said you can’t but they haven’t given you explicit permission either.

It also glosses over the fact a lot of learners own their own car.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Kids in Germany start saving for their lessons and test from about 15 . The often have a " licence " account and grandparents etc pay into it for birthdays etc . They then pay for lessons until they pass the test . Its not rocket science just common sense and forethought

Why should such a simple and absolute necessity like getting your license require such financial hard ship that requires saving. It’s should be as quick and cheap as possible.

Driving is an absolute necessity for many people not this “previlage” nonsense you see people going on about.

Agree,but it is what it is

martyc5674

corks finest wrote: »

Not really,I had 5 kids,****e pay,managed it, didn't go out much TBH,but sacrifices have to be made

Eh.... but they didn’t have to hand over this deposit your touting.

martyc5674

Jackson Young Sandpaper wrote: »

Driving is an absolute necessity for many people not this “previlage” nonsense you see people going on about.

No it’s not, that’s a very entitled view.

kerrylad1

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Kids in Germany start saving for their lessons and test from about 15 . The often have a " licence " account and grandparents etc pay into it for birthdays etc . They then pay for lessons until they pass the test . Its not rocket science just common sense and forethought

Is that you, Angela merkel?

AndrewJRenko

Jackson Young Sandpaper wrote: »

But the rule assumes like you go and ask permission every time, that’s not how it work. You say good buy see you later and go or the parents might not even be there and you take the car. It’s not stealing as they haven’t said you can’t but they haven’t given you explicit permission either.

It doesn't assume anything of the sort. The details of how permission is given is down to the owner and the driver to sort out. It can be an explicit written contract each time, or it can a nod and a wink done once a year.

Once both parties understand whether permission is given or not, there is no problem. If the owners haven't said the driver can take it, it is theft.

martyc5674 wrote: »

It would also put the test out of reach of people who can’t get the deposit together... not exactly a fair system.

Jackson Young Sandpaper wrote: »

Why should such a simple and absolute necessity like getting your license require such financial hard ship that requires saving. It’s should be as quick and cheap as possible.

If they can't fund the lessons/test, how are they going to fund the car, the insurance, the fuel, the maintenance etc?

Jackson Young Sandpaper wrote: »

Driving is an absolute necessity for many people not this “previlage” nonsense you see people going on about.

Nope, it's a privilege - and those who choose to build their lifestyle around this privilege would do well to remember and respect that.

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ, you Sir come across as about the most consistently humourless, holier than thou, jobsworth, po faced busybodies on this forum. That link you posted? I read the last line ‘If more and more motorists apply this one simple trick to their driving habits, it will also remove the need for middle-aged men holding radar guns in villages under the impression that they are some kind of Speed Rambo.’ and thought of you.

You're too kind. I'm blushing.

Wibbs wrote: »

Speed dial any clampers today?

Sadly no, but hopefully, I'll get a few in tomorrow to keep me going over the holidays.

Seeing as you're asking this question fairly regularly now, maybe I should set up a little blog here for you showing all the illegally parked cars that need to be referred to the clampers?

Heart Break Kid

R.O.R wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1221/1018580-learner-drivers/

Few different news reports, but new laws came in to place this morning allowing the Gardai to impound cars where the driver doesn't hold a full licence and isn't accompanied by a relevant qualified driver.

Also allows for fines against the owner of the vehicle if they allow an unaccompanied learner to drive the car.

Not before time and I hope its something that the Gardai actually enforce.

I haven’t read the legislation but:

The report specifically states learners driving other people’s cars and not their own. Although I only read a few reports about this, they only mention impounding the car if it’s not their car.


So from the sounds of it, learners will not have their car impounded although will receive penalty points.

Marcusm

Jackson Young Sandpaper wrote: »

But the rule assumes like you go and ask permission every time, that’s not how it work. You say good buy see you later and go or the parents might not even be there and you take the car. It’s not stealing as they haven’t said you can’t but they haven’t given you explicit permission either.

It also glosses over the fact a lot of learners own their own car.



Why should such a simple and absolute necessity like getting your license require such financial hard ship that requires saving. It’s should be as quick and cheap as possible.

Driving is an absolute necessity for many people not this “previlage” nonsense you see people going on about.

On the first point, the actual owner is able to defend himself by asserting that they took all reasonable steps to show that they satisfied themselves that the car would not be driven unaccompanied. In reality, I suspect the owner will not b e prosecuted until the unaccompanied learner is stopped on more than one occasion.

Th learner can be prosecuted whether they own the car or not; this is designed to either discourage poor parental behaviour and/or quash moral outrage depending on your perspective.

If it'd an absolute "necessity" then arrange to learn and pass your test before your 18th birthday. Increasingly with transition year etc, children (i.e. under 18s) rarely live away from home these days.

Irish Steve

In no particular order.

A number of years ago, I did a trial lesson with an instructor for Group C, as I was looking at my options. He didn't ask any questions about my experience before we went off in a 20 Ft rigid for a wander round some of the back roads of East Meath. I was totally comfortable with it, probably because I already had a C1 licence, and had used it on a number of occasions, and I also had significant experience driving a similar size C class rigid airside at the airport, as well as much larger items with anything up to a 747 hanging on the back.

I didn't book any further lessons with that school, as towards the end of the session, the instructor gave me abuse for slowing down, and said "you don't need to slow down this early for the junction", which he wanted me to take. My response was very short, and blunt, "I'm not slowing down for the feckin junction, I've slowed down to observe the (30mph) speed limit we've just entered". He made no comment, and it was clear that he was not prepared to admit that I was right to slow down, so that was the end of any chance he had to prepare me for a C test.

My point? Simply that requiring instructors to perform a number of hours with a student is not enough, there needs to be a very clear and fixed system in place to ensure that an instructor is actually capable of providing valid instruction to a student, and is not teaching them bad habits that will compromise their ability to pass the test and then go on to drive in an appropriate manner in future.

A good few years ago now, we made sure that both of our teenage children had driving lessons and took their test as early as possible. In our son's case, it made the difference between him having a car cleaning job for the summer, or being promoted to a higher and much better position, the manager where he was working for the summer saw him drive in one morning, and called him to the office, and asked him "have you got a full licence?", at which point my son pulled his licence out of his wallet and showed it to him, and got the response, "Ye little fecker, if I'd known you had that, you'd not have been cleaning cars for the last week, I can put you on the company insurance with that, let me copy it". At 17, he spent the rest of the summer delivering things like New 7 series BMW's to corporate clients, and driving all over County Dublin, and it was the beginning of a long term career in the company that has taken him to much greater things. As a young looking 17 year old, he had a few "interesting" discussions with various Gardai for a few weeks until they got to know him, as a 17 year old driving a new 7 series around Clonsaugh and Coolock was not the norm, but a quick mobile call back to the manager tended to solve the issue very quickly.

Yes, it cost us to get them their licences, but we saw it as a fundamental part of our responsibility as parents to do the best we could for our children, in whatever area we could, and at that time, the driving licence was not a luxury item, it was as significant a part of life experience as passing the Leaving Cert, and should be seen as such rather than a life option that can be taken or left until it's convenient.

I'll get flack for this, I'd love to see an unannounced check on the M50 one day where every driver's licence is checked, and it it's not a full licence, the appropriate sanctions are applied, even more so if the driver is not accompanied by a full licence holder with the necessary experience.

In the same vein, if a driver accumulates 12 points or more, then just putting them off the road for a while may not actually deal with the issue, why can't we require such a driver to take the test again, and not drive again before they do, to make sure that they do actually understand the issues that caused them to lose their licence in the first place.

And yes, that might mean that more driving examiners are required in order to be able to test people more quickly, would that really be an unacceptable price to pay for better road safety?

As for older drivers, (and I'm one of them), the most significant thing that should change for them is a more comprehensive eye test, as the number of drivers who are just plain dangerous at night is scary, it's clear that they cannot see safely, and also can't safely judge the speed of approaching vehicles when pulling out of side roads, especially out of town on unlit roads.

I could go further, but now is probably not the time for that, I'd be much happier to see a change in attitude towards the whole driving ethos in this country.

Wibbs

Irish Steve wrote: »

My point? Simply that requiring instructors to perform a number of hours with a student is not enough, there needs to be a very clear and fixed system in place to ensure that an instructor is actually capable of providing valid instruction to a student, and is not teaching them bad habits that will compromise their ability to pass the test and then go on to drive in an appropriate manner in future.

+1 Granted I passed my test donkey's years ago, but in preparation for it my oulfella reckoned a few lessons would be a good bet, if nothing else to learn what they were actually testing for. I had two instructors, the first was a useless eejit and no mistake, to the point of hazardous, the second she was much better and taught me quite a bit. She was bemused by one habit I had already picked up from my dad which was heel and toeing on downshifts. He did it because he had learned in cars with dubious or no synchros and I copied it. I still do it actually.

TBH I failed my first test, IIRC for not going down the gears when stopping and my feeding of the wheel wasn't up to par. Joke is both of those came from the driving of older cars with huge steering wheels, no power steering and crap brakes(is all that still in play in the test?). It didn't help that I did the test in a driving school car, a horrid little 80's hatchback with pedals at different heights and a buggered clutch. Got the test no bother second time around driving the family car.

I'll get flack for this, I'd love to see an unannounced check on the M50 one day where every driver's licence is checked, and it it's not a full licence, the appropriate sanctions are applied, even more so if the driver is not accompanied by a full licence holder with the necessary experience.

In the same vein, if a driver accumulates 12 points or more, then just putting them off the road for a while may not actually deal with the issue, why can't we require such a driver to take the test again, and not drive again before they do, to make sure that they do actually understand the issues that caused them to lose their licence in the first place.

+1000. No flak from me on both those good ideas. Those and the eye test would make a big difference IMHO.

vectra

Ninthlife wrote: »

I hope they test all those people who got a full license just by applying years ago and never had a single lesson or test in their life

That was so long ago, most of them are probably deceased at this stage.

But yeah, back on topic. It is going to be interesting to see how this goes. I live quite close to Mr.Clancy that pushed for this and I know of lots of people that drive around here on Learner permits, and as has been said already, two sisters driving for years on LP's.

Skylinehead

Jackson Young Sandpaper wrote: »

It’s should be as quick and cheap as possible.

Quick? No, the word I'd use is thorough.

highgiant1985

vectra wrote: »

That was so long ago, most of them are probably deceased at this stage.

But yeah, back on topic. It is going to be interesting to see how this goes. I live quite close to Mr.Clancy that pushed for this and I know of lots of people that drive around here on Learner permits, and as has been said already, two sisters driving for years on LP's.

Until it starts getting enforced people will continue to ignore it in practice. If you start seeing the guards twitter updates for car taken for L driver unaccompanied then attitudes might start to change. Though more likely at that point it’ll be the sob stories that get highlighted as people look to justify breaking the law.

salmocab

highgiant1985 wrote: »

Until it starts getting enforced people will continue to ignore it in practice. If you start seeing the guards twitter updates for car taken for L driver unaccompanied then attitudes might start to change. Though more likely at that point it’ll be the sob stories that get highlighted as people look to justify breaking the law.

Oh it will be wall to wall ‘how am I meant to get the kids to school’.

Nixonbot

Nixonbot wrote: »

Quick? No, the word I'd use is thorough.

At the end of the day a test is only a short snap shot of a persons driving no matter how thorough. I would drive very differently in a driving test than I would normally as I know I do lots of things that wouldn’t go down well in a test scenario but the thing is I know this and can can “behave” same as when you spot a squad car behind you.

martyc5674

Jackson Young Sandpaper wrote: »

At the end of the day a test is only a short snap shot of a persons driving no matter how thorough. I would drive very differently in a driving test than I would normally as I know I do lots of things that wouldn’t go down well in a test scenario but the thing is I know this and can can “behave” same as when you spot a squad car behind you.

Your digging a bigger hole for yourself here.
What people here want is a system that delivers safe drivers, drivers who consider all other road users..drivers who drive safely ALL the time ... I don’t change my behavior when there’s a squad car behind me. I shouldn’t have to if my driving is OK and I’ve learned that.

There was a time when I wasn’t so cautious... and that’s the gap that needs to be addressed, if I was educated better about consequences etc maybe I’d have always been a cautious driver.

Anyway happy Xmas and safe driving

Baron Kurtz

salmocab wrote: »

Just because you were instantly a great driver doesn’t mean everyone is, we can’t legislate for individuals.
It’s ridiculous that people can buy a tonne of metal and drive around straight away. Just because we did it in the past doesn’t mean it should always be.
People wouldn’t accept unqualified people in other potentially lethal situations.

Yep. It's also mad that a 16-year-old can get a licence for a tractor before a car.