RSA ad on unaccompanied L drivers

gctest50

dense wrote: »

Well this is the while point it isn't it?

There's no guarantee that an accompanying driver (who has no obligation other than to be sober and a licence holder, they could have been getting some shut-eye after all) would have made any difference.

Instead of accompanying driver, compulsory dash-cam and boxymo / telematics box would give better results






this sort of thing :

https://www.aig.ie/personal/car-insurance/boxclever
https://www.boxymo.ie/

User142

To all the posters that are dismissing the accompanying driver requirement as futile in preventing crashes.

Are you guys saying we copy the most of the rest of Europe and only allow learners on the road with instructors in dual controlled cars. Only allowing full licence holders on public roads without instructors.

Or are you guys suggesting we should scrap the requirement and officially just allow learners drive alone if they can pass the theory test because crashes just happen and there's nothing we can do really do to prevent them.

dense

User142 wrote: »

To all the posters that are dismissing the accompanying driver requirement as futile in preventing crashes.

Are you guys saying we copy the most of the rest of Europe and only allow learners on the road with instructors in dual controlled cars. Only allowing full licence holders on public roads without instructors.

Or are you guys suggesting we should scrap the requirement and officially just allow learners drive alone if they can pass the theory test because crashes just happen and there's nothing we can do really do to prevent them.

If road safety is the priority it has to be the first of your options. A driving instructor as the accompanying driver.

Unless anyone wants to argue that the professional ability of a qualified driving instructor is equal to that of an amateur accompanying driver.

Which of your choices would you go for?

gctest50

User142 wrote: »

.................

Or are you guys suggesting we should scrap the requirement and officially just allow learners drive alone if they can pass the theory test because crashes just happen and there's nothing we can do really do to prevent them.

How about the happy balance :

X amount of hours accompanied

AND compulsory dashcam

AND compulsory telematics

( the system *should* spot a fair bit of the too-many-sudden-stops-to-be-healthy etc )


re: dashcam etc, truck drivers have to make sure their tacho is in order before they set off ........ so stop whinging

User142

dense wrote: »

If road safety is the priority it has to be the first of your options. A driving instructor as the accompanying driver.

Unless anyone wants to argue that the professional ability of a qualified driving instructor is equal to that of an amateur accompanying driver.

Which of your choices would you go for?

I don't consider the accompanying driver requirement completely futile in preventing crashes. So ideally just enforce the system we have now. Its a nice compromise between the two extremes.

I'd rather we seriously reduced the wait time for tests and maybe consider removing the 6 month wait requirement before one can apply for the test. That needs sorting out so that people who deserve full licences can quickly obtain them.

dense

gctest50 wrote: »

How about the happy balance :

X amount of hours accompanied

AND compulsory dashcam

AND compulsory telematics

( the system *should* spot a fair bit of the too-many-sudden-stops-to-be-healthy etc )


re: dashcam etc, truck drivers have to make sure their tacho is in order before they set off ........ so stop whinging

But who seriously wants their every move remotely sensed?

Can I not go for a drive on my own in my own car on roads that my taxes pay to provide without big brother analysing my every move and location?

1984 was fiction, not an instruction manual.

dense

User142 wrote: »

I don't consider the accompanying driver requirement completely futile in preventing crashes.

So you weren't in favour of any of the two options you were offering.

Do you think that it would NOT be safer to have a trained professional instructor as an accompanying driver instead of an amateur?

If we're going to do this thing right there's no point in having amateurs as accompanying drivers and saying their driving skills are equal to those of a qualified instructor.

These were your options which you've now side stepped.

divillybit

I think trackers in cars are a great job and Im surprised its not an optional extra in new cars these days. Its a great way to keep manners on drivers.

User142

dense wrote: »

So you weren't in favour of any of the two options you were offering.

Yes? I'm in favour of the current system. My question was for those that don't.

I was interested to see if the people who are basically saying the accompanying driver requirement of the current system is rubbish are actually annoyed restrictions on learners dont go far enough. Or they believe crashes happen irregardless of whether there's a full licence holder passenger so the requirement should just be scrapped.

User142

dense wrote: »

1.Do you think that it would NOT be safer to have a trained professional instructor as an accompanying driver instead of an amateur?

2.If we're going to do this thing right there's no point in having amateurs as accompanying drivers and saying their driving skills are equal to those of a qualified instructor.

3.These were your options which you've now side stepped.

1.I do. If you want to push for those requirements you are free to. I'm not going to be resisting it but getting that through the Dail would be very tough.

2.No ones saying that.

3.I like the current system so why would I need to support an alternative. I obviously don't support removing the restriction.

AndrewJRenko

dense wrote: »

But who seriously wants their every move remotely sensed?

Can I not go for a drive on my own in my own car on roads that my taxes pay to provide without big brother analysing my every move and location?

1984 was fiction, not an instruction manual.

What have taxes got to do with this safety issue? For the record, roads are funded from central government funds. Motorists pay nothing near the costs of the harm done by their engine.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html

But either way, what's it got to do with this issue?

FishOnABike

margo321 wrote: »

It was a terrible accident but i feel bad for the girl. driving test a bit of a joke here with waiting lists and high failing rate. roads i shovking condition. what is percentage of learner drivers causing accidents. Ad looks like an eye for an eye, he will be happy if girl kills herself.

Not sure if that information is available. The closest I've found is that learner drivers make up approx. 9% of drivers and are involved in 5.4% of fatal road traffic incidents. The % they are responsible for would be expected to be less than that again.

Needles73

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What have taxes got to do with this safety issue? For the record, roads are funded from central government funds. Motorists pay nothing near the costs of the harm done by their engine.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html

But either way, what's it got to do with this issue?

Likewise whats London air quality report got to do with anything ?
Virtually all tax collected goes to central government before being dustributed so what’s that got to do with anything ?
Irish motorist contributes over €5 billion per year in tax which does cover the financial costs (even using the numbers in uk report). But then you’ll come back and say it’s not a financial cost.....
........anyways the point is some posters think we should go down the road of enforced tracking/telemetry in every car. This cost for the equipment and monitoring would have to be paid for and ultimately it’s another form of tax. That’s the point.

FishOnABike

divillybit wrote: »

I think trackers in cars are a great job and Im surprised its not an optional extra in new cars these days. Its a great way to keep manners on drivers.

Unless there was a significant incentive I couldn't see it it being a widely requested option.

It could identify issues such as excessive or persistent speeding or hard braking but would not identify arguably more significant issues such as inattentiveness, lack of observation, use of indicators, lane discipline, cutting corners, taking corners wide, driving on the wrong side of the road, overtaking when there is not a sufficient clear view of the road ahead, etc.

appledrop

FishOnABike wrote: »

Not sure if that information is available. The closest I've found is that learner drivers make up approx. 9% of drivers and are involved in 5.4% of fatal road traffic incidents. The % they are responsible for would be expected to be less than that again.

This is why I have an issue with the ad. It's taking a very sad but freak accident + using it to try and say ah all L drivers are a menace on road. I have no problem with ads for drink driving as the stats back it up that it causes crashes in which fatalities occur.

magicbastarder

Mr E wrote: »

Surely if she was accompanied, the same accident would still have happened. The only difference is an extra witness and someone else who has to live with the trauma.

speculating on this particular instance as to whether the accident would or wouldn't have happened if there had been a qualified driver in the car is futile. it can be nothing more than speculation.

however, i'd be fairly confident in assuming there are other instances of solo learner drivers who lost control, leading to fatalities, where the difference would have been a qualified driver who was able to tell them to slow down, or who might have known the road better, etc.
needless to say, i'm not going to point to specific instances where i would assert that it would have made a difference.

AndrewJRenko

Needles73 wrote: »

Likewise whats London air quality report got to do with anything ?
Virtually all tax collected goes to central government before being dustributed so what’s that got to do with anything ?
Irish motorist contributes over €5 billion per year in tax which does cover the financial costs (even using the numbers in uk report). But then you’ll come back and say it’s not a financial cost.....
........anyways the point is some posters think we should go down the road of enforced tracking/telemetry in every car. This cost for the equipment and monitoring would have to be paid for and ultimately it’s another form of tax. That’s the point.

Do you think that cars in Ireland pollute differently to cars in the UK? The Irish motorist 'contributes' nothing, and is a huge drain on society. Motorists pay some of the costs of providing road infrastructure, providing the Garda traffic unit, providing the RSA, providing vast amounts of public space for storage of private property (parking), but come nowhere near paying the real cost of motoring. They don't pay for their share of the 1500+ premature deaths each year due to poor air quality.


When are motorists going to start paying their own way?


But regardless, what's it got to do an RSA advert anyway? On the telemetry question, if motorists don't want mandatory equipment, then maybe motorists need to find other ways to stop killing 2 or 3 people each week.

brightspark

FishOnABike wrote: »

Not sure if that information is available. The closest I've found is that learner drivers make up approx. 9% of drivers and are involved in 5.4% of fatal road traffic incidents. The % they are responsible for would be expected to be less than that again.

The problem with that statistic is it doesn't reflect the fact that those on learner permits would be driving much less than the average driver.

Stephen15

More people die falling down the stairs than in car accidents. Most people I know are sick and tired of health and safety legislation inferring in their daily lives whether it be at work, during leisure time or indeed on the roads.

Wanderer78

Stephen15 wrote: »

More people die falling down the stairs than in car accidents. Most people I know are sick and tired of health and safety legislation inferring in their daily lives whether it be at work, during leisure time or indeed on the roads.

be interesting to see this statistic in the flesh!

dense

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think that cars in Ireland pollute differently to cars in the UK? The Irish motorist 'contributes' nothing, and is a huge drain on society. Motorists pay some of the costs of providing road infrastructure, providing the Garda traffic unit, providing the RSA, providing vast amounts of public space for storage of private property (parking), but come nowhere near paying the real cost of motoring. They don't pay for their share of the 1500+ premature deaths each year due to poor air quality.


When are motorists going to start paying their own way?


But regardless, what's it got to do an RSA advert anyway? On the telemetry question, if motorists don't want mandatory equipment, then maybe motorists need to find other ways to stop killing 2 or 3 people each week.

Took you a while to admit you'd be in favour of central remote sensing and analysis of the movement and location of drivers if other motorists can't find ways stop killing 2 or 3 people a week.

Might as well come out and say there should only be driverless cars then because unless who ever is remotely sensing a driver breaking a speed limit intervenes and gains control of that driver's movements, that driver could be a "killer".

You said you're a driver who's constantly making mistakes and seem terribly concerned about the negative affects of driving on health and the environment and with the risk of being killed or killing someone whilst driving.

Are you sure driving is your thing?
Have you considered a change in your life path that would eliminate your need to drive or be in the proximity of driven vehicles which aren't centrally remote controlled?

Why continue to engage in something that you're saying is so dangerous and detrimental to society and the environment?

dense

appledrop wrote: »

This is why I have an issue with the ad. It's taking a very sad but freak accident + using it to try and say ah all L drivers are a menace on road. I have no problem with ads for drink driving as the stats back it up that it causes crashes in which fatalities occur.

Nothing like a freak accident so the RSA can react and respond after the event.

If they'd always known it was so dangerous they should have done this years ago and saved far more lives.

FishOnABike

Quote: FishOnABike
Not sure if that information is available. The closest I've found is that learner drivers make up approx. 9% of drivers and are involved in 5.4% of fatal road traffic incidents. The % they are responsible for would be expected to be less than that again.

brightspark wrote: »

The problem with that statistic is it doesn't reflect the fact that those on learner permits would be driving much less than the average driver.

I'm not aware of data to support whether those on learner permits drive less or more than qualified drivers.

I tend to use my car only when I have to and it is almost always secondary to my main purpose e.g. commuting or social & leisure. It's not unreasonable to consider that a learner, especially who drives unaccompanied for the same purposes, would additionally drive for no other purpose than to practice their driving and therefore might actually drive more than the average driver.

At best (in the tradition of many research papers) it can probably be said that current data is insufficient to support a conclusion or recommendation but is indicative that further study is required.

TheChizler

magicbastarder wrote: »

speculating on this particular instance as to whether the accident would or wouldn't have happened if there had been a qualified driver in the car is futile. it can be nothing more than speculation.

Surely this ad by focusing on a particular incident is committing the exact same speculation?

I have no doubt that unaccompanied learners are more likely to cause accidents than accompanied, but I don't think it's right to use one case where this hasn't been proven as the example.

pablo128

Cars do have tracking nowadays. The guards were able to track Jastine Valdez's killer via his Nissan Quashqai.

Alun

pablo128 wrote: »

Cars do have tracking nowadays. The guards were able to track Jastine Valdez's killer via his Nissan Quashqai.

AFAIK That was done via the car's Satnav, not via a dedicated tracker. Having a Nissan with the same head unit, there's no obvious way of accessing this information for the end-user, so I assume there's a backdoor built in to the system somehow that law enforcement authorities have access to. Plus it was after the fact, not accessible in real time in any way.

pablo128

Alun wrote: »

AFAIK That was done via the car's Satnav, not via a dedicated tracker. Having a Nissan with the same head unit, there's no obvious way of accessing this information for the end-user, so I assume there's a backdoor built in to the system somehow that law enforcement authorities have access to. Plus it was after the fact, not accessible in real time in any way.

You think an insurance company have the resources to watch every learner in real time?

I was responding to a query by another poster who asked if modern motors can be tracked.

Alun

pablo128 wrote: »

You think an insurance company have the resources to watch every learner in real time?

No, nor did I imply that.

I was responding to a query by another poster who asked if modern motors can be tracked.

I know, and I pointed out how it was done, i.e. not via a tracking device per se.

Get out of bed the wrong side this morning, did we?

dense

pablo128 wrote: »

Cars do have tracking nowadays. The guards were able to track Jastine Valdez's killer via his Nissan Quashqai.

That was different.

It wasn't live streaming it's location enabling the gardai to track its movements.

It's movements were analysed and retraced AFTER the vehicle had been located.

The data only helped gardai locate the remains, not the vehicle or the driver.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/satnav-data-enabled-garda%C3%AD-to-track-movements-of-suspect-s-vehicle-1.3503442?mode=amp

Needles73

“Do you think that cars in Ireland pollute differently to cars in the UK? “

No I don’t. The study/affect of car emissions in major metropolitan area in a different jurisdiction is different though ? Any Irish data ?


“The Irish motorist 'contributes' nothing, and is a huge drain on society.”
Any actual data to support this ?

“ They don't pay for their share of the 1500+ premature deaths each year due to poor air quality.”
Have you some evidence of the 1500+ ? Please ensure the data discounts other emission sources ?

When are motorists going to start paying their own way? Again show me that they aren’t ?

Now before you starting spouting about climate change I believe we should be moving to environmentally friendly modes of transport. Just back up your claims.