RSA ad on unaccompanied L drivers

pablo128

Alun wrote: »

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

Blocked for needlessly trying to antagonise me. Good luck.

brightspark

FishOnABike wrote: »

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.



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.

A learner driver is unlikely to have someone available to accompany them for commuting which is what the vast majority of most drivers mileage would be.

Most commutes are about 30 minutes each way which would equate to 5 hours a week, many drivers would probably have much longer commutes and add to that the various people who drive for a living such as sales reps, service contractors, delivery drivers all of whom could spend at least 20 hours and maybe even close to 40 hours a week driving.

Do you think most learners are able to get someone to accompany them to that extent?

pablo128

brightspark wrote: »

A learner driver is unlikely to have someone available to accompany them for commuting which is what the vast majority of most drivers mileage would be.

Most commutes are about 30 minutes each way which would equate to 5 hours a week, many drivers would probably have much longer commutes and add to that the various people who drive for a living such as sales reps, service contractors, delivery drivers all of whom could spend at least 20 hours and maybe even close to 40 hours a week driving.

Do you think most learners are able to get someone to accompany them to that extent?

You won't get a job as a sales rep or most driving jobs on a provisional.

If a learner is that desperate to drive unaccompanied they could always get a 49cc moped.

brightspark

pablo128 wrote: »

You won't get a job as a sales rep or most driving jobs on a provisional.

If a learner is that desperate to drive unaccompanied they could always get a 49cc moped.

That is my point, learner drivers are unlikely to be doing the same amount of miles as those with full licences so that will skew the statistics about them being 9% of the drivers but only involved in 5.4% of accidents. If they drive less then they will inevitably be involved in less accidents.

AndrewJRenko

dense wrote: »

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.

This is disingenuous. Priorities change over time. Road deaths have been reducing as other issues have been addressed, so today's priority may not have been yesterday's priority.

dense wrote: »

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?

I'm not quite sure that I 'admitted' anything. The theory of autonomous cars is certainly attractive and the potential to reduce or eliminate road deaths. I read different stories about whether this theory is going to come into practice in our lifetimes, so I guess we'll see.


Is driving my thing? I actually enjoy driving, always did. It's mostly at the weekends now for me, and it's mostly fairly short distances. Yes, it is a convenient way to travel, especially for families and groups. It is also completely overused, with vast amounts of car traffic being 1 person journeys for short distances that could easily be cycled, walked or done on public transport.

FishOnABike

brightspark wrote: »

A learner driver is unlikely to have someone available to accompany them for commuting which is what the vast majority of most drivers mileage would be.

Most commutes are about 30 minutes each way which would equate to 5 hours a week, many drivers would probably have much longer commutes and add to that the various people who drive for a living such as sales reps, service contractors, delivery drivers all of whom could spend at least 20 hours and maybe even close to 40 hours a week driving.

Do you think most learners are able to get someone to accompany them to that extent?

That has to be balanced out against the drivers who use their car mainly for short 5 - 10 minute hops, school runs, local shops, religious observation, etc.

The average learner probably lies between the extremes of the Sunday driver and commercial driver but where we don't know where.

Is their involvement in fatal road traffic incidents representative of their road usage or is it over or under representative? We don't appear to have the data to determine.

The figures don't break down contributory causes, accompanied vs unaccompanied, involved vs responsible, other factors or relate fatal + serious road traffic incidents to their road usage.

Given the dearth of solid data it is difficult to determine whether unaccompanied learner drivers contribute disproportionately to fatal and/or serious road traffic incidents.

User142

FishOnABike wrote: »

The figures don't break down contributory causes, accompanied vs unaccompanied, involved vs responsible, other factors or relate fatal + serious road traffic incidents to their road usage.

Given the dearth of solid data it is difficult to determine whether unaccompanied learner drivers contribute disproportionately to fatal and/or serious road traffic incidents.

Before the introduction of penalty points unaccompanied learner drivers were 8 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than accompanied learner drivers.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/unaccompanied-learner-drivers-at-higher-risk-of-road-death-1.1793505 wrote:

In the six-year period up until 2012, some 1,141 car or van drivers were involved in fatal crashes. Of these, 99 were learner drivers, just 12 of whom were accompanied by an experienced motorist at the time of the crash.

Over the same period there were 2,442 serious injury collisions, of which 194 involved an unaccompanied learner driver.

dense

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This is disingenuous. Priorities change over time. Road deaths have been reducing as other issues have been addressed, so today's priority may not have been yesterday's priority.

No, this accident could have been prevented according to you.

Back in 2007 "the concerned" were concerned about learner drivers being unaccompanied.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/learner-driver-rules-to-be-discreetly-enforced-1.814009?mode=amp

It was left until now to do something about.

After a freak accident.

How many lives could have been saved if the RSA acted on this year's ago, we can only speculate.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is driving my thing? I actually enjoy driving, always did. It's mostly at the weekends now for me, and it's mostly fairly short distances. Yes, it is a convenient way to travel, especially for families and groups. It is also completely overused, with vast amounts of car traffic being 1 person journeys for short distances that could easily be cycled, walked or done on public transport.

I love it. You've always enjoyed driving and still do, and have decided that people are driving too much and polluting the atmosphere.

lbc2019

appledrop wrote: »

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.

If it was a freak accident she wouldn’t have been convicted

Her poor driving directly caused the death of two people.

appledrop

It was a freak accident. They died because their car went into a field that was flooded + they drowned. You can't get much more of a freak accident than that. If field wasn't flooded we would have never heard of this accident as they would have survived.

brightspark

If those on learner permits are so competent why is there such a high failure rate (~50%) when being tested?

Even the theory failure rates are high with more than half failing.
edit: only 27% passed on their first attempt in 2017

It isn't even that the standard for the test is set high

Theory Test Pass Mark 2019
Theory Test Multiple Choice Questions 43/50 Questions answered correctly
Theory Test Pass Mark 86%
Hazard Perception 44/75 Hazards
Hazard Perception Pass Mark 58%

lbc2019

appledrop wrote: »

It was a freak accident. They died because their car went into a field that was flooded + they drowned. You can't get much more of a freak accident than that. If field wasn't flooded we would have never heard of this accident as they would have survived.

You know better than a court of law with all the evidence given. I ask again were they going to miraculously survive hitting a wall? Are you friends or family or are you, the convicted woman?

appledrop

I have nothing to do with case. Only going by what was reported. She was never actually convicted by jury. She herself decided to plead guilty. Judge also stated that excessive speed, alcohol or mobile phone not a factor in case so not force of crash that killed them. I'm not a judgmental person + in this case a freak set of circumstances caused their death. Roads are dangerous places + any of us can make a mistake.

I hope the poor girl never reads this thread.

gctest50

appledrop wrote: »

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

She was never actually convicted by jury. She herself decided to plead guilty.

She also took free legal aid, probably didn't have the money available to drag it up to the next level court

Going on the carry on of yer man, he'd" sell everything he has" just to keep going

brightspark

appledrop wrote: »

I have nothing to do with case. Only going by what was reported. She was never actually convicted by jury. She herself decided to plead guilty. Judge also stated that excessive speed, alcohol or mobile phone not a factor in case so not force of crash that killed them. I'm not a judgmental person + in this case a freak set of circumstances caused their death. Roads are dangerous places + any of us can make a mistake.

I hope the poor girl never reads this thread.

Accidents rarely have one cause, they are usually the result of a combination of factors. "a freak set of circumstances"

Some factors are unavoidable, however some can be eliminated.

Having inexperienced learners driving on their own is a risk factor and one that can be avoided.

lbc2019

gctest50 wrote: »

appledrop wrote: »

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

She was never actually convicted by jury. She herself decided to plead guilty.

She also took free legal aid, probably didn't have the money available to drag it up to the next level court

Going on the carry on of yer man, he'd" sell everything he has" just to keep going

The DPP decide that not the victims party

appledrop

I never said it's right to have unaccompanied L drivers. This thread is about the ad + my issue is that ad makes out as if all L drivers cause fatal accidents. It's not balanced or based on stats. It scare tactics which I have no time for they don't work.

lbc2019

appledrop wrote: »

I have nothing to do with case. Only going by what was reported. She was never actually convicted by jury. She herself decided to plead guilty. Judge also stated that excessive speed, alcohol or mobile phone not a factor in case so not force of crash that killed them. I'm not a judgmental person + in this case a freak set of circumstances caused their death. Roads are dangerous places + any of us can make a mistake.

I hope the poor girl never reads this thread.

She was convicted- it went to court. The compelling evidence probably made her plea guilty of a lesser charge

brightspark

appledrop wrote: »

I never said it's right to have unaccompanied L drivers. This thread is about the ad + my issue is that ad makes out as if all L drivers cause fatal accidents. It's not balanced or based on stats. It scare tactics which I have no time for they don't work.

I would think the purpose of the advert was to raise awareness of the issue of unaccompanied learner drivers and the updated legislation.

As this thread exists it means that it has worked

User142

appledrop wrote: »

I never said it's right to have unaccompanied L drivers. This thread is about the ad + my issue is that ad makes out as if all L drivers cause fatal accidents. It's not balanced or based on stats. It scare tactics which I have no time for they don't work.

The ad doesn't suggest at all that all L drivers cause fatal crashes. Its not a scare tactic. Its calling on parents to accompany their children when they are learners and given how the Clancy Amendment recently passed it wants to drive home to parents that giving their cars to their unqualified children is not acceptable anymore.

The seizing of cars, penalising parents and giving penalty points to learners will be far more effective at ending the practice than the ad of course.

The stats show that accompanied learners cause less fatal crashes than unaccompanied learners.

Corca Baiscinn

dense wrote: »

I love it. You've always enjoyed driving and still do, and have decided that people are driving too much and polluting the atmosphere.

I don't see any contradiction in that, One can enjoy something in moderation while still being of the view that an excess of it is a bad thing,for society eg cake/alcohol/driving/ social media all enjoyable but in excess leading to obesity/alcoholism/fights/collisions/pollution/congestion/noise/insomnia/poor concentration respectively

Stephen15

The driving test is a bit ridiculous I fail to see how reversing around the corner is nessecary to show that one is a safe. Perhaps if you fail test by a small margin for example you only make one or two mistakes too many you could be given some sort of provisional licence that allows you to drive unaccompanied but doesn't allow you to drive on motorways and is only valid for two years.

dense

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

I don't see any contradiction in that, One can enjoy something in moderation while still being of the view that an excess of it is a bad thing,for society eg cake/alcohol/driving/ social media all enjoyable but in excess leading to obesity/alcoholism/fights/collisions/pollution/congestion/noise/insomnia/poor concentration respectively

I didn't say there was any contradiction, just that I love the position being taken.

It's the typical detached position that's taken by so many people today who are great at complaining about issues but not so good at admitting they're part of the cohort thats directly responsible for causing the problems they're identifying.

dense

lbc2019 wrote: »

If it was a freak accident she wouldn’t have been convicted

That's an assumption.

I can put forward the assumption that had the RSA bothered clamping down on unaccompanied driving years ago we wouldn't be talking about this case, because she wouldn't have been driving unaccompanied, but no one wants to acknowledge it.

lbc2019 wrote: »

Her poor driving directly caused the death of two people.

And the legal system has dealt with it.
No need for the RSA to be focusing on her whilst hoping no one brings up their responsibilities in this matter.

SEPT 23 1989

God help that young one we all made stupid mistakes in our youth and for the majority of us got away with it or at worst paid a small price learned from it and moved on

This campaign has gone way over the line

lbc2019

She’s a lot of friends posting on here or people are very naive

pablo128

dense wrote: »

That's an assumption.

I can put forward the assumption that had the RSA bothered clamping down on unaccompanied driving years ago we wouldn't be talking about this case, because she wouldn't have been driving unaccompanied, but no one wants to acknowledge it.



And the legal system has dealt with it.
No need for the RSA to be focusing on her whilst hoping no one brings up their responsibilities in this matter.

Why would the RSA clamp down on unaccompanied driving? That's a job for gardai.

It has always been the case that learner's needed someone with them. The only thing that has changed is that the cars are seized now if unaccompanied. And the cars owner can get done. The RSA are highlighting this change with a hard hitting advert.

brightspark

dense wrote: »

No need for the RSA to be focusing on her whilst hoping no one brings up their responsibilities in this matter.

Driving unaccompanied while on a learner permit has been an offence since about 2010, possibly earlier.

What has now happened is the owner of the vehicle is also going to be penalised (rightly so for allowing it to be used illegally).

While the RSA can advise on legal penalties etc., the obligation to comply with the law is up to the individuals and the enforcement is the responsibility of the Gardai. So not sure where they RSA have been negligent?

magicbastarder

pablo128 wrote: »

It has always been the case that learner's needed someone with them.

unless someone can prove me wrong - it used to be the case that someone on a second provisional did not need someone with them. but subsequent to the second licence, you did need a qualified driver to accompany you.

brightspark

magicbastarder wrote: »

unless someone can prove me wrong - it used to be the case that someone on a second provisional did not need someone with them. but subsequent to the second licence, you did need a qualified driver to accompany you.

That was pre 2010 and as you correctly state it was only applicable to the second provisional licence (so years 3 and 4)