L drivers, cars taken

The Lost Sheep

doolox wrote: »

400 is a tiny number in comparison.

The only guess I can arrive at is that there are approx 50,000 people learning to drive each year on Irish roads, given that 50,000 people sit the leaving cert each year.

You're assuming a lot there. Huge number of leaving certs havent learned to drive and dont for several years later.

At a 50% failure rate you could guess that 100,000 tests are carried out each year. So that 400 apprehensions for lone driving without a full licence is 1/2 of 1 per cent of the total number of drivers learning on our roads.

When a car is seized it does not necessarily mean it is totally lost. A fine and recovery fee may restore the car to its owner. If the owner does not have a driver to accompany him this could be a problem but a recover truck could take the car to the owners house until he gets a driver.

I think your maths is well off though i do agree about when a car is seized it doesnt mean the car is completely lost.

The country will have to look into how other countries manage to finance driver education and training in order to overcome the difficulty of young people being able to conform legally and practically to the new rules.

This is key and completely true. It should be part of secondary education compulsory in Transition year and done where possible in other years.

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

i think the long wait times for test and retest need to be looked at, a lot of drivers are just to impatience to wait, still surprised at the response of Garda to this new law and the rate of prosecution, but i suppose because with L plates on the car, big red flag. (not advising to take off L plates before going out unaccompanied).but at the end of of the day its a piece of paper and one tester saying your ok to drive, the day before you were not,you were just a Criminal breaking the law.
but it must be keeping the Guards busy.

Yes long wait times to need to be looked at but how do you change it/improve it?

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Lots of young people face the same dilemma. They get a part time job and house share.

It can be done.

Its far from that simple

kazamo wrote: »

Just a pity Shane Ross started with a good idea but wasted an opportunity to really improve road safety.

Instead of targeting one group, apply the same principle to all.

Driving using a mobile phone......confiscate the car and hefty fine
Speeding more than 20km above limit.....confiscate the car and hefty fine
Park dangerously outside shop and stick on the hazard lights....confiscate and fine

Those are just three examples of dangerous driving behaviour that we all see on a daily basis. But it will never happen as the culprits have a big enough voice unlike the L drivers.

Thats a very different argument though and confiscating cars for all those is just a waste of resources/time.

lbc2019

emilymemily wrote: »

I lived in the country too, there was no bus route in my area, they were cut during the recession. The closest bus stop was an hour and a half walk and the bus only stopped twice a day, one at 7.30 am going into town, a second coming back 6.30 pm.
Walking dark country roads in the Winter is hardly a safer alternative?

Where did you leave that the nearest bus was 1 1/2 hours away???

cbreeze

Woman on live line today said her car was struck and written off by a solo learner driver who had removed her 'L' plates.

The Chair of the Road Safety Authority was also on and she said that there are about 100,000 learner driver permit holders in the state - many of them in their 20s. But there has been a 30% increase in applications for the driving test.

So something is working ...

gerryirl

I heard from a good source today that Minister Ross is bringing in a new law in that anyone learning to ride a bike from March onwards will need to be accompanied by someone that can ride a bike without stabilizers

elperello

I think it is important that all drivers driving alone on our roads hold a full licence.

The delay in getting a test appointment seems to be a problem.

Would it make sense to give priority to people living in remote areas so they get a test appointment earlier?

Nekarsulm

lbc2019 wrote: »

Where did you leave that the nearest bus was 1 1/2 hours away???

Thats not unusual. Tbe nearest bus to me is Cavan town.
12 miles away.
An average person walks at about 4 miles per hour, so that's 3 hours away, unless I cycle or thumb.

endacl

gerryirl wrote: »

I heard from a good source today that Minister Ross is bringing in a new law in that anyone learning to ride a bike from March onwards will need to be accompanied by someone that can ride a bike without stabilizers

They generally are.

I’d say there was rarely a dad running along beside a wobbly kid on a bike who couldn’t pedal one himself.

Therefore, funny post fail.

Eggs For Dinner

gerryirl wrote: »

I heard from a good source today that Minister Ross is bringing in a new law in that anyone learning to ride a bike from March onwards will need to be accompanied by someone that can ride a bike without stabilizers

This is key to those whinging about having a qualified driver with you. It's the total lack of comprehension of the carnage a vehicle can cause if not operated safely. It was probably an attempt at humour, but I'm sure some actually see a comparison

Henry Ford III

The Lost Sheep wrote:

Its far from that simple

Yes getting to work or college can be difficult if you live in the country.

The inconvenience still doesn't entitle a L driver break the law though.

Dravokivich

elperello wrote: »

I think it is important that all drivers driving alone on our roads hold a full licence.

The delay in getting a test appointment seems to be a problem.

Would it make sense to give priority to people living in remote areas so they get a test appointment earlier?

Then you'll just get everyone putting a relative's address on the application.

Naos

There is a thread on After Hours right now which relates to this and is exactly the reason why learners should not be driving unaccompanied - not linking as the chap is having a hard enough time.

"Hi all,

I know i done wrong and drove my car unacompanied.
I also got involved in colission with another car.
No one was injured thank god.
Thats were basically my life ends i supposse.

What are my options?
I have insurance and all but i dont think ill be covered since i was on my own.

Havent got thousands in bank to pay so what will happen ?

Henry Ford III

Naos wrote: »

There is a thread on After Hours right now which relates to this and is exactly the reason why learners should not be driving unaccompanied - not linking as the chap is having a hard enough time.

Insurance may pay for 3rd party damage caused.

After that though the driver is in world of trouble - They'll get a fine, penalty points, and a world of trouble getting insurance in the future.

What they did is really stupid tbh.

elperello

Dravokivich wrote: »

Then you'll just get everyone putting a relative's address on the application.

Good point.
You would probably have to confine people to using the address on their licence and/or car insurance.

gerryirl

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

This is key to those whinging about having a qualified driver with you. It's the total lack of comprehension of the carnage a vehicle can cause if not operated safely. It was probably an attempt at humour, but I'm sure some actually see a comparison

No I actually agree with you. Wasn't really meant as humor more sarcasm but the sad reality is the same person that needs a person with them in a car does not them in tractor when driving. Think of the carnage you can do with a tractor and Ive seen that first hand the damage a tractor can do. the whole law is a joke and that includes people with full license. My van has to tested every year to make sure its roadworthy but I never get tested to see if I'm fit to drive it . If you get where I'm coming from.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Niall Boylan’s show was dominated by discussion on the Clancy amendment today. Not sure if there’s a podcast or not.

Purple Mountain

Marina Young Lodging wrote: »

Niall Boylan’s show was dominated by discussion on the Clancy amendment today. Not sure if there’s a podcast or not.

What was the general consensus?

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Purple Mountain wrote: »

What was the general consensus?

Many people were in favour of it, there was one person on who while in favour of it has said that the Gleeson family have complained about the ad itself, a typical example of it being on a recent trip to the cinema and it came on during the opening credits.

The question being asked of callers 'did you not drive unaccompanied on a provisional licence' and the 'how will we get to work/college when we live in rural areas' stuff.

Also the stats showing that learners are involved in less fatal accidents than full licensed drivers.

What can a qualified driver do from the passenger seat etc.

The big thing that most don't realise is the law was there for years, but it took this accident for a change of the law to be triggered.

As of last week there were 337 cars seized from learners in little more than 6 weeks since the law was introduced.


Here is the link to the podcast
https://www.classichits.ie/podcasts/niall-boylan/episode/do-you-think-the-new-rsa-crashed-lives-advert-campaign-is-fair/

ayux4rj6zql2ph

The RSA have commented:

The Road Safety Authority has said it will respond to the Gleeson family in the coming days over its 'Crashed Lives' campaign on unaccompanied drivers - but that it will also stick to its commitment to screen the advert.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/rsa-will-address-familys-concerns-but-will-continue-to-screen-controversial-crashed-lives-advert-905960.html

Dravokivich

elperello wrote: »

Good point.
You would probably have to confine people to using the address on their licence and/or car insurance.

They don't have a licence. And would be most likely a named driver on a policy.

elperello

Dravokivich wrote: »

They don't have a licence. And would be most likely a named driver on a policy.

They would have a learner permit (provisional licence).
The policy will have an address on it.

Dravokivich

elperello wrote: »

They would have a learner permit (provisional licence).
The policy will have an address on it.

I did not have my own policy when I was a learner.

elperello

Dravokivich wrote: »

I did not have my own policy when I was a learner.

That would be normal enough but most are a named driver on an existing policy.

The main policy holder would have to give an address and confirm that the car is normally kept there.

In order to get around a location based test priority one would need the main policy holder to collude to break the law.

I suppose no matter what system you devised some people would try it on but the vast majority would comply.

Dravokivich

elperello wrote: »

That would be normal enough but most are a named driver on an existing policy.

The main policy holder would have to give an address and confirm that the car is normally kept there.

In order to get around a location based test priority one would need the main policy holder to collude to break the law.

I suppose no matter what system you devised some people would try it on but the vast majority would comply.

So... they can be named on a policy for someone in a rural area. We go around again.

To be honest. The queue isn't made up solely of first timers. You've repeaters and people going for additional categories. Who I'd think are a higher make up of the queue. So why push the pennies and leave the pounds to sit back?

elperello

Dravokivich wrote: »

So... they can be named on a policy for someone in a rural area. We go around again.

To be honest. The queue isn't made up solely of first timers. You've repeaters and people going for additional categories. Who I'd think are a higher make up of the queue. So why push the pennies and leave the pounds to sit back?

I still think it could help to prioritise people who have no other transport options.
Just because a system could be abused is not a reason for not doing it.
If you look at the Hardship Licence system in the US as an example you will see some ideas that could work here.

iguana

Marina Young Lodging wrote: »

What can a qualified driver do from the passenger seat etc.

In the case of the Clancy deaths, a qualified driver could have made all the difference. The learner driver really was very inexperienced and one of her parents would in all likelihood have told her to slow down as she approached the bend as she did not have right of way and had to yield.

That said a fully licensed sibling or friend may not have felt comfortable telling her what to do, being able to drive yourself does not make you a good teacher. While an unlicensed person who was observant and familiar with the roads may have been able to tell her to slow down and yield. When I was a learner my non-driving mother was the best person to give me advice in the car (apart from my instructor, obv) while my husband and my former professional driver, with a full clean license in every category, father were the two worst and on more than one occasion I had to stop driving because they left me so rattled.

maddy1026

iguana wrote: »

Marina Young Lodging wrote: »

What can a qualified driver do from the passenger seat etc.

In the case of the Clancy deaths, a qualified driver could have made all the difference. The learner driver really was very inexperienced and one of her parents would in all likelihood have told her to slow down as she approached the bend as she did not have right of way and had to yield.

That said a fully licensed sibling or friend may not have felt comfortable telling her what to do, being able to drive yourself does not make you a good teacher. While an unlicensed person who was observant and familiar with the roads may have been able to tell her to slow down and yield. When I was a learner my non-driving mother was the best person to give me advice in the car (apart from my instructor, obv) while my husband and my former professional driver, with a full clean license in every category, father were the two worst and on more than one occasion I had to stop driving because they left me so rattled.

What can be done is why can't learners who cleared 12 lessons with driving instructor not get the permission to drive unaccompanied. I completely accept that a person who sits next to a driver cannot control the car. The arguments that learners should have a full licensed driver accompanying them is therefore ridiculous. Also 12 lessons qualify you for a driving test which if you pass makes you legally qualified to drive alone. So why can't people who complete these 12 classes not have the right to practice their driving and drive on the road ?

brightspark

maddy1026 wrote:

What can be done is why can't learners who cleared 12 lessons with driving instructor not get the permission to drive unaccompanied. I completely accept that a person who sits next to a driver cannot control the car. The arguments that learners should have a full licensed driver accompanying them is therefore ridiculous. Also 12 lessons qualify you for a driving test which if you pass makes you legally qualified to drive alone. So why can't people who complete these 12 classes not have the right to practice their driving and drive on the road ?

About 50% of those who sit the test fail, so obviously qualifying to sit the test is not the same as passing the test!
I would prefer system where the instructor had to approve before the learner could sit the test. That should improve pass rates which would reduce waiting lists.
Instructors should also have to display the pass rates of their students.

pablo128

maddy1026 wrote: »

What can be done is why can't learners who cleared 12 lessons with driving instructor not get the permission to drive unaccompanied. I completely accept that a person who sits next to a driver cannot control the car. The arguments that learners should have a full licensed driver accompanying them is therefore ridiculous. Also 12 lessons qualify you for a driving test which if you pass makes you legally qualified to drive alone. So why can't people who complete these 12 classes not have the right to practice their driving and drive on the road ?

Because someone could do the 12 lessons and completely ignore them or not absorb what they have been instructed to do. A test will prove they are competent enough to drive unaccompanied.

Would you let a doctor near you who had gone to medical school but not completed any exams?

iguana

maddy1026 wrote: »

What can be done is why can't learners who cleared 12 lessons with driving instructor not get the permission to drive unaccompanied. I completely accept that a person who sits next to a driver cannot control the car. The arguments that learners should have a full licensed driver accompanying them is therefore ridiculous. Also 12 lessons qualify you for a driving test which if you pass makes you legally qualified to drive alone. So why can't people who complete these 12 classes not have the right to practice their driving and drive on the road ?

Someone could do 12 lessons and still be an absolutely shíte driver with no real clue how to drive. I can hand on heart say that after my first 12 lessons I was in no way ready to drive alone. The system is totally imperfect though and if there was a better way to create stages of accomplishment with increasing driving rights I'd be in favour. Getting 90% on a short multiple choice test shouldn't qualify anyone to drive on nearly any road with any random driver with a license of over 2 years. The first day you get your permit you can legally be hurtling up the N7 in a camper van with no rear view and 6 children as long as your granny who got a license 40 years ago hasn't driven since the 80s, is sitting beside you. It's actually kind of bonkers.

maddy1026

iguana wrote: »

maddy1026 wrote: »

What can be done is why can't learners who cleared 12 lessons with driving instructor not get the permission to drive unaccompanied. I completely accept that a person who sits next to a driver cannot control the car. The arguments that learners should have a full licensed driver accompanying them is therefore ridiculous. Also 12 lessons qualify you for a driving test which if you pass makes you legally qualified to drive alone. So why can't people who complete these 12 classes not have the right to practice their driving and drive on the road ?

Someone could do 12 lessons and still be an absolutely shíte driver with no real clue how to drive. I can hand on heart say that after my first 12 lessons I was in no way ready to drive alone. The system is totally imperfect though and if there was a better way to create stages of accomplishment with increasing driving rights I'd be in favour. Getting 90% on a short multiple choice test shouldn't qualify anyone to drive on nearly any road with any random driver with a license of over 2 years. The first day you get your permit you can legally be hurtling up the N7 in a camper van with no rear view and 6 children as long as your granny who got a license 40 years ago hasn't driven since the 80s, is sitting beside you. It's actually kind of bonkers.

Totally agree with you that a multiple choice question is no indicator for getting to drive on the road. But instructors do say you are qualified to pass but the testers don't seem to agree. Total disconnect and a money making scheme if that's the case. Most people who go to give the test do so only after they do multiple mock tests and their instructors give them the green light.