An email I've sent off to the RSA. I'll pop up the response when I get it

Crock Rock

My E-Mail to the RSA wrote:

Hi,

I am writing to you to get clarification on the "National Slow Down Days" and the "It's a limit not a target" mantra by the RSA.

What exactly is meant by National Slow Down day? Is this telling people who are exceeding the speed limit to slow down or is it telling people to slow down regardless of whether they are breaking the speed limit?

If the answer to the question is the latter, where everyone is encouraged to slow down regardless of whether they are exceeding the speed limit or not, how would that work in a driving test scenario?
In my opinion, the RSA is contradicting themselves, because I know well that candidates will receive a Grade 2 mark for progress for not driving at the speed limit when there is no reason not to. Could you please clarify this for me?

My second question is in relation to the encouragement of motorists to drive at reduced speeds in housing estates even though the default speed limit is 50 km/h. Driving at 50 km/h will result in bumping over the ramps thus resulting in the candidate being marked for "reaction to hazards", however, maintaining a speed of 20-30 km/h which in housing estates which is encouraged by the RSA will also result in the candidate being marked for progress, furthermore, speeding up and slowing down because of ramps flies in the face of eco driving, again, eco driving is enouraged by the RSA.

I would be eternally grateful if you could clarify the above points for me,
Mise le meas,

Cormac.

Before anyone accuses me of sour grapes, because I know you are gagging to do it. I passed B first time, D second time recently and I am going for C soon. :cool:

The internet seems to be full of people to make a point and prove people wrong:

SO I hope I'm covering all angles:

• I've never been banned from driving.
• I've never gotten penalty points.
• I'm not disputing penalty points.
• Speeding is wrong.
• Joy riding is wrong.
• I am not sour grapes after failing a test.
• I have passed two categories and I am going for a third.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Really??? You need to ask what the whole thing is about???

Just because you asked...it’s to ask people who drive over the speed limit to slow down and drive within the limit.

Things are bad when you have to explain such simple things to people.

Crock Rock

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Really??? You need to ask what the whole thing is about???

Just because you asked...it’s to ask people who drive over the speed limit to slow down and drive within the limit.

Things are bad when you have to explain such simple things to people.

Please read the OP and get back to me. There's a lot more to it than that.
Atta boy. xxx

Crock Rock

Crock Rock wrote: »

Please read the OP and get back to me. There's a lot more to it than that.
Atta boy. xxx

So what you’re saying is that you’re a pedantic, disagreeable driver, spoiling for an argument with someone and that you failed your bus license on your first attempt.

Good lad. Hope it a works out for you. I passed three categories on my first attempt and understood the RSA’s campaign intent clearly. Neither are difficult if you pay attention and invest a little effort.

I guess that means I win.

Seweryn

Good question.

The thing that I don't get is that they call them ... days. What do RSA suggest people do after these days? Go back to their habits?

Crock Rock

JayZeus wrote: »

So what you’re saying is that you’re a pedantic, disagreeable driver, spoiling for an argument with someone and that you failed your bus license on your first attempt.

Good lad. Hope it a works out for you. I passed three categories on my first attempt and understood the RSA’s campaign intent clearly. Neither are difficult if you pay attention and invest a little effort.

I guess that means I win.

Where did I say I was lamenting my first failed attempt?
It's clearly written in the OP.
It's gas. A friend of mine is doing her thesis on this very topic. She's a whiz kid. She's a psychology student doing research into people having to find any excuse to pick people apart online. I'll be delighted to read her work when it's published. (When, not if )

Can one of you solve my speed ramp problem btw?

Do you
(A) Continue at 50 km/h and thud over the ramps and be marked for reaction to hazards?
(B) Crawl at 20 km/h (as recommended by the RSA) and get marked for progress?
(C) Speed up and slow down continuously, thus increasing emissions, and not practicing eco-driving as encouraged by the RSA?

Perhaps the rca are not targeting people doing their driving test?
Perhaps they are targeting normal everyday drivers.
It's not difficult to understand. Being tested to prove you can drive a certain way does not mean you have to drive like that!
Seriously, reversing around a corner? Tested in the driving test, you are never actually going to do this in real life.

Crock Rock

bubblypop wrote: »

Perhaps the rca are not targeting people doing their driving test?
Perhaps they are targeting normal everyday drivers.
It's not difficult to understand. Being tested to prove you can drive a certain way does not mean you have to drive like that!
Seriously, reversing around a corner? Tested in the driving test, you are never actually going to do this in real life.

That's something I've wondered as well.

In fact, I'm not sure that you're even allowed to reverse from a minor to a major road like that.

When I did my bus test I used a special reversing bay to do the reverse around the corner, I'm doing that too for lorry with the driving school.

2Mad2BeMad

bubblypop wrote: »

Perhaps the rca are not targeting people doing their driving test?
Perhaps they are targeting normal everyday drivers.
It's not difficult to understand. Being tested to prove you can drive a certain way does not mean you have to drive like that!
Seriously, reversing around a corner? Tested in the driving test, you are never actually going to do this in real life.

Well depends, I've had to reverse round corners plenty of times.
Coming out of cul de sacs with no room in them to do a 180 so i'd reverse out.

You could also apply it to parking and reversing out.
When you reverse out of a parking spot, you obviously try not to hit either car parked beside you, well when reversing around a corner, you are not aloud to hit the pat or its a fail(i think)
so same logic really.

Crock Rock

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

Well depends, I've had to reverse round corners plenty of times.
Coming out of cul de sacs with no room in them to do a 180 so i'd reverse out.

You could also apply it to parking and reversing out.
When you reverse out of a parking spot, you obviously try not to hit either car parked beside you, well when reversing around a corner, you are not aloud to hit the pat or its a fail(i think)
so same logic really.

IMO, reversing INTO a parking space should be mandatory with penalty points given for driving in. Driving in and reversing out is more dangerous. But that's a different story.

Sorry about that

Op, well done on your driving habits. If everyone had your attitude, we wouldn't need safety campaigns.

Take a look at Jake's Legacy. You can split hairs all you like about the rationale of speed limits, but it boils down to saving lives. Maybe your energy could be put to better use than squaring up to the RSA.

kirving

Crock Rock wrote: »

IMO, reversing INTO a parking space should be mandatory with penalty points given for driving in. Driving in and reversing out is more dangerous. But that's a different story.

Depends on the scenario. I have driven into a spot in rush hour traffic, knowing that I'll be leaving at 6am the following morning.

Far safer than stopping two lanes of traffic with sometimes dozens of cyclists about.

Many cars also have 180° Field of View reversing cameras which can give a better view up and down a road than sticking the nose of the car out blindly.

Sonny noggs

I don’t really understand what is going on here. Am I the only one?

robtri

am I right in thinking that the RSA are urging people to slow down and stop speeding...
and the OP is concerned how this will effect a driving test?

IMHO do your test as appropriate and if you are not doing your test dont speed...

The Undecided One

Crock Rock wrote: »

IMO, reversing INTO a parking space should be mandatory with penalty points given for driving in. Driving in and reversing out is more dangerous. But that's a different story.

I reverse park 90% of the time but when I’m doing shopping and I have a trolley of stuff to put inot the boot I can’t reverse park as it’s impossible to get to the back of the car if there is anyone parked next to you. In this case I have to drive in and leave myself access to the boot.

Yes, it is more dangerous to have to reverse out of a parking space but beacuse of very narrow parking spaces pretty much everywhere sometimes there is no other way to park.

bazz26

If you look up some of the OP's other threads on here you will see a familiar tune. Hyperbowled drama usually followed up by some outrage, must be quiet over in After Hours.

supervento

Sorry this is off topic...

I called and emailed the RSA and the Nct head office over three months ago to tell them one if their forms is advising people incorrectly regarding a fee that’s required regarding the certificate of mutual recognition, I was disappointed to see that they have not updated the form to advise others of this.

They advise on the form a fee of €15.50 is required by bank draft or postal order, when in actual fact there is no fee. (They will return you the bank draft/postal order which you went to the bother of getting)

I could only imagine if they couldn’t respond to my email advising of this, or take action to resolve.... they most likely won’t be responding to you...

If after three months they can’t amend a mistake on a form I don’t know what Hope to have....

Sonny noggs

bazz26 wrote: »

If you look up some of the OP's other threads on here you will see a familiar tune. Hyperbowled drama usually followed up by some outrage, must be quiet over in After Hours.

Crock is right. (Crock: something considered to be complete nonsense)

delly

Dear Cormac,

I've nothing to do with the RSA, but thought I'd help them out by answering your questions in their absence.

The overall campaign is one.that looks at behaviour-based safety, focusing on the identification and modification of critical safety behaviours, a category which vehicle speed falls into. It asks all types of drivers to consider their speed, irrespective of if they are breaking the speed limit or not.

Now to take the literal meaning of the campaign and base your entire style of driving on it would be what we call here in the authority, technically anal. Hairpin bends, speed bumps and traffic lights still exist. The 30 second advertisements do not replace 10 hours of driving lessons, nor the big book that the young folk have to read before the test. A campaign is just that, to make people consider one aspect of their driving to see if they can make it safer. It may be a surprise to you, but there have been fatalities in accidents that were linked to inappropriate speeds.

We here at the office didn't think we had to go all American on our campaign, such as warning that a coffee cup has hot liquid inside, but maybe we do if you are a representative sample of our fine society. The next campaign will have a number of asterisk points to tell the people when speeding good and when speeding bad. I mean come on, no one wants Paddy pulling into his drive at 50 kmh, just because the limit is 80 kmh.

Regards
RSA
PP delly

Darc19

The op seems not to understand how to drive.

I reckon the response will be that their license will be revoked and they'll have to retake the test.

But seriously, the OP does not seem to understand "speed limits" and "speed" and that's concerning

elfy4eva

I don't really get the backlash at the OP here, seems to me he has a point to highlight the hypocrisy of the RSA encouraging drivers to go lower than the speed limit but at the same time penalising L drivers during the test for doing the same..

i wish there were a 'don't slow down to merge onto a motorway' day

quokula

elfy4eva wrote: »

I don't really get the backlash at the OP here, seems to me he has a point to highlight the hypocrisy of the RSA encouraging drivers to go lower than the speed limit but at the same time penalising L drivers during the test for doing the same..

Nothing in the driving test guidelines says that you will be penalised for going below the speed limit at any point. Lack of progress normally relates to spending too long stopped at junctions, not reacting to a green light etc, but it can be applied to travelling unreasonably slowly and impeding traffic. Which does not conflict with the advice to drive at a safe speed.

K.Flyer

bubblypop wrote: »

Seriously, reversing around a corner? Tested in the driving test, you are never actually going to do this in real life.

Probably more than you might think.
If you were in a situation where, for example, you missed your turn, or needed to travel back the way you came.
You can, depending on space available, execute a three point turn, or, reverse into a side road so that you can safely rejoin the road you were on.
I see people hopping cars up onto paths, into people's drive ways etc, that's not what you're supposed to do and is a fail in a test.
Probably easier to understand if you observe large commercial vehicles in those situations, especially bin truck reversing into cul de sacs from the arterial roads.

Dravokivich

bubblypop wrote: »

Perhaps the rca are not targeting people doing their driving test?
Perhaps they are targeting normal everyday drivers.
It's not difficult to understand. Being tested to prove you can drive a certain way does not mean you have to drive like that!
Seriously, reversing around a corner? Tested in the driving test, you are never actually going to do this in real life.

I turn while reversing every day. It doesn't need to actually be a kerb on your inside.

Dravokivich

quokula wrote: »

Nothing in the driving test guidelines says that you will be penalised for going below the speed limit at any point. Lack of progress normally relates to spending too long stopped at junctions, not reacting to a green light etc, but it can be applied to travelling unreasonably slowly and impeding traffic. Which does not conflict with the advice to drive at a safe speed.

I once got marked down on progress becuase I didn't get up to speed "quick enough". I wasnt impeding anyone and didn't lurk on any junctions.

dsmythy

Don't drive above the speed limits is the point of the slow down day. Hope that's the response.

I used to laugh at the reverse around corners myself until I found myself many times, you know, reversing around corners.....

StonedRaider

Dravokivich wrote: »

I once got marked down on progress becuase I didn't get up to speed "quick enough". I wasnt impeding anyone and didn't lurk on any junctions.

Same thing happened to 2 family members in 2011.
1 test in Westside Galway(pulling away from traffic lights and not coming up to 50kmh limit quick enough), another in Letterkenny(pulling away from junction).

Isambard

there's people over the limit who need to slow down but there's also people under the limit driving inappropriately around bends and overtaking impatiently who need to take a step back too.