19 years on a provisional licence.

Cork Trucker

McGaggs wrote: »

Gardaí should be stopping every car with an L plate and no passenger.

Since the Clancy Amendment came into law there are now less and less cars on the road with L plates. In saying that, i drive a car with an L plate alot of the time but it's my wife's, i'm doing nothing illegal though so if i were pulled over it;d be wasting time, putting up and taking down the L plates regularly is not something i fancy as they are needed everyday, the cling on plates have blown off previously.

aido79

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Since the Clancy Amendment came into law there are now less and less cars on the road with L plates. In saying that, i drive a car with an L plate alot of the time but it's my wife's, i'm doing nothing illegal though so if i were pulled over it;d be wasting time, putting up and taking down the L plates regularly is not something i fancy as they are needed everyday, the cling on plates have blown off previously.

It might be a pain in the ass taking them down every time you drive but displaying them while you are driving defeats the purpose of having them on your car or any other car They are supposed to show that a learner driver is driving no that an experienced driver is driving the car.

punisher5112

aido79 wrote: »

It might be a pain in the ass taking them down every time you drive but displaying them while you are driving defeats the purpose of having them on your car or any other car They are supposed to show that a learner driver is driving no that an experienced driver is driving the car.

Exactly that mentality of ah it's too difficult is absolute bull.....

Simple get magnetic ones.
Leave responsibility with the learner and put them with their licence at the front door.

Stupid seeing cars with L or N if not the actual driver and then both at the same time....

The only cars I understand that will have permanent L are training school cars.

SCOOP 64

aido79 wrote: »

It might be a pain in the ass taking them down every time you drive but displaying them while you are driving defeats the purpose of having them on your car or any other car They are supposed to show that a learner driver is driving no that an experienced driver is driving the car.

Not that it makes any difference since my sons been learning to drive it seems for some drivers the sign of a L plate is a invitation to intimidate.

Cork Trucker

aido79 wrote: »

It might be a pain in the ass taking them down every time you drive but displaying them while you are driving defeats the purpose of having them on your car or any other car They are supposed to show that a learner driver is driving no that an experienced driver is driving the car.

The wife owns it, i have a bike.

aido79

Cork Trucker wrote: »

The wife owns it, i have a bike.

Not a good reason not to take the plates down when you drive her car.

aido79

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

Not that it makes any difference since my sons been learning to drive it seems for some drivers the sign of a L plate is a invitation to intimidate.

It's a pity there's not a plate for those type of drivers. It would be one of the most helpful things ever put on a car.

newmember2

Can a novice driver accompany a learner driver?

Rodin

I've rarely seen anything as nonsensical as an L and N plate on display simultaneously.

punisher5112

newmember? wrote: »

Can a novice driver accompany a learner driver?

Nope. Must have held a licence for 2 years or more.

fritzelly

newmember? wrote: »

Can a novice driver accompany a learner driver?

Nope, 2 year minimum full licence

paleoperson

Rodin wrote: »

I've rarely seen anything as nonsensical as an L and N plate on display simultaneously.

Pedantry gone mad I suppose - the N driver must have N up and the L driver must have L up, but there's no law saying you can't have an inappropriate sign up. An Irish solution to an Irish problem.

But hey imagine expecting someone to reach forward and back and take down the inappropriate signs every time they go on a journey. Can you imagine the hardship and strain that would cause.

Atlantic Dawn

Insurance companies should refuse to cover anyone on a learner permit who hasn't passed the test in 5 years, if you can't do it in that timespan you are not fit to be on the road.

Mezzotint

I thought we had tightened up the old provisional licence mess with the new Learner Permit ?

I'd be of the opinion that if you don't book a test within the validity period of the permit, then you should have to send a very detailed explanation as to why not before you're granted a new one.

Also if someone keeps failing tests over and over, there should be a point where you have to produce a OT or applied psychology assessment about coordination, visual acuity, motor skills etc

Just allowing people to keep retrying and retrying without any assessment seems a bit pointless as a way of assessing ability to drive safely.

Dravokivich

Mezzotint wrote: »

I thought we had tightened up the old provisional licence mess with the new Learner Permit ?

I'd be of the opinion that if you don't book a test within the validity period of the permit, then you should have to send a very detailed explanation as to why not before you're granted a new one.

Also if someone keeps failing tests over and over, there should be a point where you have to produce a OT or applied psychology assessment about coordination, visual acuity, motor skills etc

Just allowing people to keep retrying and retrying without any assessment seems a bit pointless as a way of assessing ability to drive safely.

You need to write an essay for not doing the test? I've known plenty of people who just didn't get the time to do one. Not on account of the waiting for a test, but becuase they had other stuff come up. It's not the NDLS' problem that they didn't do it.

_Kaiser_

Wibbs wrote: »

Bad for the optics if they arrest a Black woman. If she were White I'd bet the farm it wouldn't have gotten this far, unless she was a member of the Travelling community. Or am I being cynical? Maybe, but I can't see any other good reason when you have someone openly admitting to breaking the law and continuing to break the law in an Irish court of law and off she toddles.

I tried reading the rest of the thread but it pissed me off too much :mad:

You're spot on though W... and people like her know it, and use it to their advantage daily - and because the rest of us have some sort of "guilt complex" (and I'm not sure why seeing as we have nothing to feel guilty for) we tolerate it and bend over for it.

Anything goes against her - it's racist! Anyone says anything about it - that's racist too!

F*ck right off. If you don't like it here, there's plenty of other countries in the world.

It's becase of entitled frausters and chancers like this woman that we all pay higher premiums and our roads are more dangerous, and yet we're so terrified of being accused of being racist that nothing is done about it.

Ridiculous, but then optics and virtue signalling are often seen as more important than laws and common sense these days.

highgiant1985

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Since the Clancy Amendment came into law there are now less and less cars on the road with L plates. In saying that, i drive a car with an L plate alot of the time but it's my wife's, i'm doing nothing illegal though so if i were pulled over it;d be wasting time, putting up and taking down the L plates regularly is not something i fancy as they are needed everyday, the cling on plates have blown off previously.

this has likely been posted previously but I just came across the article and found the numbers interesting. It gives the number of cars seized per Garda division since the Clancy amendment was introduced.

A total of:1,837 up to 11/09/2019.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/unaccompanied-learner-drivers-big-differences-in-car-seizure-rates-1.4057148

Mezzotint

Dravokivich wrote: »

You need to write an essay for not doing the test? I've known plenty of people who just didn't get the time to do one. Not on account of the waiting for a test, but becuase they had other stuff come up. It's not the NDLS' problem that they didn't do it.

If you don't turn up for university exams, or a whole variety of other things you've a lot of hassle and explaining to do to get a resit. I don't really see why people seem to have such issues getting to a test centre for 1 hour out of the typical 2,000 working hours in a year.

I'd accept maybe 2 permits, but beyond that, we need to be a lot stricter. If you can't qualify to drive within say 6 years, you should have to really be proving that you're capable of driving at all.

If you have valid reasons e.g. you were sick, you'd no access to a car, you'd some unusual family commitments etc, fair enough, but otherwise, it should be time limited.

Hoboo

Why isn't she jailed for fraud?

paleoperson

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Insurance companies should refuse to cover anyone on a learner permit who hasn't passed the test in 5 years, if you can't do it in that timespan you are not fit to be on the road.

I didn't pass it within 5 years and am a perfectly safe driver. I have never had any incidents.

It's not a fair test, it's a load of bollocks.

If the system is racist it's not helping my Irish white blonde haired freckle faced daughter who pulled out in front of a Nigerian taxi driver and they had a little tip that barely scratched his car and now he is claiming all sorts of medical ailments. She was at fault granted but the accident was tiny. Maybe she should jump up and down and claim racism?

His facebook page reveals a deep love of Jesus and adherence to Christian teachings.

Rodin

paleoperson wrote: »

I didn't pass it within 5 years and am a perfectly safe driver. I have never had any incidents.

It's not a fair test, it's a load of bollocks.

What's unfair about it?

punisher5112

paleoperson wrote: »

I didn't pass it within 5 years and am a perfectly safe driver. I have never had any incidents.

It's not a fair test, it's a load of bollocks.

Then you aren't suitable to be on the roads alone.

The test is actually way too easy.

paleoperson

Rodin wrote: »

What's unfair about it?

How about the fact that not a single person driving on the roads today as they would normally would pass? Driving normally and safely will fail you the test. Plenty of the actions you have to do for the test such as mirror, wing-mirror, turn over the shoulder is overly elaborate and less safe than if you were paying more attention to what was happening ahead. Same with using the gears to decelerate which is a carry on from cars made back in the 1950s or previous.

When I took the test first I went into it in good faith. I was advised to look in the mirrors a lot, that I knew. I had no idea about strictly keeping to speed limits, must go into lower gears gradually to slow down, must look in side mirror every time you're turning left (even if there's no bike lane), must look over the shoulder when pulling away from a curb even if you know there's no cars there, and so on.

Keeping as close to the lefthand side of the road as possible, hugging the outside of the corners as tightly as possible, can't short-cut a turn off even if there's no other car there. Not entering unexpected bus lanes when the whole place is deserted. It's really a bit of a scam.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Then you aren't suitable to be on the roads alone.

The test is actually way too easy.

Not only am I suitable, I am I bet at least 100 times safer than you on the roads.

stoneill

paleoperson wrote: »

How about the fact that not a single person driving on the roads today would pass? Driving normally and safely will fail you the test. Plenty of the actions you have to do for the test such as mirror, wing-mirror, turn over the shoulder is overly elaborate and less safe than if you were paying more attention to what was happening ahead. Same with using the gears to decelerate which is a carry on from cars made back in the 1950s or previous.

When I the test first I went into it in good faith. I was advised to look in the mirrors a lot, that I knew. I had no idea about strictly keeping to speed limits, must go into lower gears gradually to slow down, must look in side mirror every time you're turning left (even if there's no bike lane), must look over the shoulder when pulling away from a curb even if you know there's no cars there, and so on.

Keeping as close to the lefthand side of the road as possible, hugging the outside of the corners as tightly as possible, can't short-cut a turn off even if there's no other car there. Not entering unexpected bus lanes when the whole place is deserted. It's really a bit of a scam.



Not only am I suitable, I am I bet at least 100 times safer than you on the roads.

You are probably correct in saying that the way you drive on the test is different to the way that you would drive in real world traffic.
But isn't that what the 12 x 1 hour driving lessons are for? Prepare you to drive for the test?

inforfun

paleoperson wrote: »

Not only am I suitable, I am I bet at least 100 times safer than you on the roads.

Statements like that make me doubt you are even old enough to drive.


System here is ridiculous. There shouldnt even be a thing called "L" driver.
You take lessons, and when your instructor thinks you are up for it, you do a practical exam and if you pass you have a license to drive.

The roads would be a lot quieter if the Finnish system would be introduced here.

seagull

paleoperson wrote: »

How about the fact that not a single person driving on the roads today as they would normally would pass? Driving normally and safely will fail you the test. Plenty of the actions you have to do for the test such as mirror, wing-mirror, turn over the shoulder is overly elaborate and less safe than if you were paying more attention to what was happening ahead. Same with using the gears to decelerate which is a carry on from cars made back in the 1950s or previous.

When I took the test first I went into it in good faith. I was advised to look in the mirrors a lot, that I knew. I had no idea about strictly keeping to speed limits, must go into lower gears gradually to slow down, must look in side mirror every time you're turning left (even if there's no bike lane), must look over the shoulder when pulling away from a curb even if you know there's no cars there, and so on.

Keeping as close to the lefthand side of the road as possible, hugging the outside of the corners as tightly as possible, can't short-cut a turn off even if there's no other car there. Not entering unexpected bus lanes when the whole place is deserted. It's really a bit of a scam.



Not only am I suitable, I am I bet at least 100 times safer than you on the roads.

Please tell me this post isn't serious. You're describing how I was taught to drive, and it's not that difficult to do. Blind spot checks should be automatic before any manoeuvre. Strangely enough, you're also expected to obey normal traffic laws during the test.

Rodin

paleoperson wrote: »

How about the fact that not a single person driving on the roads today as they would normally would pass? Driving normally and safely will fail you the test. Plenty of the actions you have to do for the test such as mirror, wing-mirror, turn over the shoulder is overly elaborate and less safe than if you were paying more attention to what was happening ahead. Same with using the gears to decelerate which is a carry on from cars made back in the 1950s or previous.

When I took the test first I went into it in good faith. I was advised to look in the mirrors a lot, that I knew. I had no idea about strictly keeping to speed limits, must go into lower gears gradually to slow down, must look in side mirror every time you're turning left (even if there's no bike lane), must look over the shoulder when pulling away from a curb even if you know there's no cars there, and so on.

Keeping as close to the lefthand side of the road as possible, hugging the outside of the corners as tightly as possible, can't short-cut a turn off even if there's no other car there. Not entering unexpected bus lanes when the whole place is deserted. It's really a bit of a scam.



Not only am I suitable, I am I bet at least 100 times safer than you on the roads.

I can assure you that using downshifting of gears to decelerate is very useful when needing to stop quickly.

paleoperson

stoneill wrote: »

You are probably correct in saying that the way you drive on the test is different to the way that you would drive in real world traffic.
But isn't that what the 12 x 1 hour driving lessons are for? Prepare you to drive for the test?

This was long before that was implemented. My dad showed me how to drive.

He never took the test himself because there was no test at that time. He was driving for over 50 years without incident that I know of. In his opinion I was a really safe driver.

inforfun wrote: »

Statements like that make me doubt you are even old enough to drive.

You can doubt what you want. I never attempt risky manouvres, never speed in a dangerous way, always look out for danger and have plenty of years experience.

Given his lack of perspective in that he thinks that the test is in any way fair and his total lack of understanding of road safety I think it's a fair opinion.

seagull wrote: »

Please tell me this post isn't serious. You're describing how I was taught to drive, and it's not that difficult to do. Blind spot checks should be automatic before any manoeuvre. Strangely enough, you're also expected to obey normal traffic laws during the test.

Not if you know 100% there is no car there. When you are older you may get a lack of mobility in the neck area making it much harder to turn around. It will pay to have better awareness at that time rather than turning every time which I know you do not do.

Wibbs

paleoperson wrote: »

Same with using the gears to decelerate which is a carry on from cars made back in the 1950s or previous.

Though it does demonstrate gear/clutch/shifting control, that part I would agree with you. The oul feeding the wheel was also originally based on large diameter steering wheels and no power assistance. IIRC the driving test itself was originally based on the UK driving course/test for British police in the 1960's and we just copied the British example?

Not only am I suitable, I am I bet at least 100 times safer than you on the roads.

Yeah, this part lets you down to say the least. OK, yes the driving test contains a fair amount of non Real World(tm) type driving and behaviours, but it was always thus and someone with any sort of affinity for and practice with driving could tailor their "normal" driving to the specific requirements of the test and should easily be able to pass it after five years of lessons, driving and tests.

I passed the test way back in 1985(IIRC the licence was written in ogham. On wood ) when it was less involved than today. Could I pass it today? I'd be shocked if I couldn't with a lesson and an evening of study to get me up to speed with current test requirements. And that's no particular boast on my part. I'm certainly no Fangio and run outa skills in a pedal car, but I can competently get from A to B and can physically drive a car as second nature and would tailor that to the test.

I would certainly agree with previous folks who suggest a time limit and/or a number of tests taken limit. And on the above point I would be in favour of a retest after say twenty years and every ten past 50 years of age.