19 years on a provisional licence.

tayto lover

blueshade wrote: »

I don't drive so maybe I'm out of touch, but I genuinely don't believe that anyone should be allowed to drive for years without passing a test. Not sitting a test is an easy way of avoiding failing. If you haven't a full licence you shouldn't be on the road. This craic of getting a car and driving regardless is insane. It's no wonder we've young lads haring around the back roads and crashing. There's too much of a culture of turning a blind eye.

Agree.
Insurance companies should insist on seeing the full licence before covering them too. No full licence - no certificate.

corks finest

blueshade wrote:

I don't drive so maybe I'm out of touch, but I genuinely don't believe that anyone should be allowed to drive for years without passing a test. Not sitting a test is an easy way of avoiding failing. If you haven't a full licence you shouldn't be on the road. This craic of getting a car and driving regardless is insane. It's no wonder we've young lads haring around the back roads and crashing. There's too much of a culture of turning a blind eye.

Correct

corks finest

tayto lover wrote:

Agree. Insurance companies should insist on seeing the full licence before covering them too. No full licence - no certificate.

Yes indeed,but the greedy bast***s won't obviously

inforfun

McGaggs wrote: »

No idea what point you're trying to make here.

The "cant drive unaccompanied"-rule is pretty much useless.
There is not enough manpower to check every car with an "L" on display with just the driver in it.

And then there are the cars with just the driver that dont have the L on display. Need to check those too in case they only have a provisional but think they can get away with driving without the L.

ohnonotgmail

inforfun wrote: »

The "cant drive unaccompanied"-rule is pretty much useless.
There is not enough manpower to check every car with an "L" on display with just the driver in it.

And then there are the cars with just the driver that dont have the L on display. Need to check those too in case they only have a provisional but think they can get away with driving without the L.

using that logic we should do away with speed limits. there just isnt enough manpower to check that every car isn't speeding.

inforfun

No, not really.
Every heard of speed camera's?

Dont think a system like that exists for checking what piece of paper someone is carrying on him or her, is there?

So i reckon that chances you ll be caught for doing a bit of speeding are higher than being caught for doing a bit of "i dont have a real driver's license"

ohnonotgmail

inforfun wrote: »

No, not really.
Every heard of speed camera's?

Dont think a system like that exists for checking what piece of paper someone is carrying on him or her, is there?

So i reckon that chances you ll be caught for doing a bit of speeding are higher than being caught for doing a bit of "i dont have a real driver's license"

even with speed cameras we still only catch a tiny percentage of people who speed so what is the point?

Charles Babbage

inforfun wrote: »

The "cant drive unaccompanied"-rule is pretty much useless.
There is not enough manpower to check every car with an "L" on display with just the driver in it.

And then there are the cars with just the driver that dont have the L on display. Need to check those too in case they only have a provisional but think they can get away with driving without the L.

Firstly, they should introduce a fine for anyone displaying an L plate who is not a learner, so that anyone displaying one wih one driver in the car could be checked.
They could identify all vehicles insured for L drivers and check them from time to time.



Can't is not the same as couldn't be arsed.

Eggs For Dinner

corks finest wrote: »

Yes indeed,but the greedy bast***s won't obviously

Nothing to do with insurers. If you are legally allowed drive on a learners permit, insurers have to comply. Take your gripe up with Shane Ross

creedp

hognef wrote: »

Anybody with a class B licence can legally tow a trailer.

Sorry for not being specific enough .. I meant a double horsebox

Dr. Bre

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Firstly, they should introduce a fine for anyone displaying an L plate who is not a learner, so that anyone displaying one wih one driver in the car could be checked.
They could identify all vehicles insured for L drivers and check them from time to time.



Can't is not the same as couldn't be arsed.

More fines . Great..

fritzelly

When seizing cars off learner drivers instead of giving the car back to the learner driver when they pay the impound fees (and go about doing the exact same thing again) they should sell the cars off and give the money to the MIB
Make a lot of people have second thoughts about spending thousands on a brand new car to drive the kids to school when they don't even have a full licence but of the mindset you can't expect them to walk 10 minutes.

Charles Babbage

Dr. Bre wrote: »

More fines . Great..

Easily avoided fines.

ednwireland

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Firstly, they should introduce a fine for anyone displaying an L plate who is not a learner, so that anyone displaying one wih one driver in the car could be checked.
They could identify all vehicles insured for L drivers and check them from time to time.



Can't is not the same as couldn't be arsed.

considering the problem is not enforcing the learner permit laws how will this make any difference more laws that will be unenforced