Driving test and regulations - bull?

Bobtheman

We seem to be adding to the regulations all the time for learner drivers but is there any real evidence this has made us a nation of better drivers ?
I have a full license but I was able to drive all over the place on a provisional. New learner drivers can't do that.
I'm at a loss to know why they should always be accompanied. Even around local roads.
Can't their instructor give them a basic competency test that allows them to drive locally?
We have thousands of people who now cant get a test bit can't drive to work ??
Most drivers would fail their test if given it again a few years later so the whole thing is farcical.

blackbox

Bobtheman wrote: »

We seem to be adding to the regulations all the time for learner drivers but is there any real evidence this has made us a nation of better drivers ?
I have a full license but I was able to drive all over the place on a provisional. New learner drivers can't do that.
I'm at a loss to know why they should always be accompanied. Even around local roads.
Can't their instructor give them a basic competency test that allows them to drive locally?
We have thousands of people who now cant get a test bit can't drive to work ??
Most drivers would fail their test if given it again a few years later so the whole thing is farcical.

Do you include yourself in "most driver's"?

If so, you can get lessons.

Hotblack Desiato

Because they're not qualified to drive, and unaccompanied learners are significantly over-represented in serious/fatal accidents.

Gatling

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Because they're not qualified to drive, and unaccompanied learners are significantly over-represented in serious/fatal accidents.

Out if 300 + deaths on Irish roads over the last three years 47 involved learner driver's

The majority of road deaths don't involve learner driver's about 12 per year out of something like 150 deaths

Hotblack Desiato

Gatling wrote: »

Out if 300 + deaths on Irish roads over the last three years 47 involved learner driver's

Yes which is shocking given the small proportion of learners vs. everyone else.

Bobtheman

blackbox wrote: »

Do you include yourself in "most driver's"?

If so, you can get lessons.

Hilarious. Your family must miss you desperately when you are online

Bobtheman

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes which is shocking given the small proportion of learners vs. everyone else.

How many learner drivers do we have ?

Bobtheman

I'm not arguing for total access to the roads just around their local area. I stand over my comments that most people would fail their test if given it again a few years later. Anybody on the roads regularly can see it.

Bobtheman

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes which is shocking given the small proportion of learners vs. everyone else.

Do you have proof of that statistic ?

Darc19

Back in 1986 insurance for a new driver was over £2,000.

To give you an idea, a 3 bed semi in goaststown cost £36950 back then and a td's salary was £16,000.

A decent job paid £12,000.


But you could be taught by anyone, and have scant knowledge of the rules of the road and still pass if you were lucky.


These days a new driver will find insurance for a similar price, but everything else has soared 10 fold+.

So I think it has made a difference along with many other improvements including car safety and better roads.

Bobtheman

Darc19 wrote: »

Back in 1986 insurance for a new driver was over £2,000.

To give you an idea, a 3 bed semi in goaststown cost £36950 back then and a td's salary was £16,000.

A decent job paid £12,000.


But you could be taught by anyone, and have scant knowledge of the rules of the road and still pass if you were lucky.


These days a new driver will find insurance for a similar price, but everything else has soared 10 fold+.

So I think it has made a difference along with many other improvements including car safety and better roads.

I really don't buy your argument. The insurance industry has continually been found to be ripping off people. If the price has come down I'd say it's due to competition. You offer no proof of that figure

Dravokivich

Bobtheman wrote: »

I'm not arguing for total access to the roads just around their local area. I stand over my comments that most people would fail their test if given it again a few years later. Anybody on the roads regularly can see it.

Passing the test gives a certificate of competency, not a licence. This shouldn't be pushed onto instructors. Who would be able to regulate "regional competency" and what would you do to set and enforce "local area."

What issue do you actually have with the system now? Is it just people who haven't passed a test or obtained a licence cant drive alone? Why do you think they should?

Bobtheman

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/learner-drivers-unaccompanied-3893515-Mar2018/%3famp=1

Bobtheman

The above shows that learner drivers less involved in accidents. Now you could argue that's because of new measures but there really is no conclusive case.
Bottom line is the government wants extra revenue and another bloody quango is making life miserable for people with extraneous regulation.

Bobtheman

Dravokivich wrote: »

Passing the test gives a certificate of competency, not a licence. This shouldn't be pushed onto instructors. Who would be able to regulate "regional competency" and what would you do to set and enforce "local area."

What issue do you actually have with the system now? Is it just people who haven't passed a test or obtained a licence cant drive alone? Why do you think they should?

The test itself is total bull****. Nobody drives like that day to day. Thus give learner drivers some flexibility. A few miles around their home so they can practice without dragging out another driver. I'd gladly pick ten random drivers to do the test again. If they fail does that mean they should stop driving ? Even if they were crash free since getting their test ??

Witcher

How many times did you fail the test OP?

As I've said before here, it's always the failures that have the great new ideas about how it all should be done.

Dravokivich

Bobtheman wrote: »

The above shows that learner drivers less involved in accidents. Now you could argue that's because of new measures but there really is no conclusive case.
Bottom line is the government wants extra revenue and another bloody quango is making life miserable for people with extraneous regulation.

You're bottom line is wrong. While there are issues with how the RSA does things, the system in place for the driving test isn't amongst them.

Your issue with other drivers is a lack of enforcement of proper driving. Any other country and they'll be left walking home.

Dravokivich

Bobtheman wrote: »

The test itself is total bull****. Nobody drives like that day to day. Thus give learner drivers some flexibility. A few miles around their home so they can practice without dragging out another driver. I'd gladly pick ten random drivers to do the test again. If they fail does that mean they should stop driving ? Even if they were crash free since getting their test ??

The lady who ran a red light and crashed into me, had been driving 30 years without an accident. Whether or not they'll pass a test again has no bearing on that. There's even people out there who don't have a licence who haven't crashed. Is that your basis for this argument though? If so, it feels like you don't understand why there is a driving test and your agnst towards poor quality of others driving is misplaced.

Darc19

Bobtheman wrote: »

I really don't buy your argument. The insurance industry has continually been found to be ripping off people. If the price has come down I'd say it's due to competition. You offer no proof of that figure

I paid £2152 in 1986 for insurance on a Datsun cherry with pmpa.

I got it down to £1311 the following year with an insurer called Ansvar where I had to sign a document witnessed by a solicitor that I would not take any alcohol during the term of the insurance.

Driving standards were insanely bad back then.

And there was a lot more insurers about too.

Bobtheman

Darc19 wrote: »

I paid £2152 in 1986 for insurance on a Datsun cherry with pmpa.

I got it down to £1311 the following year with an insurer called Ansvar where I had to sign a document witnessed by a solicitor that I would not take any alcohol during the term of the insurance.

Driving standards were insanely bad back then.

And there was a lot more insurers about too.

But you'd be foolish to think it's down to safer driving. No proof of that. Insurance companies poorly regulated. The last few years they have been rebuilding their balance sheets after the property collapse. Nothing to do with safer driving. They have been spinning bull**** about claims rising without any substance

Bobtheman

Dravokivich wrote: »

The lady who ran a red light and crashed into me, had been driving 30 years without an accident. Whether or not they'll pass a test again has no bearing on that. There's even people out there who don't have a licence who haven't crashed. Is that your basis for this argument though? If so, it feels like you don't understand why there is a driving test and your agnst towards poor quality of others driving is misplaced.

But the driving test is no real proof of anything. It's money making racket driven by a self serving quango the RSA

Bobtheman

Witcher wrote: »

How many times did you fail the test OP?

As I've said before here, it's always the failures that have the great new ideas about how it all should be done.

I'm not sure if your argument is valid. My point is the driving test is not really proof you are safe to drive . But they add more and more to it each few years. They are hoping we will all become safer but no proof of that.
The roads are better. Much better . Cars are probably safer. There has been a push against drink driving though some evidence it's rising again.
The self serving RSA quango spews more nanny state bull**** without much evidence- if any.

Bobtheman

I passed my test on the second go.

Darc19

Bobtheman wrote: »

But you'd be foolish to think it's down to safer driving. No proof of that. Insurance companies poorly regulated. The last few years they have been rebuilding their balance sheets after the property collapse. Nothing to do with safer driving. They have been spinning bull**** about claims rising without any substance

May I suggest that you visit any circuit Court and sit in on some of the "whiplash" claims cases.

BTW, my insurance this year is €392 fully comp on a decent car with business use, but I have 32 years claim free driving.

My wife is paying €335 with 16 years claim free driving. Again fully comp and decent car. (she was a late starter)

Basically prove yourself to be safe driver and the insurance drops dramatically.

And the testing regime is all part of that.

Darc19

Bobtheman wrote: »

I'm not sure if your argument is valid. My point is the driving test is not really proof you are safe to drive . But they add more and more to it each few years. They are hoping we will all become safer but no proof of that.
The roads are better. Much better . Cars are probably safer. There has been a push against drink driving though some evidence it's rising again.
The self serving RSA quango spews more nanny state bull**** without much evidence- if any.

Cars and roads are safer. But cars are much faster and the number of cars on the road is multiples of those on the roads 30 years ago, yet accident rates, injuries (the biggest cost to insurance) and death continues to fall.

And even though it's high, insurance for new drivers is way down on what it was even a few years ago.

Now you could harp on with the tabloid stuff about insurance companies, but it never adds up no matter how much it is delved into.

galwaytt

Darc19 wrote: »

May I suggest that you visit any circuit Court and sit in on some of the "whiplash" claims cases.

BTW, my insurance this year is €392 fully comp on a decent car with business use, but I have 32 years claim free driving.

My wife is paying €335 with 16 years claim free driving. Again fully comp and decent car. (she was a late starter)

Basically prove yourself to be safe driver and the insurance drops dramatically.

And the testing regime is all part of that.

Sorry but no. Its got sfa to do with driving record as far as I can see.

53, 33yrs licence, full NCB, RoSPA Gold Advanced Qualification, 2400 miles last year and 123.ie wanted €2500..... cos the car is 06 (1.2 Clio).

I see no evidence of any actuarial work to justify that kind of quote.

Bobtheman

Darc19 wrote: »

Cars and roads are safer. But cars are much faster and the number of cars on the road is multiples of those on the roads 30 years ago, yet accident rates, injuries (the biggest cost to insurance) and death continues to fall.

And even though it's high, insurance for new drivers is way down on what it was even a few years ago.

Now you could harp on with the tabloid stuff about insurance companies, but it never adds up no matter how much it is delved into.

If you make one claim they screw you next few years. There has been lots of stories about high motor insurance so simply quoting one instance of a reasonable fee is simplistic drivel.

Bobtheman

Dravokivich wrote: »

You're bottom line is wrong. While there are issues with how the RSA does things, the system in place for the driving test isn't amongst them.

Your issue with other drivers is a lack of enforcement of proper driving. Any other country and they'll be left walking home.

Really? What other countries are more effective? Effective at screwing their public for revenue?

Bobtheman

https://www.thejournal.ie/car-insurance-ireland-cost-statistics-4935338-Dec2019/

Bobtheman

RSA is just another part of the revenue raising arm of the state. Doesn't do much for actual road safety.
The insurance industry is allowed ride the public bare back and our political class are still forming committees to look into it??
Meanwhile you have posters here who think one case of low insurance means it's cheap all round
Like your auntie nora who lived to be 86 but smoked 30 a day. Thus smoking is safe ??!

mikeecho

Bobtheman wrote: »

How many learner drivers do we have ?

That's not a clear cut stat

I have a full licence for A, B, C, D.
But I've a learners permit for E+C.
So that puts me into the learner category, even though I've a full licence for everything else.

Just like, lots of car drivers, have a full B , but tip around on a motorbike on a learners permit.

Rubberchikken

Doing the 22 lessons and passing the test doesn't mean a person is a good even competent driver. To me it means they were lucky that one time to pass whatever is set out as steps to pass on a particular day/time.

Being a good driver involves many hours of practice and the ability to follow the rules of the road.

Driving every day shows me people who shouldn't be left near a car never mind driving it. And that's not just the learners.

People

Darc19

Bobtheman wrote: »

If you make one claim they screw you next few years. There has been lots of stories about high motor insurance so simply quoting one instance of a reasonable fee is simplistic drivel.

I have 16 colleagues. Not one is paying over €1100 and they range in age from 21 to 40. All have full license.

Over on the insurance thread you will see hundreds of examples of reasonable insurance.


Seems you have a bee in the bonnet over something and want to blame someone for it, whatever it is.

Hotblack Desiato

Bobtheman wrote: »

But the driving test is no real proof of anything.

It's proof that you are capable of passing the test, and demonstrated that ability on the day.

I passed my car test first time, and my motorcycle test first time. It's not that hard, for people who are diligent.

Would you be happy for anyone to call themselves a doctor with no testing? How about a commercial airline pilot?

Del2005

Bobtheman wrote: »

We seem to be adding to the regulations all the time for learner drivers but is there any real evidence this has made us a nation of better drivers ?
I have a full license but I was able to drive all over the place on a provisional. New learner drivers can't do that.

If you'd read the law at the time you where only allowed to drive unaccompanied on your 2nd provisional licence, your 1st and 3rd on you needed to be accompanied.

Bobtheman wrote: »

I'm at a loss to know why they should always be accompanied. Even around local roads.Can't their instructor give them a basic competency test that allows them to drive locally?
We have thousands of people who now cant get a test bit can't drive to work ??
Most drivers would fail their test if given it again a few years later so the whole thing is farcical.

We've independent people to see if they have a basic competency to drive unaccompanied, they are employed by the RSA. Have a look at our old DOE test for commercial vehicles, and the UK MOT, if you want to know why they don't let the person getting paid to do something test the same thing.

galwaytt wrote: »

Sorry but no. Its got sfa to do with driving record as far as I can see.

53, 33yrs licence, full NCB, RoSPA Gold Advanced Qualification, 2400 miles last year and 123.ie wanted €2500..... cos the car is 06 (1.2 Clio).

I see no evidence of any actuarial work to justify that kind of quote.

That's a PFO quote and I get loads of them when I'm renewing my policy, they don't want your business. Was that for TPO?

biko

Follow the rules