Car owners & learner drivers

Liam McPoyle · 08-11-2017 11:43AM #1

Proposal being brought to cabinet today where car owners that permit learner drivers to use their vehicles unaccompanied can face sanctions including the vehicle being seized, fines of up to €2000 or a 6 month custodial sentence.

Super idea and not before time.

The amount of mammys and daddy's that are happy to take out a policy to allow Billy or Janey to get cheaper insurance is mental.

Hopefully it's not just another pie in the sky idea that ends before it begins.

Are Am Eye · 08-11-2017 11:46AM

Lock them up I say. For calling their daughter Janey.

JMNolan · 08-11-2017 11:50AM

How many people do unaccompanied learner drivers kill? Is this a really productive piece of legislation or is it something to make Shane Ross look productive?

Burial. · 08-11-2017 11:54AM

Fine move. Hopefully the next thing they bring in is full license renewal tests. Do a refresher test every ten years when your current one expires. The state of the driving by so many middle aged people is ridiculous.

RiderOnTheStorm · 08-11-2017 11:55AM

Weren't unaccompanied learner drivers always illegal regardless of whose car they are in? Why bring in a law to make something illegal when there is already a law there to prevent it... Not first time this has happened tbf.

JMNolan · 08-11-2017 11:56AM

Wish they'd do it for speeding - "vehicle being seized, fines of up to €2000 or a 6 month custodial sentence" for any amount of speeding (penalty gets higher for faster sped). How many lives would that save?

c_man · 08-11-2017 11:56AM

So why's the current law not good enough? There are severe penalties for being caught unaccompanied, maybe try and enforce that one first before adding feel-good laws?

daheff · 08-11-2017 11:57AM

its going to be another pointless and unenforced law. Will only see it where unaccompanied drivers cause an accident i reckon.

really cant see how it helps the situation. Unaccompanied drivers are already breaking the law (no insurance if not accompanied, unaccompanied..etc). Effectively what this is now trying to push in is that the driver is now also stealing the vehicle (driving somebodys car without permission).

dudara · 08-11-2017 11:58AM

I have to agree with others here. We already have laws to cover unaccompanied driving. They need to be enforced first and taken seriously

Mitch Connor · 08-11-2017 12:01PM

RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »

Weren't unaccompanied learner drivers always illegal regardless of whose car they are in? Why bring in a law to make something illegal when there is already a law there to prevent it... Not first time this has happened tbf.

Indeed - I'm not sure why the owner of the car should be punished for the transgressions of a third party.

How does it work with Tax? I know if I am driving another persons car and it is not taxed, I am liable for any penalty - in those situations is the person who owns the car also punished for the car not being taxed (or is it just the driver).

IMO, if they don't want leaners driving unaccompanied they need to enforce the current law better themselves, not put the onus on the car owner to police it for them. It creates an unfair burden on some - as not all learners will be driving a car owned by someone else (I owned the first car I drove, as did my brother when he was learning).

Are Am Eye · 08-11-2017 12:01PM

c_man wrote: »

So why's the current law not good enough? There are severe penalties for being caught unaccompanied, maybe try and enforce that one first before adding feel-good laws?

I think the idea is to threaten Mammy and Daddy with jail so they won't let janey next or near the car or insurance policy in the first place. Thats whats new.

kylith · 08-11-2017 12:03PM

I only learned to drive in the last couple of years, I'm in my 30s. I don't live with my parents. None of my friends can drive (living in Dublin, close to city centre). If I hadn't driven unaccompanied I couldn't have gotten any practise at all in without it costing me a fortune in lesson fees, especially because of this nonsense that you can't do your test until 6 months after completing your mandatory lessons. Now, I only ever drove to the park or the local shop, but there are genuine reasons why someone, especially an adult living away from home, would drive unaccompanied.

Savman · 08-11-2017 12:03PM

Gannon's are the only real beneficiary here.

omb0wyn5ehpij9 · 08-11-2017 12:03PM

daheff wrote: »

its going to be another pointless and unenforced law. Will only see it where unaccompanied drivers cause an accident i reckon.

really cant see how it helps the situation. Unaccompanied drivers are already breaking the law (no insurance if not accompanied, unaccompanied..etc). Effectively what this is now trying to push in is that the driver is now also stealing the vehicle (driving somebodys car without permission).

I can see exactly where it will help the situation! At the moment, an unaccompanied learner driver shouldn't be driving. However, they are the only person who will get fined over it. It never comes back on the owner of the car.
If this proposal goes through and the owner of the car can also have the car seized, be fined or jailed, there is a very big incentive to not let the unaccompanied driver have your car now that both of you will get fined!

Del2005 · 08-11-2017 12:05PM

RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »

Weren't unaccompanied learner drivers always illegal regardless of whose car they are in? Why bring in a law to make something illegal when there is already a law there to prevent it... Not first time this has happened tbf.

Yes they are driving without insurance so the car can already be lifted. Their permit requires a fully licenced driver to accompany them for it to be valid, without the accompanying driver they are outside the terms of the permit so not valid and therefore not insured. The innocent 3rd party will still be covered but they are covered by the MIBI if the person has no licence/permit/insurance and do people object to these people having their car lifted?

So this is just another law that will be ignored.

Graham · 08-11-2017 12:06PM

JMNolan wrote: »

How many people do unaccompanied learner drivers kill? Is this a really productive piece of legislation or is it something to make Shane Ross look productive?

What do you consider to be an acceptable number of deaths to allow unqualified drivers out on their own?

JMNolan · 08-11-2017 12:07PM

Graham wrote: »

What do you consider to be an acceptable number of deaths to allow unqualified drivers out on their own?

I've a very simple answer to this. If speeding kills more than unqualified drivers then we should address speeding first.

Wibbs · 08-11-2017 12:08PM

Far better for them to make enquiries into why insurance costs are crazy high in this country(though we know already) and proposals to lower them. Unlikely to happen though as too many snouts in the trough and with a lot of influence on government, chief among them the legal fraternity.

This is just another and all too usual politician "let's be seen to be doing something" nonsense where legislation already exists.

lawred2 · 08-11-2017 12:08PM

BDJW wrote: »

I can see exactly where it will help the situation! At the moment, an unaccompanied learner driver shouldn't be driving. However, they are the only person who will get fined over it. It never comes back on the owner of the car.
If this proposal goes through and the owner of the car can also have the car seized, be fined or jailed, there is a very big incentive to not let the unaccompanied driver have your car now that both of you will get fined!

In most cases that's exactly what would happen... most learner drivers are young drivers driving their parent's car. It is in many cases the parents who will end up paying the fine anyway.

CeilingFly · 08-11-2017 12:10PM

JMNolan wrote: »

How many people do unaccompanied learner drivers kill? Is this a really productive piece of legislation or is it something to make Shane Ross look productive?

They don't "kill" many but they have an awful lot of accidents relative to their numbers that injure people.

In many cases those people require hospitalisation, need time off work and can have long term issues.

Even with minor accidents by learners, those accidents can cause massive traffic delays and take substantial amount of time of emergency services.

There is simply no excuse whatsoever these days for unaccompnaied L drivers.

Plenty of intructors, plenty of easily followed rules and regulations and no long delays in obtaining a driving test. (average is 13 weeks)

What is disconcerting is that over 40% of tests are failed - that shows that far too many L drivers, even when they are ready for their test are poor drivers.

Burial. · 08-11-2017 12:11PM

kylith wrote: »

I only learned to drive in the last couple of years, I'm in my 30s. I don't live with my parents. None of my friends can drive (living in Dublin, close to city centre). If I hadn't driven unaccompanied I couldn't have gotten any practise at all in without it costing me a fortune in lesson fees, especially because of this nonsense that you can't do your test until 6 months after completing your mandatory lessons. Now, I only ever drove to the park or the local shop, but there are genuine reasons why someone, especially an adult living away from home, would drive unaccompanied.

You've to wait six months after your first learner permit is issued, not after the lessons. Once your lessons are done and signed off on and you're after the initial six months on the date of your permit you're free to do the test whenever. With cancellation lists, you could have done your 12th lesson and be getting a call for your test in the space of a few weeks.

Graham · 08-11-2017 12:12PM

JMNolan wrote: »

I've a very simple answer to this. If speeding kills more than unqualified drivers then we should address speeding first.

I note you avoided answering the question and deflected completely to a separate issue that I agree should also be addressed.

Probably the right thing to do to be honest.

It would be pretty difficult to justify any deaths caused by unaccompanied unqualified drivers. That's before we even look at accidents that don't kill anyone.

JMNolan · 08-11-2017 12:12PM

CeilingFly wrote: »

They don't "kill" many but they have an awful lot of accidents relative t their numbers that injure peopl.

In many cases those people require hospitalistion, need time off work and can have long term issues.

Even with minor accidents by learners, those accidents can cause massive traffic delays and take substantial amount of time of emergency services.

There is simply no excuse whatsoever these days for unaccompnaied L drivers.

Plenty of intructors, plenty of easily followed rules and regulations and no long delays in obtaining a driving test. (average is 13 weeks)

What is disconcerting is that over 40% of tests are failed - that shows that far too many L drivers, even when they are ready for their test are poor drivers.

But we don't allow unaccompanied drivers to begin with. This new "law" doesnt change that and I never advocated that we allow unaccompanied drivers (please show me where I have). My point is simple - does speeding have larger cost (money, lives, whatever your metric is) than unaccompanied drivers? Speeding is a fixed charge fine of €80, together with 3 penalty points by the way.

JMNolan · 08-11-2017 12:13PM

Graham wrote: »

I note you avoided answering the question and deflected completely to a separate issue that I agree should also be addressed.

Probably the right thing to do to be honest.

It would be pretty difficult to justify any deaths caused by unaccompanied unqualified drivers.

I believe you are confused, show me where I stated that unaccompanied drivers should be allowed.

WoollyRedHat · 08-11-2017 12:15PM

How about making people who have never previously had to get driving lessons now do so, or else suspend their license. Likewise for those who never took the driivng test.

And with guidance from the medical professional; ophthalmologists make it mandatory to retake the driving test every 5 years once past a certain age that points to eye sight decreasing.

SEPT 23 1989 · 08-11-2017 12:16PM

always the easy target

Burial. · 08-11-2017 12:16PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Far better for them to make enquiries into why insurance costs are crazy high in this country(though we know already) and proposals to lower them. Unlikely to happen though as too many snouts in the trough and with a lot of influence on government, chief among them the legal fraternity.

This is just another and all too usual politician "let's be seen to be doing something" nonsense where legislation already exists.

Surely a renewal test would sort some of this? The more that is done that ensures current drivers are still technically sound and haven't let bad habits encroach the safer the roads will be, the less likely that accidents happen and with that a fall in premium fees. I'd happily pay the €80 driving test fee again every ten years, sod it, every five years if it meant insurance fees would drop as well as knowing the roads are safer.

Graham · 08-11-2017 12:17PM

JMNolan wrote: »

I believe you are confused, show me where I stated that unaccompanied drivers should be allowed.

You asked how many people are killed by unaccompanied drivers and implied the legislation is unnecessary.

So what's your number?

What's an acceptable number of deaths before you find the changes 'productive'?

It's sobering to note that these changes are being referred to as the Clancy amendment in recognition of a campaign by Cork man Noel Clancy.

His wife, Geraldine Clancy and their daughter, Louise Ann, were drowned three days before Christmas 2015 after a collision with a learner driver in Co Cork.

jonon9 · 08-11-2017 12:19PM

Business Cat wrote: »

Proposal being brought to cabinet today where car owners that permit learner drivers to use their vehicles unaccompanied can face sanctions including the vehicle being seized, fines of up to €2000 or a 6 month custodial sentence.

Super idea and not before time.

The amount of mammys and daddy's that are happy to take out a policy to allow Billy or Janey to get cheaper insurance is mental.

Hopefully it's not just another pie in the sky idea that ends before it begins.

This part is a different matter altogether, the reason mammy and daddy do this is to help their kids to get cheaper insurance, insurance for younger drivers is daylight robbery,

Here's a novel idea any driver having a licence 10 years needs to redo their test and have it done every ten years after that p, the amount of drivers failing will be shocking.

Wibbs · 08-11-2017 12:19PM

JMNolan wrote: »

My point is simple - does speeding have larger cost (money, lives, whatever your metric is) than unaccompanied drivers? Speeding is a fixed charge fine of €80, together with 3 penalty points by the way.

Stop speeding can be a bit simplistic, though people do like simplistic. Does an increase in speed carry more risk? Of course, but it depends on where the speeding is occurring. It's higher on higher complexity roads. EG on motorways which are low complexity the risk is far lower than on high complexity roads like a suburban arterial road with more traffic, pedestrians etc. Generally speaking speed traps are on the lower complexity roads. Funny enough drivers going too slow have about the same risk as those going too fast.

WoollyRedHat · 08-11-2017 12:19PM

Burial. wrote: »

Surely a renewal test would sort some of this? The more that is done that ensures current drivers are still technically sound and haven't let bad habits encroach the safer the roads will be, the less likely that accidents happen and with that a fall in premium fees. I'd happily pay the €80 driving test fee again every ten years, sod it, every five years if it meant insurance fees would drop as well as knowing the roads are safer.

This is a good idea, a renewal test every 5 years would be welcome. Some of the money raised from this could then be reinvested in roads and infrastructure.

Car owners & learner drivers

Comments