Car owners & learner drivers

Graham wrote: »

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.

I do think its unnecessary. Enforce the existing law. Tackle speeding first. Will I name people killed by speeding same as you did with learner drivers to make my point?

I'd like to see snipers posted along the M50 to take out drivers meandering along in the right lane and blocking cars that need to progress.

Helicopters carrying giant magnets to pick up same and relocate to Irish Sea.

What was the whole point of the 12 lessons anyway? The driver theory test? The 12 lessons was introduced as mandatory lessons for learner drivers and is sufficient to give learners the rules of the road.

If you are an RSA approved instructor then with that should come the responsibility to sign off so to speak on your students. If you have completed 12 lessons with such an instructor then you are no longer a 'learner' driver so to speak. You should automatically become a novice.

The instructor has the ultimate authority to sign off on your capability to drive a care using the rules of the road, competently, safely and with common sense. If they don't sign you off then it's more lessons for you until you become competent.

Once you complete the 12, then the driving test ought to be a formality, but having done them (plural!), they themselves are ridiculously and unnecessarily stringent. One mistake and you're INCOMPETENT and then you have to wait another 3 or 4 months if you're lucky to go through that nonsense again.

Accidents and road deaths will continue to happen. Be they caused by learner drivers or experienced drivers.
If you are currently still in the process of doing the lessons then the new legislation makes sense. It would take 3 months to complete lessons at one per week and it makes sense to prevent learners from driving alone during that period but when you complete then you get a cert of competency from the RSA themselves that should no longer apply. It's frustrating enough to start driving here without this vilification of 'learner' drivers.

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!

If the proposal goes through, the owner of the car will only have action taken if they say they let the unaccompanied driver take the vehicle. If they say they didnt, then nothing will happen to them.....but it would be one other charge to level at the unaccompanied driver if the gardai wanted to.


So potentially not helping the situation at all. Mammy/Daddy have a deal(precondition of taking the car) with unaccompanied driver that if they take the car and are pulled its all on the driver...not the vehicle owner.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

According to the RSA http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/News-2016/Excessive-Speed-a-Factor-in-322-Road-Deaths-Between-2008-and-2012/

983 fatal collisions occurred on Irish roads between 2008 and 2012, claiming the lives of 1,077 people. The forensic details of 867 fatal collisions were analysed to identify the cause of the collision – of these, excessive speed for the road and conditions was a main contributory factor in 1 in 3 (274)

My point stands, tackle speeding first. Enforce already existing unaccompanied driver laws.

And I feel it's worth mentioning, from Conor Faughnan

"I would have a concern that that might be a difficult law to get through in a robust manner that was constitutional because you are punishing me for another adult's deeds and I just think it might be a tough one to defend against inevitable legal challenge," he said.

what about say someone who has a provisional licence for 2-3 years are they have to be accompanied by a fully licenced driver at all times

valoren wrote: »

What was the whole point of the 12 lessons anyway? The driver theory test? The 12 lessons was introduced as mandatory lessons for learner drivers and is sufficient to give learners the rules of the road.

If you are an RSA approved instructor then with that should come the responsibility to sign off so to speak on your students. If you have completed 12 lessons with such an instructor then you are no longer a 'learner' driver so to speak. You should automatically become a novice.

The instructor has the ultimate authority to sign off on your capability to drive a care using the rules of the road, competently, safely and with common sense. If they don't sign you off then it's more lessons for you until you become competent.

Once you complete the 12, then the driving test ought to be a formality, but having done them (plural!), they themselves are ridiculously and unnecessarily stringent. One mistake and you're INCOMPETENT and then you have to wait another 3 or 4 months if you're lucky to go through that nonsense again.

Accidents and road deaths will continue to happen. Be they caused by learner drivers or experienced drivers.
If you are currently still in the process of doing the lessons then the new legislation makes sense. It would take 3 months to complete lessons at one per week and it makes sense to prevent learners from driving alone during that period but when you complete then you get a cert of competency from the RSA themselves that should no longer apply. It's frustrating enough to start driving here without this vilification of 'learner' drivers.

Research our DOE to see how well having the same people who do the work certifying the results worked out. The MOT in the UK has similar problems and while the NCT has a few issues its the model that our Northern neighbours decided on.

The least that should be done for full licence renewal is a medical and theory test. The amount of drivers who got their eyes tested at 17 to 20 and never again and the lack of knowledge of the legislation about driving is a scandal. Then require anyone who fails the theory to resit the test and a random selection of the passes.

Business Cat wrote: »

Insurance for young drivers is expensive and always has been expensive.

Why is that do you think?

I know alot of people that paid 3000 or 4000 punts during the 90s for first time insurance.

Why should drivers nowadays get it cheaper?

In the other thread about road safety ads it states that of the people killed on Irish roads last year a disproportionate number of them were aged between 16 and 25.

I'd love to see stats for how many of them held learner permits though I don't think that's ever been documented.

No one will ever get a custodial sentence for this, car seized also unlikely seeing as they can't even be bothered doing this for motor tax, so with a fine of up to 2 grand, its still worth the risk

pointless

You must have rich friends if they were dropping roughly 6000 euros or more on Insurance (well daddy was), they were few and far between

JMNolan wrote: »

I do think its unnecessary. Enforce the existing law. Tackle speeding first. Will I name people killed by speeding same as you did with learner drivers to make my point?

I just don't get your point.

Nobody is suggesting don't enforce other laws.

There are drivers on the roads that have not proved themselves safe to be there. This is an attempt to address that.

Pointing at others and saying 'what about them' isn't a remotely compelling argument against enforcement.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Right I'm probably being really stupid here but those stats aren't really making sense to me. 1141 drivers were involved in crashes, 99 were learners and only 12 were unaccompanied? so what about the other 1042? What licence did they hold?

Also - 2442 serious collisions and 194 included unaccompanied learner drivers? what about the rest of those serious collisions, what did they involve?

I've my full licence but it's a bit mad how this has turned into a witch hunt for learner drivers, they have to fork out multiple thousands for insurance, then fork out a couple of hundred quid just to have lessons (which have to be completed).

Instead of one man holding a vendetta against learner drivers over an absolute tragic event, why isn't more thought given to restructuring the driving educational/testing system in Ireland overall? Our driving system and structure does not make sense as a whole, there's no driving on a motorway, so you'll get people who will pass their test and have no idea how to drive on a motorway? Pointless.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Instead of one man holding a vendetta against learner drivers over an absolute tragic event, why isn't more thought given to restructuring the driving educational/testing system in Ireland overall? Our driving system and structure does not make sense as a whole, there's no driving on a motorway, so you'll get people who will pass their test and have no idea how to drive on a motorway? Pointless.

None of that sounds like justification for allowing unqualified drivers on the road.

As for the vendetta comment, I can only assume you hadn't thought that through fully.

11 of the 13 L plate drivers that have died were unaccompanied. I'm wondering how many died in the early hours of a weekend? Many young drivers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They may as well get the parents to ferry them around as sit in the passenger seat beside them. One chap I worked with drove to and from work on an L plate. Due to work hours it was simply impractical for him to have a full license holder with him in the car.
He's not a risky driver,not the best driver but never takes chances on the road like many lads his age do. He gets lumped in with them even though he doesn't spend his weekends burning the tyres off the car at every crossroads in the county.
Yes people should be at a certain standard to drive but in a rural setting where simply getting from A to B requires a vehicle then we have a problem.
I have sympathy for Mr. Clancy but that crash could just have easily been caused by a pensioner travelling from bingo.

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

He's not a risky driver,not the best driver but never takes chances on the road like many lads his age do. He gets lumped in with them even though he doesn't spend his weekends burning the tyres off the car at every crossroads in the county.
Yes people should be at a certain standard to drive but in a rural setting where simply getting from A to B requires a vehicle then we have a problem.

He sounds like a great candidate to take his driving test.

Graham wrote: »

He sounds like a great candidate to take his driving test.

He passed it.