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.
Burial. wrote: » 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.
jonon9 wrote: » 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.
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.
WoollyRedHat wrote: » 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.
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!
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
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)
"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.
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.
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.
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.
WoollyRedHat wrote: » 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.
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?
Del2005 wrote: » 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.
Del2005 wrote: » 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?
Del2005 wrote: » So this is just another law that will be ignored.
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.
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.
CeilingFly wrote: » 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.
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.
Graham wrote: » He sounds like a great candidate to take his driving test.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/41daa54ab42e3f7a824c36cd0870185c.svg)
