nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

New law regarding learner drivers and alcohol

sexmag

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/drivers-now-face-an-automatic-ban-after-drinking-half-a-pint-37089825.html

Ok so straight off the bat I can agree with the alcohol part of the bill, no one should drink and drive but want annoys me is the agenda behind the learner driver part of this bill. They will have their cars confiscated is unaccompanied while driving

This stems from the Clancy family who experienced an awful tragedy with involved a learner driver unaccompanied. Since then they have been the driving force along with Shane Ross and their attack on learner drivers and using the Clancy family tragedy as their example.

However studies show that learner drivers were involved in 35 fatal road accidents in the last 4 year's, that amounts to only 5.8% of fatal accidents in 4 years.

http://www.thejournal.ie/learner-drivers-unaccompanied-3893515-Mar2018/

That means nearly 95% Of fatal accidents are caused by fully licensed or no license drivers.

The attacks on learners by rules and laws like this along side sky high insurance costs is running people off the road and it needs to stop

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wheety

sexmag wrote: »

However studies show that learner drivers were involved in 35 fatal road accidents in the last 4 year's, that amounts to only 5.8% of fatal accidents in 4 years.

http://www.thejournal.ie/learner-drivers-unaccompanied-3893515-Mar2018/

That means nearly 95% Of fatal accidents are caused by fully licensed or no license drivers.

What percentage of drivers on the road are learners? Otherwise the stat above is useless.

verycool

sexmag wrote: »

They will have their cars confiscated is unaccompanied while driving

Good!

Stheno

Wheety wrote: »

What percentage of drivers on the road are learners? Otherwise the stat above is useless.

sexmag

Wheety wrote: »

What percentage of drivers on the road are learners? Otherwise the stat above is useless.

Under 9%

RustyNut

sexmag wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/drivers-now-face-an-automatic-ban-after-drinking-half-a-pint-37089825.html

The attacks on learners by rules and laws like this along side sky high insurance costs is running people off the road and it needs to stop

"Attacks on learner drivers", would you ever cop on to yourself. Do your compulsory lessons do your 6 months and do your test. then you have shown that you meet the minimum standards to drive solo on public roads and off you go.

SEPT 23 1989

how much does it cost now before you can even ring an insurance company with your 0 experience on the road with your shiny new full licence

800/ 900 quid?

Absolute scam and nothing to do with safety

dudara

I have some sympathy because I was a learner once, as we all were.

But I agree with the current proposals. Learners are not yet qualified to drive, they have a permit to allow them to practice so that they can pass their test. Our mindset about learners needs to change.

Hector Bellend

TheChizler

Not sure how effective this will be. Is there any evidence to indicate that an accompanying driver will be useful in an emergency situation, that any of those deaths would have been prevented by the input of an experienced driver in the passenger seat? I can only see them being useful in stopping a dangerous situation from developing by pointing out something in advance. I understand in the main case driving this the learner didn't look before exiting a side road. Not sure how an accompanying driver would have prevented this unless the learner was taking instruction from them at every step. Anecdotally I haven't seen this happening outside of people being taken for explicit lessons.

I do of course think they should always be accompanied, but I'm uncomfortable with a single case being the main driving force for a (reactive IMO) law, and the effectiveness of the law is unproven I feel.

Can't say I agree with punishing one person for someone else's actions either. Say you have a law abiding parent/car owner who makes sure there's an experienced driver present when the learner sets off. Say that person gets out at some point and the learner gets caught at a checkpoint. Is the owner then faced with either reporting the car stolen or taking the heat for the driver's irresponsibility? It doesn't sit right with me from that point of view. The safest thing for the owner to do is always accompany the learner now, in which case why didn't they just make that the law?

Increase enforcement and the punishment for the driver who does the law breaking. Don't add a new law which might not be enforced and puts third parties in difficult situations.

CeilingFly

Absolutely correct and it should always have been like this.

Its the same in most countries.

As for the bs about 5.8% of fatal accidents - only the sensationalist hysterical media would use that as a headline. You'd need far deeper analysis - number of km driven and how many of them are unaccompanied unlicensed drivers.

The positive of this for genuine learner drivers is that insurance will be cheaper as the risk (assuming it is enforced) profile is diminished

sexmag

CeilingFly wrote: »

The positive of this for genuine learner drivers is that insurance will be cheaper as the risk (assuming it is enforced) profile is diminished

There's not a chance of that happening

Huntergonzo

Think our drink driving laws are too extreme, I honestly don't see the harm in having 1 or 2 pints and driving home. Now anthing more than that is unacceptable and should be banned and obviously drinking with a skinful on board is highly dangerous.

Can't really see the benefit of this new law, just enforces even harder laws on ordinary people.

[Deleted User]

Ireland does have a strange attitude towards learner drivers alright. Sure only a few years ago you could drive unaccompanied on your 2nd provisional. In most other countries you wouldn't go driving unaccompanied without a full license at all. Your car would be taken off you. It's just unheard of.

The majority of my friends/family drove unaccompanied without a full license. Many people still do. I did for the last couple of weeks before I did my test.

However, I still don't think people should do it. There are learners that are safe drivers (but yes, should just do the test to prove it!). But there are many out there driving unaccompanied that haven't a clue what they're at. Gardai just don't really enforce laws related to learner drivers. Maybe it's because they grew up with a blind eye being turned to driving unaccompanied, I dunno.

sexmag

I'm unsure what the point of having an accompanying driver with a license over 2 years will do? They aren't instructors so their expertise and advice arent professional, they can't hardly stop you from doing something that will cause a crash and even if a crash does happen their aren't liable at all.

It's pretty much a baby sitter who just sits beside you, granted there might be some advice they can give but a lot of permit holders could have actually been driving for well over 10 years and just failed a test once

CeilingFly

sexmag wrote: »

There's not a chance of that happening

I always hear that type of comment whenever a change should result in a price decrease - whether its insurance or fuel or anything else.

Funny, those who make comments rarely come back when the prices do drop

Insurance is a competitive market. Its about managing and pricing risk. If the risk drops, prices drop.

There have been changes in insurance risk in the last year or so - and prices have dropped (i'm just over €500 for business use driving - second lowest ever and driving over 30 years)

But to think that a person can get a provisional licence and simply start driving without consequences is just stupid to the extreme.

Rows Grower

CeilingFly wrote: »

I always hear that type of comment whenever a change should result in a price decrease - whether its insurance or fuel or anything else.

Funny, those who make comments rarely come back when the prices do drop

Insurance is a competitive market. Its about managing and pricing risk. If the risk drops, prices drop.

There have been changes in insurance risk in the last year or so - and prices have dropped (i'm just over €500 for business use driving - second lowest ever and driving over 30 years)

But to think that a person can get a provisional licence and simply start driving without consequences is just stupid to the extreme.

I'm a bit over 500 euro for business use, driving over 30 years, never had a conviction, accident or one single penalty point.

My insurance has increased every year since I can remember.

Rubberchikken

Imo the laws arent tough enough. The law governing learner drivers should have come into place long ago. Why did it take til now to be passed?
Any alcohol consumption and driving should be an automatic ban and a full retest after the ban is through.
Unaccompanied L driver should be removed, fined and retested.
The message that the roads are for everyone. That the rules are there to be obeyed. That arrogant pricks have to obey the law also all need to be hammered home.
Tbh i wouldnt be a L driver for love nor money on our roads today. Theyre appalling.

pickarooney

The alcohol limit is Draconian and purely for show. But learner drivers shouldn't even consider driving a car alone. It's bad enough they're allowed to own and drive a car as it is.

DeeTee100

RustyNut wrote:

"Do your compulsory lessons do your 6 months and do your test.

So after 12 hours behind the wheel with an instructor, and no other experience, someone is fully capable of passing the test?

Huntergonzo

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Imo the laws arent tough enough. The law governing learner drivers should have come into place long ago. Why did it take til now to be passed?
Any alcohol consumption and driving should be an automatic ban and a full retest after the ban is through.
Unaccompanied L driver should be removed, fined and retested.
The message that the roads are for everyone. That the rules are there to be obeyed. That arrogant pricks have to obey the law also all need to be hammered home.
Tbh i wouldnt be a L driver for love nor money on our roads today. Theyre appalling.

What about products with trace amounts of alcohol, for example would you ban someone after drinking fermented soft drinks or who's washed their mouth with mouth wash? They both contain alcohol, so.....

pickarooney

DeeTee100 wrote: »

So after 12 hours behind the wheel with an instructor, and no other experience, someone is fully capable of passing the test?

Should be 20 at least and the test is the minimum requirement to be allowed onto the road not a certification that you're a fully competent driver.

suicide_circus

how many lives have N plates saved?

Huntergonzo

suicide_circus wrote: »

how many lives have N plates saved?

None, N stands for none!

[Deleted User]

suicide_circus wrote: »

how many lives have N plates saved?

Yeah this was a pointless idea.

RustyNut

DeeTee100 wrote: »

So after 12 hours behind the wheel with an instructor, and no other experience, someone is fully capable of passing the test?

No, but they are entitled to take the test and if they pass then they are good to go, if they don't pass they most certainly shouldn't be driving unaccompanied.

sexmag

RustyNut wrote: »

No, but they are entitled to take the test and if they pass then they are good to go, if they don't pass they most certainly shouldn't be driving unaccompanied.

To be fair all the test does is show you were able to convince a tester you can drive for that test alone.
Doesn't actually mean you are a competent driver which is confirmed by the fact 85% of fatal road accidents are in part by fully licensed drivers

jonon9

Since we're at it how about a retest for anyone driving over 10 years. The amount of fails would be huge and righty so some awful drivers out there.

sexmag

jonon9 wrote: »

Since we're at it how about a retest for anyone driving over 10 years. The amount of fails would be huge and righty so some awful drivers out there.

Good idea,let's screw everyone over!

Mandatory test every year for over 70s too

suicide_circus

Huntergonzo wrote: »

None, N stands for none!

Lia_lia wrote: »

Yeah this was a pointless idea.

yeah my continental european mates could not get their heads around it.

SEPT 23 1989

jonon9 wrote: »

Since we're at it how about a retest for anyone driving over 10 years. The amount of fails would be huge and righty so some awful drivers out there.

That's not going to happen as it's much easier to put the boot into kids