Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Power restriction for new drivers?

Options
  • 20-04-2010 1:50pm
    #1
    KamiKazi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭


    Thought I'd stick up a thread to see what the general consensus is on new drivers and what cars they can drive.

    As it stands, there are no limitations on what a car driver can drive; anyone can pass the theory test, apply for the learners permit and hop into a Ferrari Enzo. They'll pay through the nose, but they won't be breaking any laws.

    Some of you may know from past posts of mine in here that I'm a motorcylcist. So I'll be using motorcycle legislation as an example. Motorcyclists on their learners permit are not allowed to be on a bike with a power output greater than 33HP, there's also a clause to rule out really light bikes under the 33HP limit. This also applies to riders for the first two years from the day they pass their driving test.

    So while a newbie biker is stuck on a bike that would struggle to outrun most cars of 1.6L and above for at least 30 months, any learner driver can get into a 400BHP car no problem. Now I don't think anyone will disagree that bikes are more dangerous and harder to control but when a fast car goes out of control it's a lot bigger and heavier and will do an awful lot more damage.

    Am I alone in thinking that it's wrong for there to be such a huge contrast between car and motorcyclist legislation for new drivers?


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ShiresV2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭ShiresV2


    Power restriction for new drivers?

    No thanks. I'll take better training for all drivers and mandatory, periodic re-testing.


  • Options
    #3
    KamiKazi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭KamiKazi


    ShiresV2 wrote: »
    No thanks. I'll take better training for all drivers and mandatory, periodic re-testing.

    I agree that that would be the better option, but I can't see that happening in this country can you?


  • Options
    #4
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    There is one in practice if not by law. Try and insure anything over 1.3 on a provisional and you are looking at north of 2.5k


  • Options
    #5
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭bladespin


    I don't agree with restrictions, they mean nothing in the end, better off having staggered tests, etc. I like the idea of drivers having to sit a basic test to renew their license, I'm sure that would have a pretty dramatic impact on the standard of driving here.

    There's no restriction in practice, €2.5k is steep but many young drivers can and do pay those amounts.


  • Options
    #6
    KamiKazi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭KamiKazi


    Max Power1 wrote: »
    There is one in practice if not by law. Try and insure anything over 1.3 on a provisional and you are looking at north of 2.5k

    I'm aware of that, and mentioned it in the OP.

    What sort of logic would make it so that insurance companies are dictating which cars are and are not too powerful for new drivers though? It should be the Government, no?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    bladespin wrote: »
    I don't agree with restrictions, they mean nothing in the end, better off having staggered tests, etc. I like the idea of drivers having to sit a basic test to renew their license, I'm sure that would have a pretty dramatic impact on the standard of driving here.
    and on the test at licence renewal we coud test motorway driving and use of lanes and roundabouts!


  • Options
    #8
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭bladespin


    Max Power1 wrote: »
    and on the test at licence renewal we coud test motorway driving and use of lanes and roundabouts!


    Absolutely, even on a simulator would mean they'd have to have some idea of how to negotiate a roundabout for example.


  • Options
    #9
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    KamiKazi wrote: »
    I'm aware of that, and mentioned it in the OP.

    What sort of logic would make it so that insurance companies are dictating which cars are and are not too powerful for new drivers though? It should be the Government, no?
    No I saw that, but I dont really see the need for a hard and fast rule tbh. Its not as if you have many newly qualified drivers in mercs etc, the problem is more with boyracer cars like the civics (which are 1.4 and under in most cases) IMO. And also, as I mentioned in my earlier post, people's use of motorways/dual carriageways and lane changes in general - something that is not really covered in the test to begin with.


  • Options
    #10
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    bladespin wrote: »
    There's no restriction in practice, €2.5k is steep but many young drivers can and do pay those amounts.

    Well I was paying 1600 on a 1.3 when I started on a provisional. (for third party only). Cant see many wanting to pay much more than that. Often its more than the car would be worth


  • Options
    #11
    Maruney
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭Maruney


    I see what you are saying but its a bit of a hard call. The increased danger on a bike will never be overlooked, in fact its a bit exaggerated because most bikers realize the danger they are in if an accident happens so are very aware and alert to what is around them, it doesn't mean you wouldn't have idiots killing themselves though and most lads get a bike for the speed or accel. anyway. Being on a bike for a few years made me a way better driver though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    MetzgerMeister
    Registered Users Posts: 19,854 ✭✭✭✭MetzgerMeister


    You don't honestly think an L driver is gonna get insurance on an Enzo do ya??

    I know a few people who drive bikes and have been in accidents. Each time it was the fault of a car driver. It's not really fair to say that all bike drivers cause their own accidents (i know you didn't, I'm only making the point with regard to insurance etc.)


  • Options
    #13
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,981 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    einheisserschre wrote: »
    You don't honestly think an L driver is gonna get insurance on an Enzo do ya??

    If you have the money to buy a Enzo you have the money to get insured on it.


  • Options
    #14
    KamiKazi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭KamiKazi


    einheisserschre wrote: »
    You don't honestly think an L driver is gonna get insurance on an Enzo do ya??

    I know a few people who drive bikes and have been in accidents. Each time it was the fault of a car driver. It's not really fair to say that all bike drivers cause their own accidents (i know you didn't, I'm only making the point with regard to insurance etc.)

    Three letters of refusal.
    Hello Mr. Ombudsman.
    Enjoy your Enzo.


  • Options
    #15
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    In theory a good idea, and with bike background it does make sense.
    Restricting people to <1.2 would be ideal unless they are boy racers in which case they'll soup up their car anyway.
    Sure, don't most of them just take mammys car when she bought a new and then they add cool lights and wings to it.
    And the Garda can't test for BHP at the roadside I assume.


  • Options
    #16
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭bladespin


    Max Power1 wrote: »
    Well I was paying 1600 on a 1.3 when I started on a provisional. (for third party only). Cant see many wanting to pay much more than that. Often its more than the car would be worth


    When I started I was paying €2300 on a 1.2 Punto, had to, know plenty of others who paid more on bigger cars (they'd complain etc but paid up), tbh it wasn't a huge amount more to insure an Evo at the time :mad:


  • Options
    #17
    smellslikeshoes
    Registered Users Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭smellslikeshoes


    The 33bhp bike limit is a mess as is, don't think I could imagine what it would be like on the scale of cars in Ireland.


  • Options
    #18
    metzengerstein
    Registered Users Posts: 805 ✭✭✭metzengerstein


    i kinda think itd be a good idea ,theres too many people with high powered cars and not enough knowledge or common sense and just want to be infront of everyone .

    would have been good back when people could just get their provisional and hop in a car and drive with no lessons ,


    as for bikes i love em ,i think every slams them as too dangerous ,it depends on whos driving it really like what i said above there are those who drive properly and those who just want to be infront of everyone else


  • Options
    #19
    KamiKazi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭KamiKazi


    Just to point out I'm not saying that a similar power restriction should be brought in for cars, just showing how much of a joke it is that there's such a backwards approach for bikes and nothing for cars.


  • Options
    #20
    metzengerstein
    Registered Users Posts: 805 ✭✭✭metzengerstein


    KamiKazi wrote: »
    Just to point out I'm not saying that a similar power restriction should be brought in for cars, just showing how much of a joke it is that there's such a backwards approach for bikes and nothing for cars.


    is there anything not backwards about any of the systems in our country :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #21
    KamiKazi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭KamiKazi


    LIGHTNING wrote: »
    What difference does will it make, you can quite easily kill yourself or other in a 20hp engine. A restriction wont make any difference.

    So you'd be in favour of all restrictions for motorcyclists abolished?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    metzengerstein
    Registered Users Posts: 805 ✭✭✭metzengerstein


    LIGHTNING wrote: »
    What difference does will it make, you can quite easily kill yourself or other in a 20hp engine. A restriction wont make any difference.

    they should get the electric cars he he he he he .that might make a diffrence :p


  • Options
    #23
    keithclancy
    Registered Users Posts: 9,222 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    The restrictors would have to come factory fitted, same as on bikes.

    Most lads remove them anyway.

    Restrictor wouldn't make any difference anyway, still makes the car just as dangerous.


  • Options
    #24
    KamiKazi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭KamiKazi


    LIGHTNING wrote: »
    Did I say that?

    Well your argument is that you can still kill yourself regardless of engine size no?


  • Options
    #25
    seanybiker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,898 ✭✭✭✭seanybiker


    I whipped the restriction outta my bike about 2 weeks after buying it. Balls to that shyte. Was great fun.


  • Options
    #26
    KamiKazi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭KamiKazi


    seanybiker wrote: »
    I whipped the restriction outta my bike about 2 weeks after buying it. Balls to that shyte. Was great fun.

    Wouldn't have expected any less from ya Seany :D


  • Options
    #27
    ShiresV2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭ShiresV2


    LIGHTNING wrote: »
    What difference does will it make, you can quite easily kill yourself or other in a 20hp engine. A restriction wont make any difference.

    It would give sandal wearing old farts something else to be smug about.


  • Options
    #28
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,981 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    LIGHTNING wrote: »
    What difference does will it make, you can quite easily kill yourself or other in a 20hp engine. A restriction wont make any difference.

    A power to weight restriction would remove the ability for young drivers to have any real acceleration and might possibly teach them to be patient and gain some good driving habits.


  • Options
    #29
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭bladespin


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    A power to weight restriction would remove the ability for young drivers to have any real acceleration and might possibly teach them to be patient and gain some good driving habits.

    Wow, have to say you're being very naive there.


  • Options
    #30
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,981 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    bladespin wrote: »
    Wow, have to say you're being very naive there.

    It wouldn't be the only step I would take. I would couple it with a proper testing center which would require things like skid testing, emergency stops from speed and motorway driving tests.

    Nearly everybody I know who drives bikes has had both the restrictor and advanced lessons outside of their license. I don't know any car drivers who have had any lessons outside of their test.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Theta
    Registered Users Posts: 1,760 ✭✭✭Theta


    So what you let them drive an underpowered or restricted car for 2 years then crank it up to regular power and watch how they try to control something they have no idea how to handle.

    Its better to train someone correctly from the start.


Advertisement