new "n plates "for learner drivers

This new **** law definitely encouraged me to apply for test asap. (applied today)

They should go with R plates .. R for Rallying :pac:

If I pass my test before 2013, will this **** apply to me?

I agree it full licence holders who are more dangerous on the rds than L drivers. More so the 1s who never had to do a test so they'd be in theirs 50's, 60's by now. My mother-in-law never had to do her test and I don't like getting into the car with her. I passed my test back in 2004 before all this b8llsh!t came into play thank god and I know the rules of the rd and I abide by them. The 1s that never did a test you can be guaranteed they hardly know half of them. How many drivers that didnt take a test do you know that know about the 2 second rule? Point is it's not always L drivers fault when it comes to accidents or not and it is a well known fact that people tailgate, flash, beep at L drivers purely because of the L plates and if they are taken down in the same situtation none of the above happens. Go figure. Its full licence holders who need to be taught how the road works and what rd signage and safety is and means, not L drivers.

Mayo_Boy wrote: »

So when is this law being enforced?

From what i've heard it's going to come into effect by summer 2013. Not too sure. Can anyone clarify?

Merch wrote: »

Dont think anyone read the links I put up, young and learner drivers are more likely to be involved in certain accidents and at certain times, makes sense to put certain restrictions that allow them to build experience before the restrictions are lifted, eg at night (certain hours).

I think you need to learn to read stats properly, and then actually think do they make sense rather than outright believing them. And then figure out the difference between cause and correlation.

Perhaps young drivers happen to be involved in more accidents at night than elderly people because elderly people are at home in bed?

Think about things logically. Younger drivers might have school/college/work between 9-6pm, so you'll probably see a decrease in accidents involving them around that time. After that time, you'll probably see an increase in accident numbers involving younger drivers. Younger people also stay up later than a lot of older people.

Similarly, you wouldn't expect a huge population of 70+ year olds on the road at 3am.

Does that mean that younger drivers are caused to have accidents by the time of day it is? No it does not. So putting a curfew on them won't change anything.

Merch wrote: »

The research, logic and colection of stats has already been done, seems to suggest otherwise, not by me, but by Australian, NZ, Canadian and even US studies.
2 years restriction is a small price to pay even if the outcome was a possibility.
The reference between young people and accidents at night wasnt compared to 70 year olds, it was compared to those above 23, above 26 and below 55 I believe, compared to those drivers young drivers and learners were involved in more collisions and consequences of that.

This is all kind of moot, it looks like it is something that will be implemented.
its not the be all and end all of road safety, the limitations are not that onerous, they seem to help bring the improvements to driving standards that the people who are opposed to them, use as the reason that older licenced drivers are bad.

I don't think you can really compare another countries driving studies to our own. Different tests, different rules and regulations, different mindsets towards driving and even vastly different cars.

If you want people to learn how to drive properly at night, you don't ban them from driving at night.

Since I've started driving (nearly 5 years ago IIRC) certainly more than half of any driving I've done was after 9 or 10pm. That in my case could be around 25-30k miles, most of which served a purpose, I wasn't just out driving for the sake of it. I was actually going somewhere. Based on that alone I think it's ridiculous to put a curfew on driving times.

As for people saying older licensed drivers are bad.... they're not entirely wrong. It's not a valid argument against new legislation towards new drivers, but it is a valid point that ONLY targeting newer drivers is a big mistake in terms of proper driver education and enforcement. I know older people with licenses that would never pass a test, as they don't even know how to use basic roundabouts, put fuel in their car, check tyre pressures.... and could even be considered dangerous to other drivers. Yet these people are qualified to sit in with learners and pass on these bad habits....

I am not surprised that they will introduce 'N plates' its only right that they do it, most other countries have something similar like in Oz they have 'P plates' for those that just passed.

You be surprised those that just passed the test are just as high a risk as newly learner drivers. The more experience you have the better.

The thing is people get a bit carried away when they just passed, they are technically just novice drivers after transitioning from learners to full licence holders. You don't become an experienced driver over night it takes years!

Its a measure of safety in my opinion as how full licence holders treat learners and fellow full licence holders differ greatly sometimes, I find that myself as a learner. So in a way it be a good think to have N plates displayed at least they are full license holders but only recently passed at least other driver be aware and more cautious and courteous like they should be regarding their behaviour towards learners.

Though I do not agree with it for 2 years, I think a couple of months aprox 6-9 months 12 months max should be sufficient enough though, as N plates I would imagine might be seen as a nuisance to other drivers like learners might be, but like that now its a good thing it makes other drivers aware at least that novice drivers do exist.

They are at more risk as they just passed and got the full license. They need more experience really before being more than just a novice! They can be a bit full of oneself and assume they great drivers but being a great/confident driver takes time and with lots of driving experience! They need to be realistic based on their standard of driving, passing a test is just basic standard of driving which may or may not be that easy to pass. Requires a lot of practise, skill and experience to get to a basic standard/level of driving to pass the test and at that you are only at a basic/standard level when reaching the novice stage after learner stage!? People forget that!

Maybe the time limit should be placed on depending how long you have had a learner permit and based on number of years learning. Its like the 6 month rule regarding sitting the test after holding 1st learner permit for 6 months/learning for 6 months in order to gain experience and learn before sitting a test but is it sufficient enough even with the new EDT's imposed.

Now regarding those that got their full license in the 50's, 60's they should at least sit a driving test once they hit a certain age like 70 perhaps, they still have to get a license after every 3 years why couldn't they sit a simple driving test catered for them if they never sat a test? Those that got them back in the 50's/60's at the post office should at least sit the driving test at some point or be compulsory at 70! Might make it a bit safer on the roads as well??? All in the name of safety, they might have experience behind them but there is still lot to be said for having sat the driving test!

I would probably agree on that for those who are full license holders some often don't seem to know the rules of the road! As a learner I'd be stunned, I'd understand if as a new learner driver they only getting used to driving but for a full license holder they should be setting a good example for us learner drivers!!

Sitting a test every 10 years of renewing your full license, I don't know depends really I think it depends on the circumstances, if there is something that might affect them while driving like an illness/disability, eyesight, age, type of job say or those that didn't sit the driving test or those that took a few goes to pass it maybe under those circumstances but to be honest it be either be fair for all those to do it after every 10 years or not at all just a selective few which be fairer??

If not one it be for all that be more fair but I still think its those who in the older population are just as high a risk as younger/new learners/novice drivers. So think those at 70 whether or not they have sat a driving test or not and have a full license should either sit a test catered to them at 70 or say every three, five or ten years. That be more fair? Or specifically those who never sat a test, that by 70 they should that if they the generation that didn't sit a test and got their full license in the PO during the 50's and 60's that is!

I still be in favour of the 'N plates' based on safety and awareness reasons but otherwise the time limit on it is a bit over stretching it to be honest, it doesn't add up if you only got 6 months to learn, sit and pass a test, done your EDT's? Though you can have a learner permit up to 2 years depending which one you get and if you have applied/sat a test/failed when renewing a learner permit.

Though hopefully won't have to worry about having an N plate but wouldn't bother me if I have to! I am only too happy to have my L plates up makes others aware. The N plates well that law could change yet by the time I do pass my test when ever that will be! They could introduce it sooner or later!? They just trying to reach similar standards as UK and other countries, its like them soon to introduce the hazard awareness test I be all for it to be honest, it be no different to introducing the theory test, 6 month rule and EDT rules.