Some new changes to Road traffic laws...

Fred Swanson · 02-04-2014 05:09PM

This post has been deleted.

CiniO · 02-04-2014 05:20PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And in that case they don't
How come obligation of displaying N plates for drivers who hold full licence for less than 2 years, be in breath of this rule?

It's kinda like saying that you are not going to pay for your house water bills from next year, because when your house was built, there was no law about water charges.

JohnBoy26 · 02-04-2014 05:21PM

Cabaal wrote: »

experience and experience is important,

Its like asking "what different would the 6 months that you have to wait between getting a learner permit and sitting your test do?",

With more time comes more experience, in that time people will generally encounter different situations and gain experience from them.

For example I got my full license 6 months after getting my learner permit, one month later I drove to Dublin for the first time. Few weeks after that I drove to Cork and also Limerick.

Because I wasn't legally allowed on motorways prior to the full license I gained motorway experience, i also gained more experience driving in busier traffic then what I'd have encountered in Waterford at the time.

Introducing a N plate would late people know that although this person has passed their test they still could be gaining experience and as such don't be a dick,

Really thats the same reason for the L plate, if you see a L plate you should give the person abit of a chance. Unfortunately for some muppets they use it as a reason to be assholes to people,

I have my full license around 7 years now, but L plate is on the car for the wife. I still get the odd dickhead tailgating me. Something that never happened to me when I didn't have the L plate up.

It could be argued that this N plate would have the opposite effect and would act like an L plate by attracting the "odd dickhead".

It BeeMee · 02-04-2014 05:43PM

JerCotter7 wrote: »

If they want make it an N plate for 20000 miles and it would make more sense than this ****e.

It would make less sense. How would it be monitored?
Time-based is the fairest and easiest way to manage it.

pcardin · 02-04-2014 06:45PM

CiniO wrote: »

- holders of foreign licences will be also awarded penalty points in Ireland, and once reach 12, will be banned for 6 months here.

Good luck with this one. :pac: There are way more less complicated things where Ireland is way behind (like, mandatory use of lights during day time).
Btw, have any EU member state actually succeeded to implement penalty points (not fixed spot fines) on foreign licence?

CiniO · 02-04-2014 06:47PM

pcardin wrote: »

Good luck with this one. :pac: There are way more less complicated things where Ireland is way behind (like, mandatory use of lights during day time).
Btw, have any EU member state actually succeeded to implement penalty points (not fixed spot fines) on foreign licence?

Most I'd imagine.
For residents of course.

pcardin · 02-04-2014 06:48PM

CiniO wrote: »

Garda should have database of banned foreign licence holders, and if they catch anyone like that driving, they should prosecute.

Ah ha, I guess Mr Prawo Jazdy will be banned soon. All 2500 of them.

ardmacha · 02-04-2014 06:55PM

These N plates are all fine, but they should have coordinated with NI and had the same arrangements, be that R or N. Otherwise someone in a border area largely escapes the restriction.

pcardin · 02-04-2014 06:56PM

CiniO wrote: »

Most I'd imagine.
For residents of course.

I don't think is true though and deffo not true about Poland as I got stopped myself in Poland last summer for driving with fog lights in the fog.

Gave me fine and said would give penalty point as well if only could. Thankfully they couldn't creeping cnuts.

Just trying to imagine this in Ireland, place that can not even enforce L plates. :rolleyes:

CiniO · 02-04-2014 06:59PM

pcardin wrote: »

I don't think is true though and deffo not true about Poland as I got stopped myself in Poland last summer for driving with fog lights in the fog. Gave me fine and said would give penalty point as well if only could. Thankfully they couldn't creeping cnuts.

Must be really serious offence I'd imagine this driving with fog lights in the fog.

Anyway - do you live there in Poland? Are you resident there?
If not - that's the reason they couldn't put the points for you on the register.

pcardin · 02-04-2014 07:02PM

CiniO wrote: »

Must be really serious offence I'd imagine this driving with fog lights in the fog.

Anyway - do you live there in Poland? Are you resident there?
If not - that's the reason they couldn't put the points for you on the register.

Must be a serious offence there but can't tell as I don't live there or am from there. Just transit.

ubercool · 02-04-2014 07:02PM

Typical of this useless ****ing government

A nanny state - I wish the government would stay the **** out of our lives and out pockets...

CiniO · 02-04-2014 07:03PM

pcardin wrote: »

Must be a serious offence there but can't tell as I don't live there or am from there. Just transit.

So that's the reason they couldn't apply points...
If you lived there and had Irish licence, you'd get penalty points.

JohnBoy26 · 02-04-2014 07:10PM

pcardin wrote: »

Good luck with this one. :pac: There are way more less complicated things where Ireland is way behind (like, mandatory use of lights during day time).
Btw, have any EU member state actually succeeded to implement penalty points (not fixed spot fines) on foreign licence?

Having to have your headlights on during the middle of a clear day is just silly imo.

pcardin · 02-04-2014 07:36PM

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Having to have your headlights on during the middle of a clear day is just silly imo.

Really? Was today for example a clear day in your opinion?

Del2005 · 02-04-2014 11:41PM

pcardin wrote: »

Really? Was today for example a clear day in your opinion?

No.

pcardin · 03-04-2014 12:00AM

Del2005 wrote: »

No.

exactly. unfortunately majority days are like this in Ireland. Altought even in sunny day it is way easier to see approaching car if it's lights are on. Don't believe me? Check when you are abroad in any of the countries that require cars to drive with headlights on day or night.

CiniO · 03-04-2014 12:45AM

pcardin wrote: »

exactly. unfortunately majority days are like this in Ireland. Altought even in sunny day it is way easier to see approaching car if it's lights are on. Don't believe me? Check when you are abroad in any of the countries that require cars to drive with headlights on day or night.

No need to go abroad to realise that vehicles with lights on are better visible. It's not really rocket science. You can observe it in Ireland as well, as some people put their lights on even on bright days...

The thing is, that fact that cars are better visible with lights on, doesn't necesserily make sense to make this obligatory.

Fred Swanson · 03-04-2014 12:47AM

This post has been deleted.

ironclaw · 03-04-2014 09:21AM

Whilst I agree lights or DLRL are a good idea in any weather, in Ireland we have so many problems with road usage it would be fruitless exercise. 8 out of 10 people probably don't know the difference between their lights anyway e.g. Fog, Dips, Full, Sides etc. MANY people I know just hop in the car and the auto lights do it for them. They haven't a breeze.

keithclancy · 03-04-2014 09:24AM

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Having to have your headlights on during the middle of a clear day is just silly imo.

Makes you more visible.

Or at least on a Motorbike its recommended anyway.

No Pants · 03-04-2014 09:31AM

CiniO wrote: »

No need to go abroad to realise that vehicles with lights on are better visible. It's not really rocket science. You can observe it in Ireland as well, as some people put their lights on even on bright days...

I drive with my dips on, unless it's really bright, then I switch my lights off.

djimi · 03-04-2014 09:33AM

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Having to have your headlights on during the middle of a clear day is just silly imo.

At worst it has no effect. At best it makes you more visible. I really dont see the issue tbh.

The way I see it, if me having my lights on increases the chance of someone not pulling out in front of me by even 1% then Im all for it.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 03-04-2014 10:49AM

I don't have a problem with headlights dipped when it's cloudy and it's a good idea to have them on.

I find some of the DRL's a bit distracting. Some vehicles have a large number of LED's which draw your attention towards the vehicle. I don't want my eye-line taken away from my side of the road (where there may be pedestrians/cyclists).
If you are unable to notice a 1-2 ton vehicle on the opposite side of the road, then I'm not sure you should be driving on the road.

I also find that some motorists perhaps reply on the DRL's instead of switching to their headlights when conditions are dark enough to warrant headlights. In the last two weeks, I've passed 3 cars late in the evening, without their headlights on (and definitely time to have them on) and the cars have DRL's. It's like they now rely on them, but forget that they don't have any rear lights active.

The DRL's seem to be perhaps a reaction to driver incompetence when they fail to switch on their lights when required. Personally, that's a reflection of the poor driving habits of the driver, who can't act with basic common sense (poor light = turn on lights). Instead of DRL's, perhaps a hefty fine or points would focus the mind, if enforced.

In some ways I think that DRL's are there to sell cars. They are new (relatively), cool, shiny, and are a selling point for manufactures (the promise of extra safety). A number of people I know that drive with their fogs on, have said that it makes the car look cool, so DRL's would be a factor for them.

I must admit that I haven't really gone into deep research on DRL's, and many of my comments are subjective. I've very much open to being convinced that DRL's are the way of the future. I just think better driver education (which comes at a cost and requires better systems to be implemented), rather than adding a cheap feature to a car, would be of much better benefit and reduce all accident types.

CiniO · 03-04-2014 12:34PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I don't have a problem with headlights dipped when it's cloudy and it's a good idea to have them on.

I find some of the DRL's a bit distracting. Some vehicles have a large number of LED's which draw your attention towards the vehicle. I don't want my eye-line taken away from my side of the road (where there may be pedestrians/cyclists).
If you are unable to notice a 1-2 ton vehicle on the opposite side of the road, then I'm not sure you should be driving on the road.

I also find that some motorists perhaps reply on the DRL's instead of switching to their headlights when conditions are dark enough to warrant headlights. In the last two weeks, I've passed 3 cars late in the evening, without their headlights on (and definitely time to have them on) and the cars have DRL's. It's like they now rely on them, but forget that they don't have any rear lights active.

The DRL's seem to be perhaps a reaction to driver incompetence when they fail to switch on their lights when required. Personally, that's a reflection of the poor driving habits of the driver, who can't act with basic common sense (poor light = turn on lights). Instead of DRL's, perhaps a hefty fine or points would focus the mind, if enforced.

In some ways I think that DRL's are there to sell cars. They are new (relatively), cool, shiny, and are a selling point for manufactures (the promise of extra safety). A number of people I know that drive with their fogs on, have said that it makes the car look cool, so DRL's would be a factor for them.

I must admit that I haven't really gone into deep research on DRL's, and many of my comments are subjective. I've very much open to being convinced that DRL's are the way of the future. I just think better driver education (which comes at a cost and requires better systems to be implemented), rather than adding a cheap feature to a car, would be of much better benefit and reduce all accident types.

DRL were introduced by EU as obligatory thing for every vehicle from 2011 or 2012 (vehicles type aprroved from then).

Possibly I assume reason was that some coutries in EU have a law making usage of lights at all times obligatory - whether it be DRL's or standard dipped headlights.
Usage of dipped headlights by every single driver makes it actually a big energy waste when considered on big scale.
Two front dipped bulbs makes it 110W. And no cars really lets to turn dipped lights without having your side lights on (which consist of two front side light, two rear tail lights, number plate lighting, dash lights, etc..) which might actually be another 110W alltogether.
So we are talking about 200W energy consumption at all times by all cars driving, which makes a good bit extra pollution.

Therefore DRL which consist of only two front lights usually LED, consuming negligible amount of energy seems like perfect solution for those countries.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 03-04-2014 12:55PM

CiniO wrote: »

Possibly I assume reason was that some coutries in EU have a law making usage of lights at all times obligatory - whether it be DRL's or standard dipped headlights.

I'd imagine that Northern European countries would have innovated this, due to reduced light on a more constant basis.

CiniO wrote: »

So we are talking about 200W energy consumption at all times by all cars driving, which makes a good bit extra pollution.

CiniO wrote: »

Therefore DRL which consist of only two front lights usually LED, consuming negligible amount of energy seems like perfect solution for those countries.

From an energy conservation point of view, I could see the benefits in those countries.
But then again, in Mid-Southern European countries, with greater day light hours, there is possibly a waste of energy by having DRL's on at all times.

The energy aspect isn't one that I would have though of, so it is interesting.

CiniO · 03-04-2014 01:08PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I'd imagine that Northern European countries would have innovated this, due to reduced light on a more constant basis.

From an energy conservation point of view, I could see the benefits in those countries.
But then again, in Mid-Southern European countries, with greater day light hours, there is possibly a waste of energy by having DRL's on at all times.

The energy aspect isn't one that I would have though of, so it is interesting.

I think Scandinavian countries were pioneers of this "lights at daytime" thing, but then in last 15 years many of the post easter block countries followed like Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, and even Austria.

However AFAIK it was obligatory in Austria for a while, and then they dropped the idea.

Fred Swanson · 03-04-2014 01:09PM

This post has been deleted.

ironclaw · 03-04-2014 01:24PM

CiniO wrote: »

So we are talking about 200W energy consumption at all times by all cars driving, which makes a good bit extra pollution.

200W at 12 to 14V is about 16 amps of current at a guess. Your heater would draw far more. Your average alternator can produce anywhere between 50A and 70A. The problem is also becoming less and less with LED lighting and increases in efficiency.

The cost of having your lights on constantly would be minimal. Case in point would be the Nordic countries. I'd imagine if pollution was that big a problem there would be measures to prevent it.

Alkers · 03-04-2014 01:46PM

From reading the legislation, can anyone understand who is now required to stop and render assistance, is it only if a person is involved in the accident or does it apply to passer-bys and bystanders? It's not clear to me but I have only read the update to the legislation.

Some new changes to Road traffic laws...

Comments